For example, let’s say “George” is thinking about blowing up a building as a terrorist act. At what point can you arrest him and charge him with a crime? When he draws up plans on a cocktail napkin? When he rents a van to carry the explosives? When he buys fertilizer and a drum of gasoline? When he builds the bomb? When he parks the van in front of a building? What if he sits there for an hour thinking about it? What if you arrest him then and he claims, at his trial, that he had changed his mind? Should he go free? Do your answers to these questions change if “George” is a farmer, already owns a van, and routinely buys fertilizer and gasoline for his farming operation? Do your answers change if the suspect’s name is “Muhammad,” he belongs to an Islamic religious organization, and he is an outspoken critic of American society?

For each of these points in time, what should the punishment be if the person is convicted of an attempted terrorist act? If he was only at the stage of drawing plans on a cocktail napkin, should the punishment be the same as if he had been arrested while holding the detonator in his hand inside his explosive-packed van outside the building?

Does it help to know that of all the “detainees,” “unlawful combatants,” and others who have been arrested and imprisoned under the “pre-emption” policy, not one has been convicted of a crime? Does it surprise you that the government has been very quiet about the few who have been tried and who were declared to be not guilty?

The Bush Administration claims to be “winning the war on terrorism,” but except for the tiny handful of people who actually did commit terrorist or other criminal acts, and who have been convicted and sent to prison, the Bushites have not convicted anybody. All they have done is to lock suspects up without a trial — hardly a sweeping endorsement for their pre-emption policy, or for their claim to be “protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.”

Preemptive action is bad. Period.
It is Texas sharp shootin’ at its finest. (see the note)
Pre-emptive law enforcement, also violates the guiding principle of our legal system… Innocent until proven guilty.

Of course many people fail to realize how the multinational corporations have influence our legal system in the past few decades, encouraging things like the Homeland Security Act and other legislation that presumes the accused as Guilty even if proven innocent.

Note: The Texas sharp-shooter story is about a drunk that would randomly shoot at things, then find the bullet holes and draw bullseyes around them.

But it is an issue of degree over kind. What’s the difference functionally between an AR15 and an M16? The stock and the full auto capability. Otherwise, they are the same weapon, but one LOOKS like a military rifle, the other does not.

Disarming private populations within the United States has occured in the past, namely during the Civil War with the evocation of martial law, which presumes exactly the same conditions on the ground as now exist in Iraq. Iraq (never mind why, since we all know) does not have a functional civil authority. We do. Therefore, gunownership becomes a matter of legal debate rather than a question of military prerogative.

How’s my neo-con impression?