"We can decide to stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq and other parts of the world, but they will not decide to stop fighting us,"
President George W. Bush
"Mr. Rumsfeld went on to point out that in recent years, jihadists have struck targets around the world, including locations such as New York, Washington, London, Bali and Moscow. He criticized the notion that terrorism can be handled as if it were simply a "law enforcement" problem given the fact that every day, we learn of new plans to murder Americans and other free people".
http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060831-083927-4206r.htm
http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060831-083927-4206r.htm
14 comments:
Despite Rumsfeld's fear-mongering and criticizm, the recent terror plot that was foiled in Britian was a result of a "law enforcement" approach. They also used warrants as required by British law.
They also used intelligence gathered by the NSA and our ability to monitor just about anything that goes out over the air waves. And I have not really done a lot of checking yet, but from what I have heard and seen myself I believe a further delving into the English Legal system is in order, mainly due to the fact that their legal system has vast amounts of lattitude built in due to the struggles they had with the IRA while fighting their own war with terrorism. Having been through the domestic struggle surrounding that section of their life they are not jaded with as many of the individual concerns that we as a people are struggling with when it comes to investigations and intelligence gathering. If you want to make a case that that the English legal system and civil rights are better go ahead.....but remember if the NYT had been in England and done what it did all the execs would be in prison right now........hey maybe their system is better!....Long live the King! (or Queen as it were)
I agree that the "law enforcement" approach is an important part on the war on terrorism. Looking at the history of the Clinton approach to the first attack on the World Trade Center I feel that the Law enforcment angle is not the only tool to be used. I also feel that showing weakness brings on more terrorism and not like some people who say going after terrorist supporting dictators only encourages them to volunteer to die.
I also agree with "Bubba" that the approach used by the Brits is very much different then the one used here in the United States. Perhaps if we are "burned" as bad as the british people have been we will accept the needed hardline tactics to deal with these terrorist.
Maybe we could all look at calls made into the United States by known terrorist as the threat they are and take needed actions...
This war will not be won by just one technique such as the military alone, or "Law Enforcement" by themselves. It will not be won by the actions of just one country or even two. It is a global war not by our choosing and it must be dealt with by many who see the attacks by the terrorist for just what they are. Terrorism against mankind by people who will kill women, children, and anybody they can who do not believe in what they do...
Bubba>>>Where have you heard, and can you please provide a link, to where it's been said that the UK terror plot involved the NSA?
Delve away at what British law requires:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-83802
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/mom1.htm
Rightside>>>I agree that it matters "how" we fight, that will help us win.
You say, "Maybe we could all look at calls made into the United States by known terrorist as the threat they are and take needed actions..."
We can, and should, listen into calls from suspected terrorists. And we currently have legal means by which to do so. We have a constitution in this country that grants us rights and protections that the Brits do not have. We should cherish this, and not forsake what makes this country great, no matter what.
Zen:
There were several different stories that mentioned NSA intercepts picking up increased chatter about the plot in Britan for the plans to blow up the planes. I will try to go back and find them for you. But they are there just look back at the initial stuff that came out before the press here decided not to mention the NSA involvment because it gives validation to the wire tapping program.
I also understand that it is possible to get warrants under current law but it is not practical. we would have to set up a whole new govm't office just to file the warrants due to the volume of calls that can be suspect or linked together. But nobody looks at practicality anymore...that would require common sense and it seems that too many people on the hill (on both sides) are educated beyond their intelligence.
Time had the story but I saw it on another news agency too. might have referenced Time article though....
here is the story:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
Here is where I found it and a good discussion:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/london_airline_bombing_plot_ne.php
Here is another really good discussion:
http://newsbusters.org/node/6921
Yup. just a little delving to prove my point. these are from Zen's first link he gave me.
There is a long history of recognizing privacy in the UK. The statesman William Pitt in the 18th century decried, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, - but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"[4] However, the current privacy picture in the UK is decidedly grim. The Labour government's political stance to appear tough on crime and its large Parliamentary majority have resulted in an unprecedented number of new laws limiting rights, including freedom of assembly, privacy, freedom of movement, the right of silence, and freedom of speech. There has also been vast expansion in the use of electronic surveillance, biometrics, surveillance cameras, computer databases, DNA testing and other intrusive technologies. The current Home Secretary was recently described by one commentator as the "judicial equivalent of a football hooligan" for his personal attacks on judges, civil rights campaigners and political figures (including those from his own party) who oppose his demand for more powers.[5]
Here is another...............
