That's the Crux of it. From reading the OP, I don't think it went that far, but am honestly unaware where the 1st amendment crosses into criminality for plotting an attack. Gun nuts are quick to jump on the feds for not acting on suspects, but at what point do we put a person's 1st amendment aside when doing so?
Disagree wholeheartedly. You can't tell the left they should have stopped shooters like the one at Parkland because he posted youtube videos saying he'd shoot up a school and then say you shouldn't prosecute some Coast Guard guy because he's posting similar things.
So we should wait until they actually commit mass murder before law enforcement moves in... He used a government computer to : From January 2017 to January 2019, "the defendant conducted online searches and made thousands of visits for pro-Russian, neo-fascist, and neo-Nazi literature," the document says. "I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth," reads a draft email found on his computer. "I think a plague would be most successful but how do I acquire the needed/ Spanish flu, botulism, anthrax not sure yet but will find something." In another letter to himself found on his computer, court papers say, he says, "I am a long time White Nationalist, having been a skinhead 30 plus years ago before my time in the military." The Coast Guard flagged him because of internet searches of extremist web sites at work, a federal law enforcement officer told NBC News. Jeez...what exactly is a crime to you?
It's important to remember that, in the military, I don't believe you have privacy rights while serving. Maybe I am wrong.
That is my point, I was agreeing with you against those that were asking what was his crime. Military or not, he did enough shit to warrant even a minimal investigation into his residence and personal belongings under a warrant. We may not support big brother in our business all the time but when these red flags go off we should not wait until he takes out 12 people with a gun to then claim "how did we miss the warning signals".
Let's remember, 1st amendment protects you from prosecution from simply speaking out against the government. 1st amendment does not protect you from committing a crime. See the infamous Supreme Court case by Justice Brandeis about yelling fire in a crowded theater. If he is posting/interacting to cites that form past profiles indicate predeliction to violence then it at a minimum supports a warrant for futher investigation of the PUBLIC computer he was using as well as follow up. First of all using a government computer is a waiver of any privacy rights. Second, we have seen enough mass murders to know there are clear warning signs that need to be investigated. I am tired of seeing a shooting on TV and then see a laundry list of the same red flags that were never followed up on.
This individual worked for the government. The government regularly informs employees and contractors that all of their computer activity is tracked. Yet this clown was foolish enough to go to extremist sites while at work. This flagged him for investigation. The guy had a stash of unregistered guns and was involved with drugs. Obviously both of these crimes can be prosecuted. He also had hit lists and information indicating planning for violence on his computers -- obviously this can be used as evidence for intent. This is not a first amendment issue about his right for free speech to say whatever he desires -- the issue was that he was preparing, arming, and planning for mass violent crimes.
Thing is, looks like they got him on the guns and drugs. His extremist views or ideations won't be used against him when filing chargers. No sympathy for using a public computer, just wonder what led to the warrant... Again, I don't think his views, which he's held for years (per OP) were the trigger for the warrant. He probably disclosed gun ownership that wasn't registered or drug deals like an idiot.