| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests |
| 2006-08-13 |
| Posted by:ed |
| #11 I'm for early arrests. Every phone contact made by the accused, makes the other party a suspect. Suspects have every right to present exculpatory evidence to police investigators. The logic seems self-defeating to me. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-08-13 17:53 |
| #10 I'm for early arrests. Every phone contact made by the accused, makes the other party a suspect. Suspects have every right to present exculpatory evidence to police investigators. Some might even inform. The earlier you can get to them, the better. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-13 15:25 |
| #9 Who votes for not acting on "diversions"? |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-08-13 13:45 |
| #8 This is what scares me, it sounds like a diversion and the reason I am paranoid :) one muslims tip them off and PakiWacki help round some of this guys up hmmmmmmm. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-13 10:25 |
| #7 It's a diversion. I wonder if Israel is too. All the surveillance, tracking, phone taps and self-congratulary behavior for stopping a 'dry run' against known fortified targets is a resource drain diverting attention from another target. A big one. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-08-13 09:55 |
| #6 I would not put too much into this report. On "every" takedown there will be heated and sometimes emotional discussion of just when is the right time to move on them. Law enforcement want to go now, intel guys want to wait to get them all, both are right but the final call usually goes to risk management. When the question is posed, how certain are you that you can maintain contact and how certain are you that the this dry run might not go as a real event and can we completely control the future with these guys? If the answer is weak, then any good team will take the bird in the hand and hope to get enough info later to get the rest. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-13 08:55 |
| #5 I see your point, but I'd still have taken it further if I were king. My understanding is that they knew who many of the perps were and they hadn't purchased tickets yet. I don't think lives are at risk until tickets are purchased. Then you know more names and take more bad guys off the street and increase your chances of cracking other cells. Then again, there could have been other groups around to attack planes in an earlier wave that you don't know about. If the had waited, it might have also raised a dovish eyebrow or two, especially if they busted a bunch of bad guys taking gatorade onto airplanes. Obviously, even this close wasn't enough to do it. It's even being ignored or hailed as a diversion/fabrication in "certain circles". I'm afraid it's going to take a serious bloodbath to wake the sleepy giant. They certainly aren't learning the easy way. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-08-13 02:58 |
| #4 g: I like the British plan better. If the plan had gone through, you can bet that the press would have been full of headlines like "Bush knew". Given the amount of pro-terrorist sentiment in the US government, I doubt there is any way an anti-Bush leak could have been prevented. Just look at the leak about this UK-US disagreement. Unsuccessful indictments are better than dead civilians. You can always go for another indictment later, but you can't bring dead people back to life. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-13 02:38 |
| #3 More reasons why traditional law enforcement is problematic when dealing with terrorists planning mass murder. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-08-13 01:38 |
| #2 As this is MSNBC I would wait for further information from more sources concerning this. In any case since the targets were US flagged carriers It would be natural that the US would prefer action over the UK's tendencies towards being PC in making arrests and also talking about doing something rather than actually doing it. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-13 01:03 |
| #1 I like the British plan better. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-08-13 00:24 |