Fighting terror the British way

They say "reasonable suspicion," we say "probable cause."



Published Monday, August 14, 2006


The British Way


"Britain's successful pre-emption of an Islamicist plot to destroy up
to 10
civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that surveillance and

other forms of information-gathering remain an essential weapon in
prosecuting the war on terror. There was never any real doubt of this,
of
course. Al Qaeda's preferred targets are civilians, and civilians have
a
right to be protected from such deliberate and calculated attacks.
Denying
the terrorists funding, striking at their bases and training camps,
holding
accountable governments that promote terror and harbor terrorists, and
building democracy around the world are all necessary measures in
winning
the war. None of these, however, can substitute for anticipating and
thwarting terror operations as the British have done. This requires the

development and exploitation of intelligence.


Despite this self-evident truth, critics of President Bush and the war
on
terror have relentlessly opposed virtually every effort to expand and
improve the government's ability to gather the type of information
needed to
detect and prevent terrorist attacks, whether in the form of the
Patriot
Act's "national security" letters and delayed notification warrants
(derisively described by pseudo-civil-libertarians as "sneak and peak"
warrants), the NSA's once-secret program to intercept al Qaeda
communications into and out of the United States, and the Treasury
Department's efforts to monitor financial transactions through the
Swift
system. These, and similar measures, are among the tools that we will
need
to finish the job.


Bingo! -- DSH


In celebrating the British victory--which was achieved with assistance
from
American and Pakistani intelligence services--it is worth considering
some
of the aspects in which the U.S. and U.K. antiterrorism systems differ,
and
what lessons can be learned. Of course, we begin with the proposition
that
the U.S. and Britain share a common-law heritage, with its emphasis on
individual rights and limitations on state power, and many of the same
basic
political values. That said, British law, political culture and
sensibilities appear to be far more attuned to the practical needs of
preventing terrorist attacks than do their American counterparts. Some
examples include the following:


· Criminal investigations. British law-enforcement officials clearly
have a
more robust ability to investigate suspected terrorist activity than do
U.S.
police agencies. This is true in a range of areas. For example,
traditionally there has been much more direct cooperation between
British
intelligence and police services; there was never the sort of "wall"
between
foreign intelligence and law enforcement functions that the U.S.
maintained
before Sept. 11. Similarly, British officials need not meet the very
strict
requirement of "probable cause" to obtain warrants that U.S.
investigative
bodies must satisfy under the Bill of Rights. In Britain, a warrant can

generally issue on a showing of "reasonable suspicion."


In addition, the British police have certain extraordinary tools
designed
specifically to fight terrorism. These include "control orders" issued
by
the Home Secretary that not only allow the police to monitor terror
suspects, but also--although the more stringent ones are the subject of

continuing legal challenges--permit the police at the minimum to
monitor and
restrict terror suspect movements. These orders also enable
law-enforcement
authorities to identify more easily the overall pool of potential
terror
operatives, since the close supervision of some suspects requires their

undiscovered colleagues to assume more active roles.


· Profiling. Ironically, although today's Britain leans far more to
the left
than does the U.S., British attitudes toward ethnic and religious
profiling
appear to be far more pragmatic. In the U.S., the subject of
profiling--even
as a means of allocating and concentrating investigative resources--is
highly controversial, if not taboo. In Britain, law enforcement and
intelligence officials clearly target their resources on the
communities
most likely to produce terror recruits, and further on the most
radicalized
segments of those communities. They are also able directly to
infiltrate
extremist mosques, community centers and Islamicist gatherings, instead
of
relying almost entirely on informants.


