The British way with terrorists

SHEER LUCK saved large numbers of people from being killed or wounded late last week in attempted car bombings in central London and Glasgow Airport. Because detonators failed to ignite propane canisters in two parked Mercedes in London, Scotland Yard could trace numbers from mobile phones found in those cars. Yet even though British authorities had fortune on their side, their rapid and coordinated response still offers an example of how a liberal democracy can work to prevent and punish terrorism -- without operating outside the law or sacrificing individual liberties.

In the two years since bombs exploded in London's transit system, Britain has kept close watch on extremists, extradited those who are wanted for crimes committed in other countries, and explored the affiliations of individuals involved in terrorist plots.

The British approach is not without its questionable features. Under a controversial legal change instituted after the 2005 bombings, police may hold a terrorist suspect for 28 days without issuing an indictment. Such an approach is generally inconsistent with cherished American constitutional protections on the rights of the accused. Then again, the Bush administration purports to uphold such protections while countenancing indefinite detentions in Cuba, secret prisons around the world, and "extraordinary renditions" to countries that torture people. Britain, at least, is following openly enacted laws.

And unlike President Bush, Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has so far resisted any temptation to indulge in demagoguery. He said, "It is clear we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with Al Qaeda." But he also encouraged the people of the British Isles to continue "living their lives as normal."

Had all three vehicles exploded as intended, with their cargos of nails tearing through innocent victims, Brown might not have been able to maintain the same composure. And the work of the investigators would have been much more difficult. Nonetheless, there are worthwhile lessons to be learned from the British effort. In their effort to deal with terrorism, authorities can work within the law. They do not require unconstrained power.

The threat from suicidal fanatics is dreadful enough without inflating it into an unbounded long war on terrorism. It is a threat to be countered by means of sound intelligence, conventional police work, legal adaptations that do not create a law-free zone, and leadership that distinguishes law-abiding communities from the crazed Islamist ideologues that prey upon them.

Britain is fighting terrorists without branding them unlawful enemy combatants, without torturing them, and without frightening the populace with evocations of an apocalyptic war between good and evil.