Davis: We must fight terror the American way

David Davis has just been on a trip to America to inspect their homeland security systems and writes about what he has learnt for today's Sunday Telegraph.

Alongside opposition to John Reid's "ill-considered" scheme to break up the Home Office, he calls for anti-terror efforts to be more coordinated.  [According to John Rentoul in today's Independent on Sunday, Gordon Brown has squashed Reid's plans "for fear that terrorists might strike in the middle of a reorganisation"].  Mr Davis repeats the Tory demand for a Cabinet-rank Security Minister and notes that "US counter-terrorism chiefs hold conference calls three times a day, seven days a week, to ensure "situational awareness" of threats."

He then offers three main learning points:

• Invest in intelligence: "If the threat is as serious as MI5 has warned, Labour's chokehold on security spending is inexcusable. The FBI has 30,000 personnel gathering intelligence and the National Counter-Terrorism Center has more than 400 analysing it."
• Allow intercept evidence: "John Reid has refused to introduce intercept evidence to prosecute terrorists, saying it is "not a silver bullet". Yet the FBI and Department of Justice use intercept evidence in nearly all counter-terrorism and organised crime cases. It is often the critical evidence that secures a conviction. It can persuade a defendant to plead guilty, cooperate with police and give evidence against terrorist accomplices. It is the US prosecutor's legal weapon of choice, with the most reliable record for hitting the target. Yet Britain remains one of the few countries in the world not using intercept evidence."
• Improve "resilience" to inevitable attacks: "The US has put enormous energy into strengthening its "resilience" to attack, protecting communications systems, chemical plants and transport infrastructure. I examined the poison gas detection system at Grand Central station in New York. Similar systems are in place on US underground networks. Back in the UK, we are way behind. We do not even have a comprehensive underground-to-surface communications system, to allow the emergency services to communicate in the event of an attack on the Tube."

Related link: Patrick Mercer MP wrote for YourPlatform about Conservative security policy last November.

Comments

[ballotboy]

DD is right here - if we deserve to win for any reason it is this issue. I still think he would have made the best leader - a real fighter in touch with the people. He would have known about Acacia Avanue.

[CCHQ Spy]

Conservatives MUST, MUST, MUST establish their credentials on security. If Britain is attacked before the next election (not unlikely) the British people will turn to the party that will protect them. David Davis will be very important in assuring voters that the Tories will protect them. We need more security talk from Cameron and less environmentalism.

[Rachel Joyce]

Absolutely agree.

[Denis Cooper]

When he says we must fight terror "the American way" I certainly hope that doesn't include incarcerating innocent people for years without charge or trial
and (possibly) with a bit of torture thrown in for good measure.

[David Belchamber]

[According to John Rentoul in today's Independent on Sunday, Gordon Brown has squashed Reid's plans "for fear that terrorists might strike in the middle of a reorganisation"].

It is interesting, if not exactly comforting, that we, the public, do not even know therefore who is in charge of the country at the moment.

David David is much more reasuring figure than Reid, Blair, Brown or - God forbid when Blair is on holiday - Prescott!

However, pace David Davis, I would much prefer responsibility for homeland security to be taken out of the hands of politicians of any party (though Cobra would take the big decisions) and given to men of action, such as Sir Richard Dannatt.
I would like to see a new, non political organisation to oversee and co-ordinate intelligence from all sources, draw up contingency plans for all foreseeable disasters (including pandemics) and ensure that the country would be much better prepared for whatever disaster might happen.
Party politics and political correctness would not be part of the remit.

[TomTom]

Is the real reason we do not use intercept evidence in court simply that GCHQ and Menwith Hill are both funded by the NSA and don't want to have their product leaked into the public domain ?

[Umbrella Man]

It is depressing that this thread of such great national importance has just six comments and a thread about Peter Hitchens has more than forty. When did Tory activists lose their sense of priorities?

[dog biter]

Would not a good way to start "fighting terror" be getting British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - immediately? At least the terrorists would then have less reason to fight us.

[Umbrella man]

What will happen then dogbiter? Do you expect the terrorists to retire once they've defeated us in Afghanistan and Iraq? Once they have control of a state they'll do what they did on 9.11 but worse. We either defeat them over there or they'll defeat us here. you need to get real about the war on terror. The Conservative party needs to get real.

[dog biter]

Umbrella Man, the sad fact is that sooner or later we will withdraw from Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well, just like the Americans did from Vietnam. And nothing, absolutely nothing, will have changed...except that yet more British servicemen will have lost their lives.

[TomTom]

Would not a good way to start "fighting terror" be getting British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - immediately? At least the terrorists would then have less reason to fight us.

Posted by: dog biter | March 25, 2007 at 18:46

You have not suggested banning women from employment outside the home, and introducing the chadoor or hijab for all women.....that might please the terrorists too....after all we must show willing as Dhimmis

[Matthew Revell]

What a depressing headline. As a new member of the party, this kind of poor communication troubles me.

Fighting terrorism (nobody's fighting terror) the American way suggest a disproportionate response, locking people up without trial and using the ridiculously named PATRIOT Act to justify all sorts of intrusion.

Yes, we face a threat. But seriously, do we want the Shadow Home Secretary to produce a sound-bite that links the party with Guantanamo Bay and phoney premises for war?

[dog biter]

What the people of Iraq and Afghanistan choose to do has nothing to do with me as a British citizen. I'm sure there are plenty of senior UK politicians who would love to withdraw the troops from Iraq but cannot because of colleagues' peer pressure and because they would get savaged in the Sun as cowards. U.S. soldiers dressed up like Mad Max are never going to change anything in Iraq. Fundamental Islam will continue to spread and the sooner we realise we are powerless the better. We would be far better employed fortifying our own borders with huge sentences (50 years?) for acts of terrorism committed on British soil. (And that goes for all terrorists!) Prison for terrorists in the UK should be a very uncomfortable place. There should be zero tolerance for acts of religious fundamentalism of any kind that are considered anti social to the British people in Britain. We can justify getting tough here far more easily than we can justify occupying Iraq or Afghanistan.

[ToMTom]

What the people of Iraq and Afghanistan choose to do has nothing to do with me as a British citizen.

Danzig was not a problem for Englishmen until 1939...

[Richard Carey]

At least the terrorists would then have less reason to fight us.

Let's make a comparison with another faction of criminality. Perhaps I should think about selling off all my possessions so that I don't get burgled. There is no "excuse" for terrorism, no rational reason to come and kill us. Full stop.

We do not even have a comprehensive underground-to-surface communications system, to allow the emergency services to communicate in the event of an attack on the Tube."

This is appalling complacency. Is there not some culpability in the Mayor's office in London here as well? I know that Norris has run against Livingstone on a crime ticket before, but it must be vital that our mayoral candidate focusses on the security of the capital.

This is not just a political point - it is a matter of competence and the safety of our citizens. If Livingstone had been Mayor in NY in 2001 instead of Giuliani, does anyone honestly believe that the response to 9/11 would have been as coherent and praise-worthy?

DD is absolutely right to rasise these points and I hope he keep banging on at them until we get the changes we need.