3 ms·
I was just thinking this. I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terr
by bilbo0s 3y ago
I was just thinking this.
I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoMight be a legitimate concern, but not enough evidence for Police surveillance. You mention "military sense", but this isn't a war. If there is terrorist suspicion, I'd say it is more in the intelligence jurisdiction.
- n4r9 3y agoFirstly we're not talking about "terrorists" but people who intelligence services have "received a signal" about. That's pretty ambiguous but sounds like it could mean an anonymous tip-off or information from another department. Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.