Is that your final answer? Surrender?
Surrender?
Don, I have been on these task forces and when that beast wants to do something, precious little gets in the way and almost always they have the full backing of any and all local government entities. And with the military in the mix now, providing possible logistical, material and intelligence support? A fellow needs to think three times before he goes bucking up against that. That is not hill I am in a hurry to die on and I encourage others to be tactful and tactical as well.
The trick is for states not to allow the fed to subsidize, subvert, or suborn their organic law enforcement agencies and that is hard, because the fed can get capricious and curtail other federal spending in order to get compliance.
If the fed cannot clearly and distinctly show that their target(s) is an immediate danger or a substantial supporter of a national terror threat group, then the state should have the ability to opt out of any operation. It should be kept in the loop, which I think that it would be, or legislators or going to have a field day with the next appropriations hearings.
Citizens have to get involved and absent appealing it, watchdog this NDAA legislation if it steps outside the bounds of capturing terrorists or their abettors.
What is scaring some is that “terrorist” may not be so clearly defined enough for them.
State legislators should demand a clear definition since we are in effect talk about seizing to what amounts to an American citizen.
One thing that can be done to assuage concerns is to disavow the 2009 MIAC report, and make a public and nation wide apology. That makes a whole lot of people, including me, appear to be potential terrorists.