History > 2006 > UK > Terrorism    (IV-VI)

Channel tunnel is terror target


Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer
Jason Burke in Paris

The Channel tunnel has been targeted by a group of Islamic militant terrorists aiming to cause maximum carnage during the holiday season, according to French and American secret services.

The plan, which the French DGSE foreign intelligence service became aware of earlier this year, is revealed in a secret report to the French government on threat levels. The report, dated December 19, indicates that the tip-off came from the American CIA. British and French intelligence agencies have run a series of checks of the security system protecting the 31-mile tunnel but the threat level, the DGSE warns, remains high. British security services remain on high alert throughout the holiday period.

According to the French sources, the plan was put together in Pakistan and is being directed from there. The plotters are believed to be Western Europeans, possibly Britons of Pakistani descent. The DGSE say that levels of 'chatter', the constant communication that takes place between militants, has not been so high since 2001. Last week Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, described 'the threat of another terrorist attempt' as 'ever present' adding that 'Christmas is a period when that might happen'.

'It is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War,' he said. 'It's a much graver threat than that posed by Irish Republican terrorism.'

American security sources told The Observer that the threat was 'sky high'.

The news of the threat to the Channel Tunnel comes as Eurostar trains transport record numbers of passengers heading home for Christmas and as fog continues to affect flights to and from the continent.

More than 8 million passengers travelled on Eurostar trains last year. Staff on the line went on strike earlier this year in protest at what they said were lax security arrangements.

'A successful attack on such an installation would be almost as spectacular as September 11', said one terrorist expert. 'Al-Qaeda and those they inspire are trying everything from low-level strikes to major attacks on critical infrastructure.'

The DGSE report also mentions an al-Qaeda project for a 'wave of attacks in an unidentified European country planned and run from Syria and Iraq'. The period of highest risk is said to be from September 2006 to April 2007.

The detail in which the attacks have been planned in Pakistan will worry British counter-terrorist services. The UK is in a particularly vulnerable position as a result of its close alliance with America, its physical accessibility compared with the US, and its large Muslim minority, many of whom have links with Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden and other key senior al-Qaeda leaders are thought to be based in the tribal territories along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. There is believed to be a steady stream of British militants making their way to the newly reconstituted al-Qaeda bases in the region. More than 400,000 British citizens travel to Pakistan every year. Though the vast majority are visiting family or friends, some have exploited the ease of travel for darker reasons: at least two of the 7/7 bombers spent time in the south-west Asian state.

Last week news reports in America detailed a squad of a dozen English-speaking militants, nine of whom are said to be British who, having sought out the al-Qaeda bases, have now been trained to a high level in terrorist tactics. The group is known as the English Brothers because of their shared language. Apart from the nine Britons, the squad is made up of an Australian and two Norwegians. It was reported that Bin Laden and other militant leaders hope they will lead a new wave of terror attacks on the continent.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, director-general of MI5, recently disclosed that UK intelligence services are monitoring more than 200 networks and 1,600 individuals in Britain. She said that her investigators had identified nearly 30 plots 'that often have links back to al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and through those links al-Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here'.

    Channel tunnel is terror target, O, 24.12.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1978642,00.html

Police hunt for 'English brothers' who spent year in al-Qaeda camp

December 23, 2006
The Times
Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Daniel McGrory

Heathrow suspect appears in court

Security chiefs on continuing alert

Police are trying to trace a gang of British Muslims who are thought to have returned to plot terror attacks in Britain after being trained abroad for more than a year by al-Qaeda, Nine Britons, all said to be in their twenties, were among a group of 12 Western recruits groomed by al-Qaeda at a secret camp near the Afghan border to set up new terror cells in London and other Western capitals.

Police do not know the real identities of this gang, who are known as the “English brothers” because of their shared language. As well as nine Britons, they include two Norwegians and an Australian who were smuggled into the Waziristan tribal region in Pakistan in October 2005.

They are believed to have been under the command of an al-Qaeda veteran suspected of training some of the Britons accused of the alleged plot to blow up passenger planes flying to the US from Heathrow airport in the summer.

The intensive manhunt for the “English brothers” was revealed to The Times as the alleged British mastermind of the Heathrow plot spoke for the first time as he appeared yesterday in a court in Pakistan on separate charges. Outside court, he vehemently denied any role in plans to bomb up to ten transatlantic flights.

Rashid Rauf, 25, from Birmingham, had not been seen in public since his arrest in August by Pakistani intelligence chiefs, who claimed that he was the key figure in the foiled operation.

