3 ms·
What bothers me most about this article is the following statement which is accepted without contest. "Law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need for evid
by cptskippy 11y ago
What bothers me most about this article is the following statement which is accepted without contest.
"Law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need for evidence, which is all the more pressing in terrorism cases."
What makes a terrorism case more pressing? How many domestic terrorist attacks have had related followup attacks? How many domestic terrorist cases have been linked to other domestic terrorist attacks? How many domestic terrorist attacks have been carried out by the same set of individuals or groups?
The reality is that domestic terrorist attacks are not common or frequent, there is no urgency in investigating them because they do not lead to followup attacks. They're coordinated events, not a series of related events so there's no pressing urgency?
- TearsInTheRain 11y agowhat? Sure terrorist attacks are not common or frequent but they generally involve murder on a larger scale than your average criminal. There is of course a lot of urgency in investigating them as they could easily lead to follow up attacks. Look at San Bernidino and the Boston bombings. both pairs of terrorists clearly had plans for follow up attacks
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoWhat terrorists plan, and what happens, are very different. Terrorists often die in their attacks, so followup plans are often moot.
- cptskippy 11y agoIn those cases, had the terrorists escaped custody and carried out their subsequent attacks would law enforcement having the ability to instantly access their phones have made any difference?