Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

So do you think being over 12 years old and having had at least a moderate education is sufficient grounds upon which to investigated as a bomb maker.....?

So being over 12 years old and moderately educated is sufficient to justify investigation as far as you are concerned.A) What level of education do you mean by 'moderately educated'?B) Is the level of investigation described in the OP (i.e. searching one's home) appropriate for anyone over 12 years old who is moderately educated on the basis that they have the potential to make a bomb?Are you moderately educated and over 12 years old?
Should the police be searching your home on that basis alone?

The investigation described in the OP involved the search described. It is whether the actions taken as described in the OP are justified that is the question here. Is having a moderate education and being over the age of 12 sufficient grounds to justify a search? I think having 6 armed officials turning up at one's home to examine the contents of book shelves and check cooking appliances on the basis that one is "moderately educated" and "over the age of 12" to be rather too all-encompassing. I think we should alert the authorities.....

I'd love to see your stated criteria for justifying such actions (being moderately educated and over the age of 12) put forward in an official setting such as a court of law or a government policy proposal........

Who is talking about warrants?I'm just imagining the politician or judge brave enough to put your criteria into words and tell those who are moderately educated and over 12 years old to expect those agents to turn up at any time.....

That being moderately educated and over the age of 12 doesn't qualify anyone as a bomb suspect worthy of a visit from 6 agents of the joint terrorist task force.

If you think it's a "good thing" that your criteria are not being applied why are you advocating those criteria...?

The investigation described in the OP involved a visit from 6 agents from the joint terrorist task force. The rest is simply a case of reading what you have written: My point remains the same:

Who gives a monkeys what they call themselves...?

On the phone?

quote:

---

Lawful interception is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorized by a court, and is, again in theory, normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.[3] Illegal or unauthorized telephone tapping is often a criminal offense.

---

LinkHave you never watched The Wire?