· Privacy. Although the British virtually invented the notion of
personal
privacy--the saying "an Englishman's home is his castle" can be traced
at
least to the 16th century--the concept is not as broadly defined in law
or
politics as in contemporary America. For example, virtually all public
spaces in Britain are surveilled round the clock by cameras, and the
government engages in extensive data-mining operations. By contrast, in
the
U.S., not only have the courts created broad rights to privacy, above
and
beyond the Fourth Amendment's requirements, but our society has
progressed
to a point where individuals are considered by some to have a "privacy"

interest in what can only be described as public actions--such as
giving
personal information to third parties who are not bound by any formal
privacy agreement, or participating in widely used forums like the
Internet.
Indeed, judging by some of the more extreme criticism leveled against
war-on-terror policies, there are those who consider as the purest
tyranny
any compromise of individual autonomy to meet the community's needs.


· Secrecy. Similarly, there is a substantial body of opinion in the
U.S.
that seems to consider any governmental effort to act secretly, or to
punish
the disclosure of sensitive information, to be illegitimate. Thus, for
example, Bush critics persistently attacked the president's decision to

intercept al Qaeda's international electronic communications without a
warrant in part because of its secrecy, even though the relevant
members of
Congress had been informed of the NSA's program from the start. By
contrast,
there appears to be much less hostility in Britain toward government
secrecy
in general, and little or no tradition of "leaking" highly sensitive
information as a regular part of bureaucratic infighting--perhaps
because
the perpetrators could far more easily be punished with criminal
sanctions
under the Official Secrets Act in the U.K. than under current U.S. law.



· International intelligence cooperation. The British
national-security
bureaucracy is smaller and more tightly knit, and appears to be much
less
affected by the intense institutional feuds that are commonplace in
Washington. Having an intelligence service operate for years in a state
of
virtual rebellion against its political masters--as has been the case
with
the CIA during the Bush administration--would be unthinkable in
Britain.


Britain also takes a much more pragmatic attitude toward the need to
cooperate with regimes, or their intelligence services, that have poor
human-rights records. This has periodically been an issue in both
countries.
The U.S. has cooperated, and does cooperate, with numerous
less-than-savory
intelligence services. Working with foreign intelligence services (like

Pakistan's) with similar interests but questionable practices will
continue
to be a necessary part of the war on terror.


· Experience. There is, of course, no substitute for experience and
there is
no doubt that Britain benefits (if that is the right word) from its
experience in fighting Irish Republican Army terror. Although the IRA
was
arguably a less dangerous threat than al Qaeda and its allies--if only
because the IRA eventually concluded that minimizing civilian
casualties was
in its political interests--it was nevertheless well-organized,
ideologically committed and vicious. For 30 years, Britain's military
and
law-enforcement forces investigated, infiltrated, surveilled and openly

fought the IRA and won, deriving two important advantages in the
process.
First, Britain's armed forces and police have been thoroughly schooled
in
the most advanced techniques of surveillance and counterterrorism.
Second,
its political establishment and population (obviously, with some
exceptions)
have become accustomed to the measures, sometimes intrusive and
burdensome,
necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.


American antiterror and intelligence capabilities have, of course,
developed
enormously since Sept. 11--and can boast a number of important
successes in
thwarting potential terror attacks. These include the 2002 arrests of
six
young men, later convicted for attending al Qaeda training camps in
Afghanistan; the 2003 arrests of members of the "Virginia Jihad
Network" for
undergoing paramilitary training; and the recent arrests of seven Miami
men
accused, among other things, of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
Moreover, the existence of the NSA and Swift surveillance and
monitoring
programs indicates that the Bush administration, at least, is fully
aware of
the intelligence imperatives presented by the Islamicist threat.
The United States cannot, of course, adopt all aspects of the British
system; our constitutional systems are really quite different.


Nevertheless, there are clear lessons that can be drawn from the
British
experience--especially in affording the police greater investigative
latitude and in accepting some compromise of privacy in exchange for a
greater security.


Bush administration critics often misquote Benjamin Franklin as having
said
that "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."


What Franklin actually proposed was a balancing test: "They that would
give
up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither
liberty nor safety." In fighting terrorism, the British appear to have
been
striking that balance successfully."

