2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

As I am listening to the program I understand, and appreciate, those with hesitant feelings toward how this case was handled (especially considering the aspect of youth). What I am not hearing clearly, however, is how we think a young individual would act if connected with actual dangerous individuals; such a connection is possible. If connected with someone committed to acts of terrorism is it really reasonable to believe that a young person would not have followed through? This was not warrantless big brother actions, but a facilitation of evidence gathering. Had the law enforcement individuals intervened earlier we would not know if the cell phone trigger would have been activated.

 Finally, all of that being stated, the seemingly retaliatory act in Salem is a travesty demonstrating as much, if not more, ignorance than the planned bombing.

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context