Talking to The Times inside a crowded court in Rawalpindi, Mr Rauf, who was manacled hand and foot, said of the accusations: “The charges are all fabricated. It is an injustice, there is no evidence against me.”

A tall, lean figure with a long unruly beard and his head covered by an embroidered shawl, Mr Rauf smiled when asked if he fears being returned to Britain to stand trial. Senior officials in Pakistan have told The Times that diplomatic efforts are under way to transfer Mr Rauf to Britain, where detectives want to question him about the alleged Heathrow plot and possible links to the 7/7 London suicide bombers.

A security source in Islamabad said last night that the transfer could happen “in weeks” even though there is no formal extradition treaty between the two countries. Mr Rauf, who is facing charges in Pakistan of forgery and possessing fake documents, is due back in court on January 5.

Terrorist charges against him were dropped by a judge this month and his case was transferred to another court.

There are claims that British police wanted the authorities to hold on to Mr Rauf while they prepared a case. One official in Islamabad said: “British police could not complete investigations in the 28 days they had to detain a suspect.”

Mr Rauf’s capture in the summer was believed to have triggered arrests across Britain and forced ministers to go public on claims that British-born terrorists were about to detonate liquid explosives on aircraft leaving Heathrow for US cities.

Thousands of passengers were stranded at British airports and flights grounded. Eleven men, most of Pakistani origin, have been charged in Britain with conspiracy to murder and preparing an act of terrorism. Yesterday, Mr Rauf’s lawyer, Hashmat Habib, said that the Heathrow plot was “a fake and was used [to] boost up the political position of Tony Blair and George Bush”.

British police have already said they want to interview Mr Rauf about the murder of his uncle, Mohammad Saeed, 54, who was stabbed close to his home in Alum Rock, Birmingham, in 2002. Mr Rauf denies any involvement in the killing.

Police are keen to learn whether he met two of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, who are known to have visited Pakistan shortly before they and two other British Muslims blew up three Underground trains and a bus, killing 52 people in London in July 2005.

The alert over the whereabouts of the “English brothers” came as Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, cautioned about “an unparalleled and growing threat of attack”. He said that the terrorist threat was “far graver” than any posed during the Second World War, the Cold War or IRA campaigns.

Sir Ian, speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, said that he had no specific intelligence about an imminent attack but the threat was “ever present”.

Security chiefs fear the orchestrators are likely to be British Muslims who have been given training abroad. The “English brothers”, regarded as “too valuable” to take part in suicide attacks, have slipped back to tutor homegrown recruits.

Intelligence sources in Pakistan said that the men are reported to have joined Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan in attacks on Nato troops. The sources told The Times that the “brothers” were given religious indocrination as well as lessons on how to assemble suicide bomb vests and improvised explosive devices.

The sources are reported to have been escorted to the al-Qaeda camp by Adam Gadahn, a Californian indicted by the US authorities as an al-Qaeda terrorist, who introduced the “brothers” to their tutors.

    Police hunt for 'English brothers' who spent year in al-Qaeda camp, Ts, 23.12.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2516850,00.html

MEPs condemn Britain's role in 'torture flights'

· EU states knew about rendition, says report
· Suspected detention centre in Poland named

Wednesday November 29, 2006
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor and Nicholas Watt in Brussels


Britain's role in CIA "torture flights" was roundly condemned yesterday by the European parliament in a scathing report which for the first time named the site of a suspected secret US detention centre in the EU - at Stare Kiejkuty in Poland.

It says EU governments, including the British, knew about the practice known as extraordinary rendition - secret CIA flights transferring detainees to locations where they risked being tortured - but made a concerted attempt to obstruct investigations into it.

The MEPs singled out Geoff Hoon, the minister for Europe, saying they deplored his attitude to their special committee's inquiry into the CIA flights. They expressed outrage at what they said was the view of the chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Wood, that "receiving or possessing" information extracted under torture, if there was no direct participation in the torture, was not per se banned under international law. They said Sir Michael declined to give evidence to the committee.

The report condemned the extraordinary rendition of two UK residents, Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen , and Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian citizen, seized in the Gambia in 2002. They were "turned over to US agents and flown to Afghanistan and then to Guantánamo, where they remain detained without trial or any form of judicial assistance", it said. The men's abduction was helped "by partly erroneous information" supplied by MI5. It also condemned the treatment of Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian citizen and UK resident arrested in Pakistan and at one point held in Morocco where questions "appear to have been inspired by information supplied by the UK". His lawyer has described what the report called "horrific torture".

