To Preempt Terrorists, or Not to Preempt Terrorists?

This is a disturbing development for two reasons. First that the a Judges ruling may well gut Patriot Act of any meaningful usefulness. The other issue is that a possible terrorist was released based on a Spanish claim that the fingerprints of Brandon Mayfield were in fact those of another person. The FBI had much circumstantial evidence pointing to Mayfield's involvement in the Madrid train bombings, in addition to its own conclusion that the fingerprints were Mayfield's. Then comes the Spanish claim that the prints were of someone else, which caused all charges to be dropped. What has not been made public is why all the evidence including the FBIs own analysis of the prints were thrown out based on one claim by a foreign government. Why did the Attorney General and the FBI not stick by their findings?
FROM FRONTPAGEMAG.COM:
To Preempt Terrorists, or Not to Preempt Terrorists?
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/2/2007
"Everything" did not change on 9/11, as some expected, but one thing certainly did: the U.S. government's willingness to preempt enemies before they act. This new policy has outraged so many, it may be discontinued.
In foreign affairs, preemption replaced the long-established policy of deterrence. A series of speeches established the new policy, culminating in George W. Bush's June 2002 declaration that "our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." Nine months later, preemption justified the invasion of Iraq before Iraqis had attacked the United States, to the fury of many.
In domestic U.S. affairs too, preemption has prompted great consternation. In keeping with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution ("The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"), law enforcement historically has held off arresting thieves until they actually committed crimes. But the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), beefed up by the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, makes it easier to stop terrorists before they act. If there is probable cause that someone is acting as an agent of a foreign terrorist group, without there also being probable cause that he has planned or committed crimes, it allows surveillance – and the resulting evidence.
READ IT ALL: