read the article first
I wonder what is the reason behind such mistakes by one of the most advanced security organisations of the world. There are two possibilities which come into my mind: one that such things are inherent in the system and the so called war against terrorism, and the other that the people running such operations are more worried about getting results to show to their boss than really curbing the problem of terrorism.
I think its a mix of both. Like one example in the article says, one person was arrested because an al Qaida operative named him out of vendetta(apparently he was the al Qaida guy's prof and didn't give him good grades). Naturally, initially the CIA would apprehend the prof guy. But it gets bad when u keep him under custody for long without any real evidence.
Its an established principle that no matter how many criminals go scotfree but law should never punish an innocent. Some trouble to the innocent is necessary - an evil necessity of today's world. But care must be taken to prevent this. The priority of catching terrorists and that of not catching innocent men should be similar.
And this can be insured only when the top level people of such an organisation took steps accordingly. We cannot expect field operatives to take care of this.
So ultimately it boils down to the decision of the policy makers. What they need to understand is that , apart from facing the immediate scenario with the correct amount of gunpower, we need to take care that the hatred which leads to terrorism is removed. We need to remove terrorism and not terrorists. After all, by troubling innocent people we are creating more negativity than any positive results we expect.
I wonder what is the reason behind such mistakes by one of the most advanced security organisations of the world. There are two possibilities which come into my mind: one that such things are inherent in the system and the so called war against terrorism, and the other that the people running such operations are more worried about getting results to show to their boss than really curbing the problem of terrorism.
I think its a mix of both. Like one example in the article says, one person was arrested because an al Qaida operative named him out of vendetta(apparently he was the al Qaida guy's prof and didn't give him good grades). Naturally, initially the CIA would apprehend the prof guy. But it gets bad when u keep him under custody for long without any real evidence.
Its an established principle that no matter how many criminals go scotfree but law should never punish an innocent. Some trouble to the innocent is necessary - an evil necessity of today's world. But care must be taken to prevent this. The priority of catching terrorists and that of not catching innocent men should be similar.
And this can be insured only when the top level people of such an organisation took steps accordingly. We cannot expect field operatives to take care of this.
So ultimately it boils down to the decision of the policy makers. What they need to understand is that , apart from facing the immediate scenario with the correct amount of gunpower, we need to take care that the hatred which leads to terrorism is removed. We need to remove terrorism and not terrorists. After all, by troubling innocent people we are creating more negativity than any positive results we expect.
