Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
U.S. Threatened by Partisanship
By Jonathan Gurwitz, San Antonio Express-News
08/15/2006
Two sets of questions surround the foiled terror attacks, about which we don't know, and may never know, the answers.
First, what kinds of surveillance and tracking methods did MI5, Britain's domestic intelligence service, use to uncover the plot, and would they be permissible in the United States?
Second, what methods did Pakistani intelligence use to interrogate terror suspects who provided information described as crucial to the investigation, and would American intelligence legally be permitted to use the same techniques?
As you ponder those questions, remember that the great issues of the day in this country with regard to terrorism revolve around whether the Bush administration acted illegally in tracking international wire transfers and international calls involving terrorism suspects.
Note from CNN: Two of the London suspects "received a wire transfer of money from Pakistan."
Note from Time: "U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."
And the reaction to the disclosure of those programs to protect the American people, aside from Pulitzers, has been the threat by some Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush should they take control of Congress in November.
The United States is facing an enemy that is intent on the mass murder of civilians, and we're consumed with scrupulous adherence to Marques of Queensbury rules and scoring some cheap, partisan points in an election year.
for full article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA081606.2O.gurwitz.2104c5f.html
By Jonathan Gurwitz, San Antonio Express-News
08/15/2006
Two sets of questions surround the foiled terror attacks, about which we don't know, and may never know, the answers.
First, what kinds of surveillance and tracking methods did MI5, Britain's domestic intelligence service, use to uncover the plot, and would they be permissible in the United States?
Second, what methods did Pakistani intelligence use to interrogate terror suspects who provided information described as crucial to the investigation, and would American intelligence legally be permitted to use the same techniques?
As you ponder those questions, remember that the great issues of the day in this country with regard to terrorism revolve around whether the Bush administration acted illegally in tracking international wire transfers and international calls involving terrorism suspects.
Note from CNN: Two of the London suspects "received a wire transfer of money from Pakistan."
Note from Time: "U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."
And the reaction to the disclosure of those programs to protect the American people, aside from Pulitzers, has been the threat by some Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush should they take control of Congress in November.
The United States is facing an enemy that is intent on the mass murder of civilians, and we're consumed with scrupulous adherence to Marques of Queensbury rules and scoring some cheap, partisan points in an election year.
for full article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA081606.2O.gurwitz.2104c5f.html
