http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/25/do2504 .xml
We must fight terror the American way By David Davis Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 25/03/2007 <file:///C:/Program%20Files/Common%20Files/Microsoft%20Shared/Stationery/#co mments> International terrorism threatens every country. But some of the answers, as well as the problems, lie abroad. I have just returned from the United States, where I spoke to counter-terrorism chiefs at the White House, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to learn from their struggle against terrorism. The US experience is different from our own. They have been hit harder, face a different threat and have different solutions. There is no counter-terrorism blueprint we can import wholesale. But there are lessons for Britain. Over the past five years, the US has assessed the mistakes that led to 9/11, mobilised an assertive counter-terrorism strategy and prevented any further attacks on American soil. The most striking difference between the threats to Britain and America is their source. September 11 was an attack by foreign nationals, July 7 by home-grown British citizens. The US has proved far better than the UK at integrating foreign immigrants, including Muslims. If the threats facing our two countries are different, so is the approach. America confronted its failure to prevent 9/11 with three formal inquiries. They galvanised a consensus to force through the changes required to prevent another 9/11. Preventing a terrorist attack became the number one priority of the FBI and the Department of Justice. The FBI has a formal duty to pursue every terrorist lead. Britain falls unacceptably short of that standard. US counter-terrorism chiefs hold conference calls three times a day, seven days a week, to ensure "situational awareness" of threats. The contrast with Britain is sobering. No independent inquiry after the July 7 bombings. No lessons learnt. A lack of political will and resources to tackle the terrorist threat. The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit describes government strategy as "immature, disjointed and weak", lacking the capacity to measure "real world impact". Meanwhile, the US has implemented 37 out of 39 of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report. What equivalent insights did Britain gain from the tragic events of July 2005? An independent inquiry would have forced us to confront and remedy the flaws in our approach. UK spending on counter-terrorism was too slow to respond to the increased threat symbolised by 9/11 and rivalry between Gordon Brown and consecutive Home Secretaries continues to trump national security - hence a freeze on the Home Office budget until 2010. The US has not resorted to short cuts with its citizens' freedoms to bolster national security. It does not have control orders. Police can only hold terror suspects in pre-charge detention for 10 days, not the 28 days available to British police let alone the 90 days John Reid wants. The truth is that America under Bush is both freer and more secure than Britain under Blair. There are, however, features of the system in the US we should not borrow. There is massive bureaucracy, with 22 intelligence agencies, three layers of government and all the attendant difficulties of coordination. The Conservatives believe it is vital to appoint a Security Minister in the Home Office, with Cabinet rank, to ensure coordination and drive counter-terrorism policy. We do not want the bureaucratic distraction of setting up a new department dealing with security - let alone John Reid's ill-considered plans to break up the Home Office, just when its current problems point to the need for security and justice policy to be more, not less, joined-up. Britain should learn three lessons from the US. First, intelligence is the key to prevention. If the threat is as serious as MI5 has warned, Labour's chokehold on security spending is inexcusable. The FBI has 30,000 personnel gathering intelligence and the National Counter-Terrorism Center has more than 400 analysing it. Second, gestures and gimmicks, including ID cards, 90-day detention and control orders, are no substitute for serious law enforcement. Those involved in terror must be brought to justice. We should use every available legal tool to make that happen. John Reid has refused to introduce intercept evidence to prosecute terrorists, saying it is "not a silver bullet". Yet the FBI and Department of Justice use intercept evidence in nearly all counter-terrorism and organised crime cases. It is often the critical evidence that secures a conviction. It can persuade a defendant to plead guilty, cooperate with police and give evidence against terrorist accomplices. It is the US prosecutor's legal weapon of choice, with the most reliable record for hitting the target. Yet Britain remains one of the few countries in the world not using intercept evidence. Finally, if we cannot rule out terrorist attack, we should be much better prepared for it. The US has put enormous energy into strengthening its "resilience" to attack, protecting communications systems, chemical plants and transport infrastructure. I examined the poison gas detection system at Grand Central station in New York. Similar systems are in place on US underground networks. Back in the UK, we are way behind. We do not even have a comprehensive underground-to-surface communications system, to allow the emergency services to communicate in the event of an attack on the Tube. Having looked closely at the US response to 9/11, I am convinced Britain has not learnt all the lessons that would help prevent another attack at home. We know the threat is increasing and the challenges are diverse. The Conservatives will put politics aside and support this Government in taking measures to strengthen our defences against another attack. But the Government must face up to past mistakes. It must be as candid about the weaknesses in our defences as it is about the terrorist threat we now face. It must answer our call for an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 2005. Britain deserves no less. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
