SCHENECTADY, NY: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, apossible contender for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, on Monday criticized the Bush administration for failing to do enough to protect the country from terrorists.I must have missed something. Were the terrorists successful last week, or were their plans foiled? Foiled, right? And wasn't some of that success due to the NSA surveillance program and the CIA? Yup.
"We've done some things right," the New York senator said at a community event in Schenectady. "Obviously we've beefed up airport security in some ways, but as we've learned over the last week not in every way that matters. We still have not done what we need to do to protect our ports, our borders, our bridges, our transit systems, our rail lines, it's a long list."
"I don't think our long-term strategy for homeland security is yet what it needs to be," she said.
In celebrating the British victory--which was achieved with assistance from American and Pakistani intelligence services--it is worth considering some of the aspects in which the U.S. and U.K. antiterrorism systems differ, and what lessons can be learned. Of course, we begin with the proposition that the U.S. and Britain share a common-law heritage, with its emphasis on individual rights and limitations on state power, and many of same basic political values. That said, British law, political culture and sensibilities appear to be far more attuned to the practical needs of preventing terrorist attacks than do their American counterparts. Some examples include the following:
That's an article Sen. Clinton should read, if she really wants to help in the war on terror. And, by the way, when did she start using "Rodham" again?
cross-posted at Joust The Facts.