It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Homeland Security forbidden by law from tactics Brits used to foil attack

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
i came across this article in the news today and i found it rather interesting. according to the article, the united states doesnt have the right by law to use the same tactics that the Brits used to foil the recent terror plots against them, and the british government actually have more areas at their disposal when it comes to things that we may consider invasive. and i found that rather interesting as well.

according to the article:


Officials said British authorities have greater powers of surveillance and investigation, which facilitated the capture of more than 20 suspected al Qaeda plotters. In contrast, they said, Congress has been reviewing the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals.


so i would like to ask you guys to read the rest of the article and let me know what you think of it. 3 things come to mind as possibilities. #1 is it possible that this story was put out so that the government can convince us that it is ok to take away more of our freedoms? #2 should we take the example of the brits, and overturn the laws we have in order to protect ourselves? because, this is a very different war. #3 and this isnt really a possibility, more of just a comment. i think this is a really stupid thing to put out. only because, thats sort of telling people who want to hurt us...HEY WE ARENT PREPARED AND WE CANT STOP YOU. now granted, im sure they know alot of our weaknesses, but i just dont get some of the stupid movements going on with the government and the media atm.

but as i said, please give it a read, and post your opinion. im interested to see how you guys percieve what the intent and content of this article is.


kind regards,
Digitalgrl

opps forgot to put the link to the article in lol. its one of those days guys


here ya go! FULL STORY

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
no opinons at all on this?



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Not surprised at all - there's a story that PW Botha was envious of our Govt's powers under the prevention of terrorism act back in the 80's
- things have got a lot more invasive since.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
You have a written constitution. We do not. However, we have a far better press corps that actually has teeth.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Its called the Constitution. As it is, we've stepped all over it in recent times, but we still have that to hang on to.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
You have a written constitution. We do not. However, we have a far better press corps that actually has teeth.

we actually do have a constitution just not a written one, plus we have a 3 level system.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The thing is you must look at the whole ethos behind this - most of the laws were put in place in the 1970`s - ever heard of the NORAID sponsored IRA? yup its thanks to them that the uk knows how to go about investigating these sorts of things.


again look at ireland around the 1980`s > 1990`s , that taught soldiers how to deal with a population that didn`t want you there ; case point: how many brits have died in southern iraq compared to the daily death toll icrease in northern iraq - shame the us listened to israel on how to `pacify` a city and not the uk.


anyway - the uk learnt how to do this from 25 years of bombings by the terrorist group the IRA and have the skills to do - small units with good resources and cross department communication - everything the monolithic organisation the DHS is not.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
The thing is you must look at the whole ethos behind this - most of the laws were put in place in the 1970`s - ever heard of the NORAID sponsored IRA? yup its thanks to them that the uk knows how to go about investigating these sorts of things.


again look at ireland around the 1980`s > 1990`s , that taught soldiers how to deal with a population that didn`t want you there ; case point: how many brits have died in southern iraq compared to the daily death toll icrease in northern iraq - shame the us listened to israel on how to `pacify` a city and not the uk.


anyway - the uk learnt how to do this from 25 years of bombings by the terrorist group the IRA and have the skills to do - small units with good resources and cross department communication - everything the monolithic organisation the DHS is not.


I agree with you on the UK's having "all their stuff in one bag" because of having to deal with the IRA. However I disagree with you on your opinions about Iraq.

I believe that the location and make-up of the population has a bit to do with the difference in the number of casualties. I also believe that the insurgents are making a calculated effort to inflict the maximum number of casualties on US forces. I think that they believe that they can influence the media and by that the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is my opinion that people like Cindy Sheehan have inadvertantly done more damage than the majority of bombs placed by the insurgents.

One thing I find amusing is the number of people on ATS from the UK who are griping about US privacy issues like the NSA bit, while their own government has done pretty much the same thing for going on 40 years.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I think the issue we beef about in the UK is not that our govt spies on us but that it's the NSA that spies on us, it's the NSA that filters intel before our guys get it (ECHELON). We can control our Govt but resent being controlled by yours.

Oh and Harleuin's right you refused to listen to us about FIBUA policies but were trained by the Israelis - USMC senior personnel have since admitted this was a big mistake. It's no coincidence we insisted on a completely separate area of control or that international forces would rather be under UK command that US

How a US refusnik peace campaigner can have done more damage than people placing 000's of bombs is beyond me!



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I believe that the location and make-up of the population has a bit to do with the difference in the number of casualties. I also believe that the insurgents are making a calculated effort to inflict the maximum number of casualties on US forces. I think that they believe that they can influence the media and by that the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is my opinion that people like Cindy Sheehan have inadvertantly done more damage than the majority of bombs placed by the insurgents.


yes the populations are a different make up BUT ,after the city of basra - the second largest in iraq m calmed down , the brits took off there flak armour , helemts and tactical gear - wore combat lightweights , berets`s and sunglasses - that is the difference to the way the whole start was handled.

look at the IAF way of handling a stuation - bombs , more bombs and bigger bombs - thats how hezbollah was formed in teh first instance - to co8unter the slapdash and massive stupid over use of force.

and here we are in 2006 , and the same situation , which i fear will just breed another highly trained and highly organised group of `freedom fighters` who thi time are aimed at fighting the usa (hezbollah if you`ve noticed JUST fight Israel )



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join