Hmmmmm. What if he used water and grape coolaide to demonstrate, and said, “Use gas in place of the water, use...”
How about that term, “Demonstrating the USE of...”
Is that like when the instructor said, “Put the sticky-bomb on THIS part of the tank...”
I am really uncomfortable with this idea of convicting people for talking.
Placing bombs, sure - hang’em high.
But discussing them? I find that scary.
Generally I agree, as long as the discussion doesn’t have a terroristic objective (put tab a into slot b to kill infidels), though I think that given his background, the focus of the talk which was there for a specific terrorist group (the ALF, ELF, or whatever), it warrents wiretapping and a whole slew of other surveillance on those attending. I don’t know how operational his demonstration device was, but even immitation bombs can be quite disruptive if placed in a public area and may not be legal for public display. I don’t know all the details so I can definately see both sides here, and perhaps I’m being too paranoid. I work in a place where even a single itty bitty cocktail in the wrong place would cause rather spectacular secondaries and a nice cloud of toxic gas to kill anyone nearby. No, I don’t think that makes thought crimes ok, but this treads the line between thought and action.