Terrorism and the Weekend Editorials

There are quite a lot of editorials on the terrorism this weekend. Not a surprise considering the news, but there were more than the usual partisan whining that comes out of the MSM. Let's start with the title link from the Telegraph.UK.

It has always been difficult to draw the fine line between protected speech, which is fundamental to our individual liberty, and incitement to prohibited criminal activity. In the United States, that line has long been defined by the concept of a "clear and present" danger. You don't claim the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre as a matter of free speech. In the UK, too, advocacy that falls short of incitement to immediate violence has been widely tolerated.

But combating Islamist extremism may require rethinking the idea of imminence in judging the dangers, and the appropriate response to them, of the insidious process leading ultimately to acts of mass murder. It is the act of recruitment into the swamp of a world divided into believers and infidels that may well be the more appropriate line dividing acceptable from unacceptable advocacy.

Yet in both the UK and the US we have been reluctant - dangerously so - to restrict, and in many cases even to monitor, what is said in the mosques and social centres of Islamist extremists.

In both our countries, there is great resistance to the effective surveillance of extremist Islamist groups. Opposed by most Muslim and civil liberty organisations, which fear that official scrutiny will lead to harassment and discrimination, police authorities have found it difficult to gather essential intelligence that could give timely warning of the formation of cells and networks destined to plan and execute acts of terror.

There was a (largely partisan) outcry in the US when it was learned that telephone conversations and bank transfer records were being scrutinised for terrorist connections, even though not a single aggrieved individual could be found. The occasional, inevitable mistakes by over-worked police and security organisations have further inhibited aggressive surveillance.

I'm not the fondest of the idea spying on or in religious institutions, but sadly they seem to be the primary trouble-makers. I'm thinking that there is more of the suspect activity in the UK, but I haven't seen any data related to the more extreme Mosques in the US. I suppose I'll have to do some research.

Then there is the Editorial from the NYTimes. Topic: Lack of countries sharing terrorist information.

ALTHOUGH last week's disruption of a terrorist plot to blow up commercial airliners over the Atlantic was a great success, it nonetheless exposed a dangerous gap in global security efforts. The problem is that governments and security services in countries that arrest terrorists and announce their triumphs to the press often fail to alert national and local police forces around the world or share with them information that is crucial to protecting their citizens.

After the British authorities arrested the people who had allegedly been planning to carry liquid bombs onto planes, they quickly announced their success to the news media - but did not alert the global law enforcement community or Interpol by putting this information into international databases that are accessible to our 184 member countries.

They give some examples of terrorist escapees from prisons in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Not especially surprising that these countries aren't as cooperative. This OpEd reads mostly like the MSM is angry about not being informed more than irritations over informing official law enforcement not cooperating. I'm guessing that official notifications are more common than notifying of the press.

You may also want to read Mark Steyn's piece.