| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| time to scrap the Patriot Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 14 2006, 06:50 AM (142 Views) | |
| apple | Aug 14 2006, 06:50 AM Post #1 |
|
one of the angels
|
i don't think so.. how 'bout you? how 'bout strengthening it? -------------------------------------------------- The British Way They say "reasonable suspicion," we say "probable cause." BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY Monday, August 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT 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. 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 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. Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler, LLP, and served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Aug 14 2006, 07:19 AM Post #2 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
How can you take someone (or two someones) seriously when they can't even spell "peek"? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Aug 14 2006, 07:21 AM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I have read a lot about this terrorist plot and how it was undone. I have seen nothing that could not have been acomplished with the powers the government had before the Patriot Act or before Bush decided he could do what he damned well pleased with civil rights. But then, given what we now know about 9/11, it is also clear that the Patriot Act and Buish's unconstitutinal power grab was not needed there either. The problem in 9/11 was systemic and bureaucratically structural, not because the American people had too much freedom and too many civil liberties. With the exception of allowing the FBI and CIA to share information when there are possible terrorist activities, there was no reason for the Patriot Act when it was passed, none when it was reauthorized and none now. (Well, except for the fact it applies to all Federal crimes, so it is a nifty little way to go after common criminals without having to worry about that silly little Constitution). |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Aug 14 2006, 07:22 AM Post #4 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
:lol: Anyway, my response is: I don't like the "package deal" you get with the Patriot Act. There's some parts that need strengthening, and others I really don't feel comfortable with. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Aug 14 2006, 07:23 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
LOL...I googled sneak and peak and it actually comes up on the FBI website. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Aug 14 2006, 07:24 AM Post #6 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I guess that proves that Republicans really CAN'T spell. Maybe W can order the dictionary rewritten, so that he isn't wrong, it's the dictionary that's wrong. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Aug 14 2006, 07:25 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
To be fair, it came up on some democratic websites as well.
|
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Aug 14 2006, 07:28 AM Post #8 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Perhaps Republicans just are not so pedantic that they would dismiss an entire article on the basis of one typo. I am not really a Republican and I wouldn't. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 14 2006, 07:28 AM Post #9 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Neither can Democrats -- you can't use this stick for your Bush bashing |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Aug 14 2006, 07:34 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
I'm sorry for the previous hijack apple. To answer your question, I am uneasy about infringement of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately the discussion is so shrill that I have not had the time to understand if the concerns raised by one side are valid or not. Until we find a better way to wage this war though, it seems like certain measures are necessary in the short term to ensure global safety. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Aug 14 2006, 07:45 AM Post #11 |
|
one of the angels
|
better sneak and peak than peak and leak |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Aug 14 2006, 08:03 AM Post #12 |
|
:lol: :lol: |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









10:37 PM Jul 12