It referred to the rendition of Martin Mubanga, a UK citizen arrested in Zambia in 2002 and flown to Guantánamo Bay. It said he was interrogated by British officials at the US detention centre in Cuba where he was held and tortured for four years and then released without trial.

It expressed "serious concern" about 170 stopovers at British airports by CIA-operated aircraft which on many occasions came from, or were bound for, countries linked with "extraordinary rendition circuits". The Guardian gave evidence to the committee on the CIA flights. The MEPs also praised help they were given by the all-party parliamentary group on rendition chaired by Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie. "Parliamentary concern about extraordinary rendition is not going to go away," Mr Tyrie said. Next week he will meet John Rockefeller, new chairman of the US Senate intelligence committee.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said: "Our government wept hot tears for torture victims in Saddam Hussein's Iraq but adamantly refuses to investigate CIA torture flights despite growing international pressure. The silence in Whitehall is damning."

Yesterday's report described in detail how CIA Gulfstream jets landed in secret at Szymany airport in Poland. There was circumstantial evidence, it said, that there may have been a secret detention centre at the nearby intelligence training centre at Stare Kiejkuty. It disclosed that records, from a confidential source, of an EU and Nato meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, last December confirmed "member states had knowledge of the [US] programme of extraordinary renditions and secret prisons".

It criticised EU officials such as foreign policy chief Javier Solana and counter-terrorism coordinator Gijs de Vries for a lack of cooperation with the inquiry, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, for declining to give evidence.

Sarah Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP and vice-chair of the European parliament's committee, said last night: "If the EU's aspirations to be a 'human rights community' have any meaning whatsoever, there must now be a forceful EU response to this strong evidence that the CIA abducted, illegally imprisoned and transported alleged terrorists in Europe while European governments, including the UK, turned a blind eye or actively colluded with the United States."

At least 1,245 CIA rendition flights used European airspace or landed at European airports, the report said. It accused the former head of Italy's Sismi intelligence service, Nicolo Pollari, of "concealing the truth" when he told the committee Italian agents played no part in the CIA kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric in 2003. It says Sismi officials had an active role in the abduction of Abu Omar, who had been "held incommunicado and tortured ever since".

The Foreign Office said last night that Mr Hoon had answered all the questions put to him. He said the government did not approve of any transfer of individuals through the UK where there were substantial grounds to believe they would face the real risk of torture.

    MEPs condemn Britain's role in 'torture flights', G, 29.11.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1959360,00.html

Terror

Watchdog warns against 'rush to judgment' on extending 28-day detention

Thursday November 16, 2006
Guardian
Alan Travis, home affairs editor

The government's anti-terror law watchdog, Lord Carlile, warned ministers yesterday not to "rush to judgment" on any decision to attempt to extend the detention without charge of terror suspects beyond the current 28 days.

As the independent reviewer of Britain's counter terror laws, the Liberal Democrat peer said he had yet to see the evidence needed to "fully support" the claim made by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, that it was "time to examine the case for longer".

His intervention underlined one of the central features of the Queen's speech, that despite the promise by Tony Blair to put counter-terrorism and security at the centre of his last legislative programme the Cabinet is still a long way from agreeing what new legislation is needed.

The point was underlined by the fact that the speech itself did not use the usual formula of promising a specific bill, but confined itself to the more vague wording that: "At the heart of my government's programme will be further action to ... address the threat of terrorism."

The Home Office said that new legislation was under consideration but it is now unlikely to emerge before the New Year and the longer it takes the less time Tony Blair will have to personally see it through parliament.

Ministers agree that at least one anti-terror bill is needed to consolidate the confusing patchwork of emergency anti-terror legislation that has been introduced every year since 9/11. The problem is that consolidating measure will by itself be one of the largest pieces of legislation parliament has been asked to approve for some time.

The cabinet is now discussing whether there should be further new measures as part of that massive bill or a separate second anti-terror bill that could severely test the patience of parliament.

The home secretary, John Reid, confirmed yesterday that he does not intend to take any final decision until key government reviews are completed.

They include:

· The cross-government review into the capacity, structures and resources of the security services to meet the terrorist threat. It will make recommendations on the future of both MI5 and MI6 and report before Christmas. The Home Office said yesterday that "if as part of the current review gaps are identified, the government will legislate to fill those gaps, taking into account lessons learned from the foiled airline plot operation last summer."

· The internal Home Office review into the admissibility of intercept - phone tap - evidence in court in terror trials. Ministers hope this long awaited study will resolve the impasse over the practical difficulties of using this type of surveillance evidence in court without disclosing to terrorists too much technical detail about its operation.

· Lord Carlile's own review into the legal definition of terrorism, which is aimed at modernising the concepts and scope of the law.

