Quote Originally Posted by Brett Patron View Post
At what point are kinetics on the table?
No sooner than Inaugaration Day, 2013, and probably not then. Do you want to give them martyrs?

Quote Originally Posted by Brett Patron View Post
. . . the US Gov't has a duty to vigorously find and defeat this threat.
But does .gov have the talents, resources and permission to successfully engage and defeat Anonymous? NSA probably does, but what should they quit doing to reprioritize Anonymous to the head of line?

Quote Originally Posted by Brett Patron View Post
This is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the US. These hackers constitute a clear and present danger and need to be dealt with rather rapidly and rather aggressively. They are terrorists. No different then Al Qaeda.
U. S. sovereignty isn't directly threatened. The PERSEC of a senior civil servant and of a serving Marine are directly threatened. Harrassment is not terrorism. Anonymous is very different from Al Qaeda. Anonymous is not a monolithic, organized organization. Some are bad, some are good, some bad Anons are good some days, mosts Anons are low skilled cannon fodder but some have real skills. Not prudent to ignore them, but not a good idea to make more out of them than they really are.