Who said that the Italian government never gets it right?
Italy passed a terrorism law after the July 7 subway bombings in London that opened the way for intelligence agencies to eavesdrop if an attack is feared imminent. Only approval from a prosecutor - not a judge - is required, but the material gleaned cannot be used as evidence in court.
That's precisely what this country needs. By making it impossible to use the evidence collected using the anti-terrorist laws as court evidence, the anti-terrorism agencies would be able to do their jobs without creating a real worry that we're becoming a police state. Of course, the fact that we prefer to selectively try and sentence terrorists as criminals, rather than dispose of them as foreign combatants, and in the process not muck up our criminal justice system, is why we are having this problem in the first place.
Here's a little thought for you. If the CIA and NSA both agree that some foreigner is a terrorist, chances are very good, they are indeed a terrorist. Why would men like the 9-11 hijackers, if caught, need a trial? Hand them over the CIA for "processing" and be done with it. The only way to give them a trial would be to risk the civil liberties of the citizenry, and quite frankly, I see no reason to sacrifice our liberty for their faux due process of law. And let's be honest, with the kind of security constraints that would have to be imposed to keep half of the sources of evidence safe, it'd hardly meet constitutional standards.
And imagine the public outcry the CIA and NSA would cause as they "dispose of" a American Sunni family whose only crime was to end up on both the CIA's and the NSA's lists of people to keep an eye on.
You mention "men like the 9-11 hijackers". Sure, if caught, they might merit treatment as foreign combatants. But what if (a) they weren't foreign, and/or (b) they were being very careful not to behave in a combative manner until the time was right?
In other words: what happens if these suspected terrorists *are* US citizens, or are *planning* to kill thousands of people, but haven't as yet done anything wrong?
I suppose it's all a bit of an academic point anyway, because those 9-11 hijackers evaded capture superbly.
I'd also like to point out that the "liquidation" option is not my favorite solution. My attitude toward the foreign combatants is this. If they're not run-of-the-mill criminals, then shoot them dead like you would anyone fighting out of uniform on a battlefield. If they're criminals, cut the crap and prosecute them like any murderer.
Well a large part of the problem is that the FBI has too much control over domestic operations. If they **know** that they're going to engage in an act of terrorism, I could see that being grounds for letting the FBI handle them. However, if they're chasing down a Jose Padilla who has gotten ahold of a dirty nuke, I have no problem with them liquidating him on sight.
Same here, Roland. I don't like it anymore than the next libertarian, but something has to be done to draw a distinction lest we pull our entire legal system down with the terrorists. My attitude is that if the CIA finds a Jose Padilla trying to dirty nuke us, why bother handing him over to the FBI? It's rarely black and white, which is why it's good that we do have a criminal justice component, but when it is black and white it should be a simple "back-of-the-head" kind of operation behind a building.
Knowing the CIA and NSA, there is still that chance they are wrong. That is why we get into this whole gray area. Just makes me realize even more what a great judge of character God is and how poor we are.
I do admit the tendency to want to shoot first and ask later, but I try to fight it as much as possible. :)