MrJonathanNZ:Geektastic:freitasm:And for every fanatical who draws attention to himself there will be ones who don't. After Sydney it appears the known ones are equally as dangerous.
The ones that don't are probably using burner phones, in person meetings etc anyway. The terrorist events of late (Sydney, Boston etc) were not cases of targets not being able to be identified by other means, but the failure of intelligence and security agencies to appropriately respond to a threat. Why on earth would we give these incompetent agencies even more power, when they can't even get it right when it's staring them in the face?
So true. Both Boston and Sydney perpetrators have been flagged before and both were let go by the authorities who had ALREADY everything they needed to get a warrant and keep them locked up or under surveillance.
New laws won't make this easier. New laws will not automatically upgrade the slow brains behind implementation.
The problem is society is very wet.
If we lock up bad people as a pre-emptive measure, they suddenly take advantage of the rights the democracy that they despise has given them so that we end up releasing them...!
You can't use pre-emptive and democracy in the same sentence when it pertains to law.
In a democratic society every person is innocent until proven guilty, using pre-emptive detention means that someone is guilty before their innocence can be proven by court of law.
To lock someone up for something they "might" do is highly undemocratic.
FYI: Locking someone up doesn't necessarily mean bars, you can easily make someone life uncomfortable (using undemocratic means).
As for innocent until proven guilty in many cases this is defined by the innocent person having to spend his money to defend charges, while the crown has a near unlimited purse by comparison to charge you in order to set precedence and thus case law to further whatever agenda they are trying to fulfil.