Interception of communications is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). [18] Part I authorizes the Home Secretary to issue warrants for the interception of communications and requires Communications Service Providers to provide a "reasonable interception capability" in their networks. The Home, Northern Ireland or Foreign Secretaries of State and the Scottish First Minister normally authorize telephone taps for national security purposes. It further allows any public authority designated by the Home Secretary to access "communications data" without a warrant. This data includes the source, destination and type of any communication, such as mobile phone location information and partial web browsing logs (but the full URL is considered content subject to a warrant). Part III allows senior members of the civilian and military police, customs, and members of the judiciary to demand that users hand over the plaintext of encrypted material, or in certain circumstances decryption keys
themselves. This has not been implemented yet. Part II sets rules on other types of "human intelligence" powers that had not been previously regulated under UK law. Many legal experts, including the Information Commissioner, believe that many of the provisions violate the ECHR. The Home Office has issued several codes and regulations.[19]
.....Uh they can get a warrant, but they really don't have to?????
here is a bit more.....
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows police to enter and search homes without a warrant following an arrest for any offense. And while police may demand identification before arrest only in limited circumstances, they have the right to stop and search any person on the street on grounds of suspicion. Following arrest, a body sample will be taken for inclusion in the national DNA database.[32] The Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that DNA and fingerprints could be kept even if the person was not convicted. The police stopped and searched 895,000 people under the Act in England and Wales in 2002-03, up 21 percent from the previous year. Stops for anti-terrorism reasons increased to 71,000.[33] The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for information sharing and data matching among public bodies in order to reduce crime and disorder
Fascinating. England has a lot of tools there to stop terrorism. And gee whiz we get upset about a wire tap without a warrant....they don't even have the things we take for granted here. And all the lefties are holding them up in the press becuase they did it with police work. HA! Imagine those laws here....The lefties would explode in rage!
Thanks for the research, Bubba. Zen obviously has hours of time to research and get the untruths out there. Working for MoveOn.org, Zen? Paid blogger? He would, of course, deny it. But his job is to put lies out and hope no one bothers to discover the deception.
Well rae, I guess I cannot argue, you've uncovered me. If I were to deny it, it would only prove that I do. So, would you please tell MoveOn.org, or whomever it is I work for this week, that I've not received their check.
Menawhile rae, addressing the message, rather than attacking the messenger is usually a better way to be taken seriously.
Rightside>>Nice of you to let constructive comments like that make it through.
Bubba>> Thanks for the links. The TIME article is the only one that makes a passing comment that, "knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."
The other links only repeat the same quote.
However, there has been no one in the government that will confirm this. Why not? If this is such a 'win' for the US intelligence services, and in particular Bush's surveillance program, then why is it not shouted from the mountaintops offically? Why leave something so important to speculation in the right-wing blogs?
I point you to this link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608180009
Yeah I saw lots of chatter about that but they are missing one big point that prehaps I did not really drive home either. I don't believe that the NSA intercepts were domestic. Everything points to money and comunications coming from Pakistan. If the US confirmed with hard evidence that the intercepts were from us then they would be revealing and confirming the extent of our electronic snooping capacity.
It does look like the leaker only spoke to Time. I pointed you to the blogs for the debate, not the article. Both sides had some good points in those discussions.
Working for MoveOn now eh? What happened? No market for bannanna impersonators? LOL
I think he was the ape. :)
"Rightside>>Nice of you to let constructive comments like that make it through."
Boys,
It's good to see the debates back. Sorry that I had to do the "Comment Moderation" thing for a bit but unfortunately there were several attacks of poor taste a week or so back that were not proper by a long shot.
I welcome these intensive debates back and I am not worried about "Poor taste" comments for it is obvious you guys are way over their heads with this stuff...
It is a shame that outside aggitators force us to use restraint sometimes. I do enjoy the un moderated format much better.
I'm thinking about doing my own BLOG.....havenot decided yet if I want the extra "duties" ontop of what I have already.
You would be good with a blog, Bubba, adding common sense to the blogosphere. If not now maybe when your time frees up a little. We would welcome you!
Post a Comment