Looks like Homeland Security's mandate is wreaking havoc with the war on terror in general. According to
this Baltimore Sun article, the British feel that their pursuit of Al Qaeda suspects has been hampered by Ridge's approach in upgrading threat levels.
"LONDON - The raids on suspected al-Qaida members here last week were dramatic: Anti-terrorism officers surrounded cars on public streets, high-powered weapons drawn. Officers yanked suspects out of the vehicles while bystanders ran into their houses or dropped to the ground for cover.
After the raids, which netted 13 people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts, London police said the arrests were part of a "pre-planned, ongoing, intelligence-led operation."
What British officials did not say at the time is that they had hoped the operation would continue, so that other suspected terrorists could be identified and eventually arrested.
But it was cut short and legal charges jeopardized, officials now say, because terror warnings issued by the Bush administration and leaks by U.S. officials forced the British to curtail their investigation and stage the risky, daytime arrests.
Those arrests and the aborted investigation are results of starkly different approaches by British and American officials in the way they inform their citizens about terror threats.
When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was briefed on information that al-Qaida operatives were casing financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., he called a news conference, named the potential targets and raised the terror alert for the areas believed to be danger.
British Home Secretary David Blunkett received similar information that Heathrow Airport was being studied by suspected terrorists. The home secretary said nothing publicly.
"Look at the timing and what happened," said a senior British government source. "For our anti-terrorist squads to surround these people as they did - surrounding cars with highly powerful weapons and pulling them out while the public is walking by - obviously, that's not how we want to do things.
"And if these people hadn't already been arrested, that should tell you investigators thought there was still some value in watching them. When the leaks began, and then when things became very public, there was no question these people knew they were being watched and we could wait no longer."
But given the magnitude of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Blunkett said he understood Washington's tendency to raise alerts while government officials here, armed with the same information, would not. "That's why it's more frustration than tension or anger," he said.
A different approach
In a column published Sunday in The Observer, Blunkett answered criticism from political opponents that he was not explicit enough about the threats facing Britain. At the same time, he warned that the leaks and warnings in the United States could be counterproductive.
He wrote: "Is that really the job of a senior Cabinet minister in charge of counterterrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern? ... Of course not. This is arrant nonsense.
"I've never been a shrinking violet, and I'm the first person to say something when I've got something to say," he wrote. "But it is important to be able to distinguish if there is a meaningful contribution that helps to secure us from terrorism. And to understand if there isn't."
SNIP
