The primary concern that I have is that we waste time and money going after people who actually don�t pose a threat, because the government needs to look like it was doing something.

This was precisely the case with the Soviet NKVD under Stalin, whose agents were encouraged by their higher ups to arrest people just because, in order that the apparatus would appear efficacious as a whole.

Unless you ask the Supreme Court, LOL.

My answer would be those who are charged with the responsibility for preventing further terrorist acts should have the authority to exercise their discretion on whom to investigate and charge.

What is wrong with that?

Lithwickâ??s problem is that she seems to want to criticize the Bush Administration for something â?? one assumes this is written into her contract with Slate â?? but she actually doesnâ??t appear to have a problem with what the government did.

Who are you to determine who is and who isn't a threat?

5 years ago, 19 Arab youths learning to fly and living it up in various areas around the country would have seemed the most natural (and American) thing in the world to me. Even if they were terrorists, what could someone do with a plane? Now we know.

FWIW, I'm no Republican. And limited though government ought to be, it must take its prime responsibilities (national security, interstate commerce, foreign policy) very seriously.

Just because the guys in Miami weren't about to nuke anyone does not make them no threat to anyone in the future.

Amen.

The transformation of the Republican Party into worshippers of state authority is the most bizarre political spectacle I've seen.

It's precisely because the government is not omniscient and all-powerful that I am concerned about this. The primary concern that I have is that we waste time and money going after people who actually don't pose a threat, because the government needs to look like it was doing something. Government doesn't need constraints becasue it's all-powerful; it needs constraints in order to make it do its job correctly instead of taking the easy way out. I want the government going after real terrorists and not moronic braggarts.

So my concern, and Lithwickâ??s, is: how do we walk this line? Right now, I donâ??t have a good answer, but I think the question ought to be asked and considered, unless you want to live in a world where Jerry Bruckheimerâ??s screenwriters get arrested for â??planning a terrorist attackâ?? within the pages of a crappy, action-packed screenplay.

I'm sure you could put together a well-written post about the evils of our cricket overlords, but until that comes to pass, I'm not going to get too worked up over it.

This thoughtcrime nonsense only feeds the notion that the government is all-powerful and omniscient. It isn't. 9/11 proved it (unless of course you believe it was an inside job), and we've had many reminders since.

It's axiomatic that terrorists only have to be successful or lucky once for thousands of Americans to pay the price of non-vigilance with their lives.

I don't sanction arresting people for their thoughts. But that's never happened. Unless you have knowledge of MLB spy satellites working for the NSA that can read our minds, every suspected terrorist must take specific, deliberate actions in order to draw law enforcement's attention.

Criminal intent is more than just wishing for something to happen. I wish I had a million dollars. But until I case a bank, make plans for breaking in, and/or arrange for a getaway vehicle, I haven't committed a crime. And yes, planning to rob a bank is a crime, no matter how clueless the perpetrator may be in his planning or execution.

But as I said in the very post you're calling a "troll" (perhaps because it expresses an opinion that you disagree with), there's a risk in caution, too. Too much concern over crossing the line between planning and bluster and we may see a terrorist attack.

So my concern, and Lithwick's, is: how do we walk this line? Right now, I don't have a good answer, but I think the question ought to be asked and considered, unless you want to live in a world where Jerry Bruckheimer's screenwriters get arrested for "planning a terrorist attack" within the pages of a crappy, action-packed screenplay.

There are two primary dangers that I can see in stretching our definition of â??conspiracyâ?? and applying it to terrorism. One is that we are potentially wasting law enforcement resources by going after guys who talk big but pose no real threat. Second is that, because weâ??re targeting guys who donâ??t pose any real threat, we end up creating a threat.

This is so off-the-wall as to be laughable.

If we try to prevent terrorist activity, by definition we will "waste" law enforcement resources by stopping crimes before they happen.

Mohammed Atta on 9/10 was a pathetic strip club patron. On 9/12, he was the world's most famous terrorist.

The Miami Morons intended to cause harm, that much is clear. Just because their Al-Qaeda contact turned out to be FBI does not mean they were harmless. What if they'd gotten hold of a real AQ man?

And now, according to you, we're creating the threat by trying to stop it! There were certainly never any aspiring terrorists on American soil before the Miami FBI bureau entrapped these poor, hapless, incompetent souls into wanting to destroy the Sears Tower, right?

I don't know why James lets you post these obvious trolls.