U.S. Measures Anti-Terror Laws vs. Britain’s

The uncovering of an alleged bomb plot in London has focused new attention on the differences in the legal arsenals available to terrorism hunters in the U.S. and Britain.

Some Republican lawmakers contend the U.S. should emulate parts of the British model because it gives agents more flexibility in monitoring and detaining suspects. But critics say such expansive powers come at a great cost: British laws are generally considered more hostile to civil liberties, and trying to adopt such rules in the U.S. would create legal and public outcry.

While the London case has underscored the importance of efficient police work and secret surveillance, it is far from clear whether Britain’s less-restrictive laws for combating terrorism deserve the credit.

A closer look shows some similarities between the British and American rules, due in part to a series of aggressive anti-terrorism moves by the Bush administration since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The general consensus, at least initially, seems to be that many of the tools are comparable,” said an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, who is familiar with the early discussions about broadening executive powers.

The preemptive strike in London is nonetheless sparking a legal and public debate about whether lawmakers are doing all they can to equip U.S. authorities with the tools they need.

The Justice Department announced last week that it was launching a review of U.S. and British anti-terrorism laws. But some officials have downplayed the chances that the effort will lead to new legislation.

The administration’s main anti-terrorism priority in Congress is a surveillance bill that, in some ways, would give authorities more leeway than what is allowed in Britain. U.S. officials appear to be hoping that generalized concern about terrorism raised by the London case will help engender support for the legislation, which was worked out between the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

With Congress on summer recess, little is likely to happen before the fall, when a number of House and Senate committees are expected to consider what, if any, curbs should be placed on domestic surveillance.

But some lawmakers are already asking whether the United States should consider adopting at least some aspects of Britain’s counter-terrorism system. In particular, they have argued that it is too cumbersome to obtain warrants for domestic surveillance in the United States, as is currently required, through a special court established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“The British have better tools. If you want to get a warrant, all you have to do is call up a minister,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said last week. “I’m not advocating that in the United States with the FISA court or anything else, but it seems to me that they have taken actions that would really speed that along.”

News reports said British authorities received a tip that led them to the men involved in the alleged plot. Investigators then used secret surveillance, including intercepting phone calls, to obtain more information.

Bush administration officials said the British experience may contain lessons for America.

“What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who formerly headed the Justice Department’s criminal division.

But when pressed, he refused to say the law should be changed. “I don’t think there’s any specific authority I would suggest we need now,” he said Aug. 13 on ABC’s “This Week.”

Critics say the administration has not shown how the British case demonstrates a need for changing U.S. laws.

“Their legal regime [in Britain] is similar to ours,” said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer. “The government should have to bear the burden to show the need for making a change.

“In my judgment, this case cuts the other way. The powers they are requesting are irrelevant to the cracking of this case in Britain.”

When it comes to surveillance, the British laws share some basic features with those in the United States.

Investigators in Britain, like their counterparts here, may intercept phone calls and eavesdrop on private conversations, but only under what British authorities describe as a system of “strict control and oversight” that includes individual warrants.

American law also requires investigators to have a warrant before they intercept private phone calls, but administration officials have said that rule is impractical in the war on terrorism.

In December, the president confirmed he had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept, without judicial warrants, some international phone calls and e-mails of people in the U.S. Last week, a federal judge ruled that was unconstitutional and ordered the NSA to stop. Bush said Friday that he disagreed with the ruling and that the administration expected to win an appeal.

Meanwhile, Congress has been debating whether to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires officials to obtain a warrant for such interceptions. Britain tightened its surveillance laws under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

“Authority to intercept someone’s conversation -- listening to a phone conversation, reading a letter or e-mail -- requires the agreement of the secretary of State,” Britain’s Home Office says in describing its surveillance law. “The Home secretary will sign a warrant only once satisfied that it is absolutely necessary and proportionate.”

Congress is considering several bills that would permit the government to move quickly to obtain a warrant when a terrorism suspect is being pursued.

But some contend that U.S. law appears to already allow for the sort of targeted surveillance that British authorities reportedly exercised.

“They were focused on a specific set of targets who they believed were conspiring with Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated entities, which is different from the administration claim that it can just monitor anyone it wants,” said Lisa Graves, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The fact of the matter is, under current law, the president can easily get a court order to monitor any American who is conspiring with Al Qaeda, and if there is an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately.”

Another flashpoint is British authorities’ power to detain terrorism suspects for up to 28 days without charge.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that most suspects have to be charged or released within 48 hours of being detained, making such a system an apparent non-starter under U.S. law.

Asked about a more liberal detention law in an interview last week with CNN, U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said he believed there were “serious questions as to whether or not that would be constitutional.”

But the Bush administration has in a way achieved a functional equivalent through interpretations of other laws, such as those allowing for the detention of people who are material witnesses to crimes. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the government also used immigration statutes to hold terrorism suspects for months even though many were eventually released without any proof that they had posed a threat.

“The notion that we need a preventative detention law [like Britain] is a little disingenuous,” said James X. Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group. “We already act like we have one.”

Times staff writers Maura Reynolds and David G. Savage contributed to this report.