Five men have today been convicted of a bomb plot, linked to al-Qaeda, that could have killed hundreds of people in Britain. However, the failure of MI5 to follow-up on two suspects associated with the plot is also making the headlines. The reason is that these two men went on to commit an actual attack in London – on July 7th 2005.
This revelation has renewed calls for a public enquiry in to 7/7 with relatives of the dead saying that only the tip of the iceburg is currently in the public domain. Rachel from North London flagged up these developments some weeks ago and a petition calling for “full public inquiry into the London bombings of July 7 2005” is open on the Downing Street www site.
MI5 is obviously concerned about the PR implications of these revalations. Today they posted information on the links between those convicted and the 7 July bombers on their web site, together with a personal statement by the Director General, Jonathan Evans.
As one might expect, the Evans statement is very carefully crafted.
To quote: "The sense of disappointment, felt across the Service, at not being able to prevent the attack (despite our efforts to prevent all such atrocities) will always be with us. The reality is that whilst we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the UK public, we must be honest about what can and cannot be prevented in a democratic society that values its freedoms."
What does Evans mean by 'not being able to prevent', for example? Does he mean that they lacked competence or resource? My money's on the former, simply because if they were strapped for cash – and they already had some evidence, apparently – they'd just have gone to Treasury and demanded more. If Treasury failed to stump up, Evans or his predecessors would have had the ideal opportuntiny to publicly justify futher outrageous demands for money in the light of the bombings and on the basis that they'd previously asked and been refused.
When he talks about what 'can or cannot be prevented' that should be interpreted as what MI5 'can' or 'can't' do. Well Mr Evans, now's the time to tell us all, particularly in the light of today's revelations. Did the lack of funds somehow stop proper and professional action? If so, exactly how?
We now know that in Northern Ireland, terrorists who stole, mugged, horribly mutilated, killed, bombed, dealt in drugs were in the pay of and under the control of the state by and through it's secret services (FCO) and Police force(Home Office) and Army(MOD / FRU). (See Operation Ballast report and other reports from Police Ombudsman Office website). The current head of MI5 was one of those involved for years, many in a senior role in manipulating, funding, supplying, directing those terrorists, suppressing information, evidence, falsifying records and even ensuring the removal of armed military and police patrols to enable them to commit crimes. Quite where the State and it's employees fit in, in this case, it is not, at this stage possible to discern.
Why should we believe a Mr J Evans says .. incidentally as Chuckie points out it is a very carefully wordfed statement (if not grammatical) and incorporates a sly call for more resources …staff … money …"But the severity of the threat facing our country means expanding counter-terrorist operations at an unprecedented rate just to keep pace." (Why have they not learnt to start sentences /paragraphs with a conjunction ?).
Last week we had The Sphincter of the Yard getting apoplectic over the "leaking" of operational information – yet the BBC today have been re-running endlessly Peter Taylor as a trailer for tonight's Panorama Special, admitting having seen MI5 Surveillance logs and providing deatils – which will no doubt be expanded, dramatised be reconstructed telephone tapping, bugged conversations, . Who leaked that, when, and with whose authority ?
By signing the No 10 petition makes sure you get ticked off on the eendless lists of people to watch – there isn't the slightest evidence that such petitions have the slightest effect.
All we have to wait for now is Lady Dame Pauline Neville Jones to appear on Newsnight to complete the charade.
Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 barbarically sentenced to life in what must be the show trial of the century so far:
"I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:
In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.
This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.
Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."
And that's the end of the statement. Thank you."
We need to seriously consider this statement especially in the light of previous frame-ups and miscarriages of justice.
Bridget,
Certainly the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four should make us very wary. I can now reveal that I went to the Old Bailey at the request of the defence to discuss giving expert evidence in the case.
In closed session, a representative of the security services had given evidence that, in no circumstances would we accept intelligence from the Pakistanti secret services if we thought it was obtained by torture. He was simply lying, which may be a point of appeal. In the event the defence did not call me.
My own view is that there was indeed a bomb plot here, but whether all five defendants were involved is another matter. I fear some might have been unfairly dragged into the net. There are also questions to be asked about apparent agent provocateur activity by the ISI, a deeply complex organisation which contains its own jihadists, andd its own anti-jihadists, either of which groups might have felt their nterests served if an actual bomb had gone off in London.
But we should be wary of the attitude that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorist and that those convicted are always innocent. I think at least some of these were guilty, and MI5 and the police do indeed deserve a measure of congratulation.
Craig,
I know this is late, but I feel I must write. You are one of very few people of distinction who see behind the facade of official propaganda; yet you stop short of believing that those in power are absolutely corrupt.
You write: "Five men have today been convicted of a bomb plot, linked to al-Qaeda, that could have killed hundreds of people in Britain."
"linked to al-Qaeda" – that was undoubtedly the purpose of this charade, the most expensive and longest trial in Britain, to link 7/7 to al-Qaeda, all other attempts having failed. It was the longest ever jury deliberation, too; a record 27 days, and then only after having being told at 21 days that they need not return a unanimous verdict.
The star witness, Mohammed Babar, was sent over by the FBI. He confessed and agreed to come to court in the UK in exchange for a lighter sentence in the US (he faced execution in Pakistan if he did not collaborate with the FBI) and a new life afterwards for him and his family. He was given immunity from prosecution in Britain. He is a Muslim and was not asked to swear an oath on the Koran.
Four of the men were from Pakistani family backgrounds – and it was meetings in Britain over the conflict in Kashmir, a key issue for many Muslims, that led the men to become interested in the mujahideen fighters in the disputed region.
It seems likely to me that the men were approached by agents who encouraged active participation in the Kashmir conflict: that they were put under surveillance and their preparations and computer research on Kashmir and jihad, in addition to other activities or statements they had made, even been encouraged in, was used against them and selectively presented to make it appear that they were plotting against the West: and a coerced key witness was coached to stitch all the bits together for the prosecution.
I know that you have not accepted the unofficial version of 'terror' events, but I ask you to consider: if the unofficial version were correct and the authorities are creating or complicit in the atrocities, then the world is in very grave danger indeed. It is therefore extremely important that the authorities are monitored and their 'proofs' examined closely. (Where proofs are offered for examination, that is. Of course, for 'security reasons' we may not always be allowed to see the 'proof'.)
Milkmonitor,
I wasn't in the court, though I did have a partial briefing from one of the lawyers. Plainly there are aspects of the case which are very troubling. But I haven't heard a believable explanation of the fertiliser.
Craig, the fertiliser:
"Babar has immunity from prosecution in Britain after pleading guilty to terrorism offences in a New York federal court. Two of the charges relate to the fertiliser bomb plot – he confessed to obtaining ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder for use in bomb-making."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2069…
Milkmonitor,
There was evidence planily connecting at least some of the accused to a lot of fertiliser, being stored in the UK. I have yet to see a convincing explanation of why they thought they had this fertiliser.
Nobody is more sceptical of government than me, but that does not mean that I believe everybody is always innocent.
Craig,
Everybody is always innocent, of course, until proven guilty. If these men were proven guilty in a fair trial, then they must be held guilty – but the trial must be fair. Yet as you say, there are aspects of the case which are very troubling.
Given that there has been much that has troubled us over the past several years, and more keeps coming, it's worth noting this:
"What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security…
To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it – please try to believe me – unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop.
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted.'… Believe me this is true. Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow… Suddenly it all comes down, all at once… You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair."
German professor describing the arrival of Nazism in Europe to American journalist Milton Mayer.
(Taken from a comment to a Guardian article.)