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
oups.com...



They say "reasonable suspicion," we say "probable cause."



Published Monday, August 14, 2006


The British Way


When charges have been laid we can talk about a successful operation or not.
That is the British way.

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
oups.com...


In addition, the British police have certain extraordinary tools
designed
specifically to fight terrorism. These include "control orders" issued
by
the Home Secretary that not only allow the police to monitor terror
suspects, but also--although the more stringent ones are the subject of

continuing legal challenges--permit the police at the minimum to
monitor and
restrict terror suspect movements. These orders also enable
law-enforcement
authorities to identify more easily the overall pool of potential
terror
operatives, since the close supervision of some suspects requires their

undiscovered colleagues to assume more active roles.

Yes, the British state has done more than most other western governments to
destroy political and civil liberties and to fundamentally undermine the
democracy that it purports to defend. In other words, the Blair regime is
just another band of authoritarians who have latched upon the 'war on
terror' to further their anti-democratic agenda with all the gusto of a
paedophile descending on a primary school.

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

Published Monday, August 14, 2006

More unattributed C&P. Clearly Peej is unable to think for himself.

I wish somebody would smash his keyboard. Off-topic second-hand stuff
is not a proper exercise of free speech. Plagiarism is more like
stolen speech.

Oh, I almost forgot: **** off, Peej.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

In article ,
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

Published Monday, August 14, 2006

More unattributed C&P. Clearly Peej is unable to think for himself.

I wish somebody would smash his keyboard.

"PJ" does himself, quite often. He gets all upset and yells, "Dem durn
libruls done gots me again!"

Then the keyboard gets pounded.

You'd be surprised how often it happens.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.

"PJ O'Donovan" the Moonie wrote:
Published Monday, August 14, 2006

By who? Your favourite rag the Washington Times again?


"Britain's successful pre-emption of an Islamicist plot to destroy
up to 10 civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that [...]

So far we have no proof of this. It has not come to court, whatever
evidence the police might have had has not been subject to any
independent scrutiny. We know nothing except that the British state
decided it was time for us all to panic.

Nearly all of the high-profile "terrorist" arrests in the UK in the
last few years have fizzled out with no charges being brought. If
this one is any different, nobody's given us good reason why.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:

Nearly all of the high-profile "terrorist" arrests in the UK in the
last few years have fizzled out with no charges being brought. If
this one is any different, nobody's given us good reason why.

It is interesting to note that many in the media refer to the
"alleged" plot or conspiracy.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:03:18 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:

Nearly all of the high-profile "terrorist" arrests in the UK in the
last few years have fizzled out with no charges being brought. If
this one is any different, nobody's given us good reason why.

It is interesting to note that many in the media refer to the
"alleged" plot or conspiracy.

That's normal. The accused are innocent until proven guilty.

It's not that normal. What the word "alleged" qualifies is the idea of
a plot existing at all, not the role of any of those arrested.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

John Rennie wrote:

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
oups.com...




They say "reasonable suspicion," we say "probable cause."




Published Monday, August 14, 2006



The British Way



When charges have been laid we can talk about a successful operation or not.
That is the British way.

Over here, the media will fight tooth and claw to convict
people in the court of public opinion; a digital age
lynch mob if you like. The UK's system is much better.

--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
...
Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:

Nearly all of the high-profile "terrorist" arrests in the UK in the
last few years have fizzled out with no charges being brought. If
this one is any different, nobody's given us good reason why.

It is interesting to note that many in the media refer to the
"alleged" plot or conspiracy.

In the British media, Padraig? Unlike the media of US it is in fact
against British law to prejudge. I honestly think that although it makes
for less sensational reading it is a law that should be adopted by the
Americans. The fact is that our secret services and police have let
everybody down in a big way recently. The Home Secretary and Blair have
said that various terrorist outrages have been foiled in the past year.
Maybe they are not telling lies but we will never know.