noteworthy wrote:
Rattle wrote:

It seems that the key factor was cooperation between intelligence agencies in multiple countries.

Or, as Brian Ross put it to Charlie Rose

Ross: The US was brought in; the US was asked to use its elaborate electronic eavesdropping apparatus to run checks on the phone calls and the bank transfers, which I am told were _very_ helpful.

Rose: One more argument for the Bush administration in terms of --

Ross: well, it is, they do have that ability. Generally, what happens is, we spy on the British, and the British spy on our citizens. We exchange information, [and] nobody breaks their own laws.

Hasn't that been the status-quo for decades? All throughout the Cold War?

In my opinion, that does nothing for the Bush Administration's argument for expanded spying powers. International cooperation between intelligence agencies seems to still be the winning approach.

There is a disparity in the approach and the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Not only here, but also in efforts to get Hutchison and Dubai Ports World involved in managing our port security. (An approach I support..) If the administration wants to go the route of international cooperation for that problem, why not continue using that model if it's worked, continues to work, and has been the basis of our most recent successes?

In order to lead the world, as it becomes more globalized and interconnected, we need to continue eating our own soup.

RE: Big Talk, Little Will | Thomas Friedman | NYT