Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
The Euro-centric approach to terrs (violent non-state actors) is very much driven by law-lawyers (whether in hordes[*] is perceptional) - e.g., the Eminent Jurists Report and a number of UK policy papers cited by David in War Crimes. The approach is purely a law enforcement and intelligence approach.
True on the last. On the first I'd agree that they are law driven but do not agree they're lawyer driven -- there is, to my mind a difference -- to the extent we happen to be. Our extremely litigious society breeds (nowadays and among the kids... ) lawyers who are IMO excessively cautious in order to avoid suits or potential liability in any form. They and other factors cause our law enforcement folks to be excessively cautious. Excessive caution in pursuit of truly bad (as opposed to mildly criminal) guys is not at all helpful.

I'd also submit most European and virtually all Asian agencies involved have and take more latitude in treatment of suspects and in not apprehending at the first scent of a crime.
Possibly, that has made some Euro agencies more keen on developing the facts before events go down - and sharpening both intelligence and counter-intelligence skills - because of what in effect are tougher legal standards.
Agreed; tougher but also rather different with respect to the 'rights of the accused.'
Personally, I would not give up our dual track system (FBI-DoJ and DoD; and perhaps some more alphabet soup for special missions); but one has to realize they are separate tracks - different rules and cultures.
As long as you realize it is not dual track in several senses of 'not' -- and that DoD (and the CIA; NSA also to an extent...) cannot and should not do anything domestically.
[*] Speaking of hordes, picked up a book on Subotai - haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Interesting lad. I suspect he was sharp enough and flexible enough to figure out a way of operating under today's constraints (with none of which I disagree; merely noting that they exist).