I’ll say it: I have a hard time believing the intentions of these people were at all as serious as FBI agents claimed they were, or even serious enough to warrant such actions. Even so, I can’t imagine how much money and time went into finding the people responsible. I can imagine every cop north of Ohio was so tired of giving speeding tickets, the opportunity to be alongside real FBI agents (gasp!) was one that could not be overlooked. In hopes of seeing some action, every available patrol car in range of the “we might kill someone tonight” beacon turned on their sirens. When I see 30 officers jump on one fleeing suspect on an episode of “Cops,” I believe there is much more than just law breaking driving the officers’ intentions. When emotions get in the way of running law enforcement efficiently, it costs taxpayers money.

I have no intention of downgrading the work of police officers anywhere. And this isn’t a security blanket to shield myself from attack. I genuinely appreciate the jobs those men and women do to protect the public. My complaints arise when there is an extreme amount of force used. If any occupation should have strict boundaries, it is law enforcement. Just because the Adrian Police Department can have a military tank sitting in a garage doesn’t mean they should. (Yes, they really do have a tank.) Restrictive laws that have come into place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, such as the Patriot Act or the NSA program, have given too much power to the government and too little privacy to the people.

The federal indictment of the accused states the Hutaree militia group engaged in battle-like training as well as building plans for weapons of mass destruction and coordinating the killing of an officer. Although the intentions of the group were immoral, I see this situation as an example as to how much militant strength the U.S. government has used and will be using. Routine episodes of extreme defenses used by law enforcement are frequent in our recent history.

These situations of stopping terrorist acts before they begin will continue to build, and ultimately find a means to an end. The willingness of the people to subject to strict law enforcement only fuels the flaunting of fire power.

With as much power as the U.S. government holds, there are less violent, more diplomatic ways to approach how the military handles national concerns. Although the military should sustain its presence in a careful part of national security, the obsession with decriminalizing every terror suspect has grown to include many in the definition of a terrorist.

Whoever coined the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” must have been an absolute genius, inventing an entire new emotion to project on the screens of American propaganda. The more general our definitions of terror terms become, the more episodes of epidemic warfare we have going on in our own country and across the globe; the more we feel the need to attack, kill and destroy. We need to lessen our fear and tighten our definitions of what is true danger to our nation.

Growing concern with attacks on the homeland has struck paranoia into the minds of many Americans. Public officials aren’t able to handle the amount of force they control. With an abundance of destructive force in local and national governing bodies, we see adolescent behavior in the handling of sophisticated military technique. Can you imagine a 7-year-old with a handgun? Can you imagine a haphazard government with thousands of nuclear weapons to their disposal?

It was my middle school gym teacher, Mr. Marlatt, that picked up the oddly colored Coke bottle with the word “BOM” scribbled on the side and threw it in trash, ending a bomb scare at school. I believe he said “Are you kidding me?” before thrusting the faux iconic bottle into its rightful grave. Thank you, Mr. Marlatt. We need more gym teachers running this country.

Parker Wilson is a State News intern. Reach him at wilso881t@msu.edu.