Originally Posted by
christep
Is there some other "record of success" that I'm missing apart from locking up lots of innocent people, inconveniencing millions more and failing in the very few cases they do get to court?
Eliza Manningham-Buller gave a rare public speech on 9 November 2006, in which she said:-
Last month the Lord Chancellor said that there were a total of 99 defendants awaiting trial in 34 cases. Of course the presumption of innocence applies and the law dictates that nothing must be said or done which might prejudice the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial. You will understand therefore that I can say no more on these matters.
What I can say is that today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don't know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas.
...
We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer thirty - that we know of.
Every defendant awaiting trial has had assembled against them enough evidence, admissible in a criminal court, that is capable of convincing a jury of laymen that there is no reasonable doubt about their guilt of the offence. Ultimately, some juries are not convinced of that; but others are. That is the nature of the criminal trial process. But every defendant against whom that much admissible evidence has been assembled already represents the fruits of success of an operation.
For every defendant against whom it has been possible to assemble that much admissible evidence, there will be other individuals against whom there is insufficient admissible evidence, even though the information available leaves no doubt at all about what they have done. As you know, the gap between evidence in court and the totality of the information available is the subject of current debate, notably in relation to evidence of intercepted communications.
And, in fact, every one of those thirty plots, 200 groups/networks and 1600 individuals represents an intelligence success. These are plots, groups and people who have been found and are being watched. Some will in due course be disrupted if they are sufficiently dangerous. Others will not need to be. But that's the nature of intelligence work.
Measuring success by the superficial tabloid process of counting criminal court convictions is just facile.
My attack is not an ad hominem attack on Bruce Schneier. I'm sure he's very good at what he does.
The attack, rather, is on the false logic of taking one statement of the view of a person who does not work in the field of counter-terrorism and is not (so far as I can see) qualified to express any views about that, and of immediately accepting that as superior to the considered views and advice of those who have spent decades in the field. As I said, if you want to get the idiots who make these rules to understand the obviously superior logic of Bruce Schneier's views on this, just sack all those whose life's work is the pursuit of terrorism, and let a computer expert handle the terrorists instead.