WASHINGTON — 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.
