Comments on: War on Terror – the ripple effect

By: John & Mike

John & Mike — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:29:53 +0000

Hey…We’re working on a history project about the Ripple Effect of The Iraq War on two different catagories, effects on US, and the world. So we would really appreciate it if you could find this informationa and organize it into something like a bubble chat.. Please e-mail me with the response to my suggestion. Thanks -Mike

By: Con Tendem

Con Tendem — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:11:16 +0000

I agree with the statement that

What I do object to, and in the strongest terms, is the naked opportunism on the part of some Justice/Interior ministries that have used the situation to introduce draconian measures with no bearing at all on fighting terrorism or even serious crime.

What makes it worse is that this is not some kind of inspired opportunism where the agencies really, always and forever, wanted to get this information because it would truly make a difference in their work and did so as soon as there was a political opening. No. Instead this is the kind of knee-jerk legislation that lazy and badly-run agencies push on the populace because they do not know how to really solve the problem and hope that somehow new powers will help them. A good example is a recent arrest of an allegged Real IRA bombmaker in Israel, found there working on creating more sophisticated explosive devices, doubtless to help keep the truce going. Political aspects aside—he was duly listed in an airline manifest under a false name. Had he chosen to fly to the US —he would have and noone would have stopped an outstanding british citizen his documents proclaimed him to be. Supposedly intelligence sources lost track of him some time ago and where getting anxious as to his whereabouts. How exactly any of the proposed and accepted pricavy-invading legislation helping with this? It cannot because it is limited and poorly thought-out. This still leaves the matter of how can European and other airlines break their national laws and provide certain data to US Law Enforcement open.

By: Reihan M Salam

Reihan M Salam — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:39:43 +0000

It’s worth noting that, as Jeffrey Rosen has observed, the damage to civil liberties has been far worse in Europe than America in part because Europe has no equivalent to America’s libertarian right. The following is from Rosen’s article published in the Washington Post on 9/15/02: In the course of researching the state of liberty and security after 9/11, I’ve been especially struck by how restrained America’s legal response appears when contrasted with that of our European allies. Although they weren’t directly attacked, the countries of the European Union passed anti-terrorism measures during the past year that are far more sweeping than anything adopted in the United States. In October, France expanded the powers of the police to search private property without a warrant. Germany has engaged in religious profiling of suspected terrorists, a practice that was upheld in a court challenge. In Britain, which has become a kind of privacy dystopia, Parliament passed a sweeping anti-terrorism law in December that authorizes a central government authority to record and store all communications data generated by e-mail, Internet browsing or other electronic communications, and to make the data available to law enforcement without a court order. In May, the European Union authorized all of its members to pass similar laws requiring data retention. The Bush administration has tried to emulate its European allies by expanding executive authority in similarly dramatic ways. It asserted that the president may designate citizens or aliens as enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely without judicial review. It claimed that the president may deport certain aliens based on secret hearings whose existence is withheld from the pressand the public. And it attempted to blur the legal lines that separate domestic law enforcement from foreign intelligence gathering, transforming the FBI into the equivalent of Britain’s domestic security intelligence agency, MI5. What distinguished America from Europe, however, is how quickly all three of these extreme positions met with opposition from the other two branches of government. [The article continues.]

By: Maria

Maria — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:00:04 +0000

Tks all. Doug, I’ve no problem with the principle that we need to be doing everything we can to prevent further attacks, and a more co-ordinated approach to policing and intelligence is part of that. What I do object to, and in the strongest terms, is the naked opportunism on the part of some Justice/Interior ministries that have used the situation to introduce draconian measures with no bearing at all on fighting terrorism or even serious crime. David Blunkett got into hot water last year (though not half hot enough) when his department introduced regulations saying individuals’ traffic data (the records of who they talk to, where they go, what they read on the web, etc.) would be available to every half-baked quasi-government agency in the UK, including the Postal Commission and even parish councils. Also, Italian and Spanish governments have been using September 11th to push a radical anti-immigration and asylum seeker agenda that has nothing to do with terrorism, but simply rides along on peoples’ fears. Immediately after September 11, many governments had a carte blanche to introduce anti-terrorism measures. As far as the citizenry was concerned, they didn’t mind foregoing a little liberty/privacy if further attacks could be averted. False premise. If there is a distinct trade off here, it is not to be found in much of the legislation I’ve seen. So, citizens are losing out in two ways; many of the measures introduced won’t fight terrorism, but just create a possibly false sense of security. And in the meantime, some crucial freedoms have been lost. Aelph, I wish I had your faith. The Constitution (still just a draft) does include a watered down version of the detailed data protection rules already existing in two EU Directives. But as our existing laws didn’t protect us, I don’t see how this Constitution will either.

By: aelph

aelph — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:30:37 +0000

From the draft EU Constitution: Article II-8: Protection of personal data 1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. 2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. If that stays in, I would think that the US would have a real problem trying to push Europe on these issues.

By: Emma

Emma — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:59:09 +0000

About to link you up on my site; fantastic analysis. I’m delighted to have stumbled on to your wonderful site.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:54:49 +0000

My natural contrariness impels me to speak up, even if I think Maria is probably on the side of the angels on this one. The problems that the JHA folks are dealing with are real. Al-Qaeda & co are quite happy to kill Europeans as the opportunity arises (Djerba, the French engineers in Karachi, quite possibly the Sahara tourists, and the foiled plot to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market). So we are all in this together – or if we are not, then the Europeans are willing to have their security at the cost of the Americans’. That would not be an edifying spectacle, and it would give the lie to much EU rhetoric about its moral role in the world. Given, then, that there is a common problem best solved together, and given also that terrorists have chosen to locate in places where law enforcement is slack, sympathetic bystanders can be found and barriers to prosecution are high (Atta & co hit the trifecta in Hamburg), what is to be done? That’s the most important question, quite apart from who’s grabbing whose power. Is the European approach of September 10th likely to end with a smoking hole in some capital? Are gaps in European law, or communication among law enforcement agencies endangering citizens’ lives?

By: SageOne

SageOne — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:55:34 +0000

Very thought provolking. Good post.