It’s up to your prosecutors to offer a plea deal or not. There’s no reason why any terrorist should off on a plea deal if the investigation has real evidence. If you ACTUALLY meant “get convicted for intent, rather than actions”, then I think the choice is pretty obvious.

As for the risk, then a trade-off is to place the perps under surveillance so you know what they’re up to. I imagine that this is necessary to build a case anyway. Then someone has to make a judgement call.

I think the bigger risk (as shown by the outcomes) is the risk of locking away people who only look like they’re a threat, rather than actually being one. I’m pretty sure this has happened once in australia – the guy was more a loser bozo than a honest-to-goodness bad guy with means. The US has had a number of cases which border on “entrapment” – i.e, while the perps clearly said what they said and did what they did, they’d never had even considered their plans if FBI informants hadn’t talked them into it, funded them and/or made sure they had access to materials. I don’t want to challenge their imprisonment – an idiot is an idiot, in my book. But I have to wonder if it’s the best use of anyone’s time or resources to create terrorists. Surely the ones that already exist are a more serious concern.

But legally blurring the line between intent and actions is nuts. That’s not the answer. The objective is to protect the public – not win bragging points. Once you’ve got someone on a terrorist charge, you’ve got them.

What do you think of your fellow followers of Mohammed,(SBOH),? Oh, that’s right, change the subject, and insult folks.

Please, let me know you are not Apostate, and will get up today planning murder on the infidel, like your cohorts in the above posted subject. At least, they are good Muslims trying to appease allah the moon god.

ROPMA!

Nothing like this is imposed on aliens in the USA. Their passports do not contain full information that allows anyone to determine whether they are legal visitors or immigrants.

IMHO the USA does not need and should not admit more Muslims. Yes, that’s islamophobic of me; I remind everyone that “phobia” means fear, and our fear is fully justified. Entire neighborhoods participate in a culture of silence that allows violent fanatics to hide and operate; if Muslims were the good citizens they claim to be, this would not be possible. Mass murder is on the agenda for a minority of Muslims, and the USA would be fully justified to shut the door on all because of that minority. Fair? Decent? That can be disputed, but the threat cannot. Peaceful Muslims immigrate and their children, born in the host nation, become jihadis; that’s the British experience. The risk is too great.

Further, the ultimate weapon of Islam is demographic. As Libya’s dictator Khaddafi noted, Europe is surrendering to Islam bit by bit, and will eventually — perhaps in three or four generations — no longer be part of Western Civilization. That disaster should not be trivialized simply because it seems slow; in fact, it’s a seismic event, and is taking place rapidly. Accordingly, we should ponder the consequences of harboring a large Muslim community in the USA. Assimilation is not likely, as Islamic values are in many specifics antithetical to the cultural roots of the USA.

Change the policy: no Islamic immigrants. Then change the rules: all visitors must carry full identification at all times (as I have to); those overstaying their visas, which can be determined by looking at the required passport, are deported immediately, no exceptions. No passport? Out you go, now; after all, US citizens have to have a passport simply to shop for an afternoon in a Mexican border town, so why shouldn’t all aliens in the USA have to have one, as well?

As things stand, we make it hard on no one but ourselves. It’s time to stop being silly.

This country is in dire need of prayer and vigilance and the police, the CIA, and the FBI should be given everything they need to sniff out and stomp out these plots and those who would perpetrate these evil crimes against humanity.

Using the law to prevent integration is more of a display of the worst aspects of humankind, rather than the best.