This is a hard problem and leads to all those 'the bomber was described as being on the intelligence services radar' lines in news stories.
The benevolent reading of these kinds of moves is that it at least gives the authorities to intervene, though I recognise the risks to liberty.
I agree it's a hard problem, but getting it wrong is going to lead to the Northern Ireland situation: overreaction by authorities creating political prisoners who will be martyrs to their cause. Bobby Sands is still a hero to many.
> there is nothing effectively you can do because no law has been broken until there's evidence that they start assembling the components for the bomb or whatever
Sure, but that is basically where we as a society have agreed the line is drawn for decades. Otherwise you start prosecuting people for "sedition". And it'll inevitably get used against peaceful leftwing groups and not against radical xenophobes, etc.
Sure you can - there's plenty of precedent for e.g. sectioning people into mental hospitals for their own safety or removing people's driving licenses when they might be a danger (without committing a crime - bad eyesight, bad motor control, drug regimen, etc.)
Sending people to mental hospitals is a fair example, but that's why I wrote "generally", acknowledging the existence of exceptions. In that case, it's accepted that consent is an oxymoron, which doesn't really apply here.
1-https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-studen...
That said, politics in the West, and even globally, have become increasingly interconnected. These trends and topics I mentioned are not isolated to the US at all.
You have a point though, so I edited my comment.