Edwards proposes international anti-terrorism body

[boracay]

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Friday proposed creating a new international organization to enable allies to share intelligence in the fight against terrorism.

The former U.S. senator and 2004 vice-presidential candidate called existing bodies inadequate. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a military group and the United Nations included member states which supported terrorism, he said.

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train and finance their operations," Edwards said in a speech at New York's Pace University. link

i think that's good idea, but i'm afraid chances for its establishment are close to zero.

[mosdef]

The downside of this is that the nations that participate will label all the nations that don't participate "as harbourers and enablers of the terrorists" and use the fabricated international body as a justification for waging foreign wars. The internation body sounds good in principle, but in reality it will be a totally ineffective waste of money like the UN, or a totally ineffective waste of money used to legitimize foreign aggression. Yay.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The downside of this is that the nations that participate will label all the nations that don't participate "as harbourers and enablers of the terrorists" and use the fabricated international body as a justification for waging foreign wars. The internation body sounds good in principle, but in reality it will be a totally ineffective waste of money like the UN, or a totally ineffective waste of money used to legitimize foreign aggression. Yay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Further, how much cooperation can really be expected beyond what intelligence agencies already share? Secret techniques and programs will not be revealed lest they be compromised, but when some information is received from one of those programs the TO will expect details before considering taking action on them.

Its appealing on the surface, but as JK likes to say (I think that is the correct attribution) the devil is in the details.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Its appealing on the surface, but as JK likes to say (I think that is the correct attribution) the devil is in the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem isn't that the details need to be worked out, I think the problem is that (like most of Edwards' schemes) he advertises it by saying "Think what we could accomplish!" like the best possible outcome of each scheme is the only possible outcome. Ideas that have a chance to make things "better" but are rife with opportunities for abuse and unintended consequences are not good ideas.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its appealing on the surface, but as JK likes to say (I think that is the correct attribution) the devil is in the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem isn't that the details need to be worked out, I think the problem is that (like most of Edwards' schemes) he advertises it by saying "Think what we could accomplish!" like the best possible outcome of each scheme is the only possible outcome. Ideas that have a chance to make things "better" but are rife with opportunities for abuse and unintended consequences are not good ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I dont think "the devil in the details" is just a statement that the details need to be worked out, but encompasses the possibility the details can never be worked out.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! You were on the verge of putting me on ignore once, I'm glad you've found something I've said interesting.