· The law lords' review of the ruling in the high court that the 18-hour curfew imposed on terror suspects on "control orders" was incompatible with human rights law.

The home secretary confirmed yesterday that, although he is pledged to ensure that "all necessary measures are in place to tackle all aspects of terrorism", the case to extend the 28 day detention has yet to be made to him.

"I have made plain that if it's put to me on the basis of factual or evidential material that there is a requirement to go beyond 28 days I would be prepared to take that back to Parliament," Mr Reid told the BBC.

"If such a case is made to me, I will reveal it and take it to parliament."

Main points

Terror bill: possible measures:

· Consolidate all emergency terror laws passed since 2000

· Extend detention without charge

· Allow phone-tap and other intercept evidence in terror trials

· Shake-up MI5 and MI6 to meet the new terror threat

· Reform control-order regime after high court ruled 18-hour curfew breached human rights

· Ban on burning of flags or effigies and the covering of faces at protests

· Allow suspects who have been charged with terrorism to be questioned if new evidence emerges

· Reform laws to allow reporting of linked terrorist trials

    Watchdog warns against 'rush to judgment' on extending 28-day detention, G, 16.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/queensspeech2006/story/0,,1948847,00.html

Even in a time of terror, our liberties must be preserved

How far we are prepared to go to curb the threat of radical Islam must be vigorously debated, especially by Muslims

Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer
Henry Porter

It is plain that the two great menaces to liberal democracy are Islamist fascism - I use that word without worry - and the reaction to that threat from either those who exploit it to reduce personal liberty or those too blinded by panic to consider the qualities that liberal democracy must retain in order to survive.

But Dame Eliza Manningham Buller's speech to a conference at Queen Mary College, London, cannot be ignored. We have to acknowledge the threat that radicalised Muslims present and accept that this not a scare story whipped up by MI5 to argue for more funds or tougher legislation. The director general of MI5 was quite simply placing the information in the public domain. That her address was made a few days before a Queen's Speech which promises to be packed with legislation to deal with terror and organised crime, that Tony Blair and John Reid are on the stump warning of the same things and that one or two feather-brained columnists have fallen in step with the anti-libertarian view does nothing to undermine what she said.

Thirty plots are being investigated involving 200 cells; there is an 80 per cent rise in MI5 casework since January; clear evidence exists that schools are being used to radicalise children and to recruit them; and support for the 7/7 bombers may be as high as 100,000 Muslims. If only half of this is true, it would be enough for us to say that the Islamist threat is a problem that colours all British society and affects nearly every area of policy-making.

There is no other country in the Western alliance that now faces such a determined challenge from within its own borders, from men and women who were born here and are now possessed by a pathological strain of Islam whose only purpose and chief expression is united in mass homicide. This death cult is as alien to British culture as Mayan sacrifice, but it is something we have to deal with and liberals must accept that there is no other sensible account of how things stand.

Faced with such irrationality, the temptations to become semi-rational are many. For instance, in response to 9/11, the planning and execution of the war in Iraq, though flying under the colours of a campaign of liberation, were not rational. The perfervid romantic mission of the neoconservative camp, with its visions of highly mobile armies bringing democracy and civilisation in less time than it takes to make a Hollywood film, was not rational. That madness has been exposed. Within the last week, the neocon case has all but collapsed, leaving a fair amount of wreckage in its path and an American presidency momentarily stripped of any coherent drive or strategy.

The temptation to become irrational in the fight against home-grown terrorism in Britain is equally dangerous. It's easy for politicians and their friends in the tabloid press to scream for ID cards and every possible form of mass surveillance without having to account for the effectiveness of such measures in the fight against terrorism. It is easy for the same people to avert their eyes to the internment and torture that have taken place since 9/11 and to mumble that the greater good is probably being served somehow. They are guilty of careless, impatient utopianism which is not so distant from the neoconservative position - one more push, one more law, one more restriction and we're in the promised land of total order.

It is doubtful whether this approach will do much to defeat terrorism, but it will certainly compromise the essential character of our society and that is important, because we stand for something that is greater than the threat we face. Liberals may have a hard time clinging on to these ideals through what is promised by the head of MI5 to be a long war which could last a generation. 'It is,' she said, 'a sustained campaign, not a series of isolated incidents. It aims to wear down our will to resist.'

Incidentally, if that last sentence is true, it is a grave underestimate of the martial character which lies just beneath the surface of this nation. But the main point is that we have to conceive a strategy for the long campaign, which balances rights with an effective defence against terrorism; in other words, a settled vision that would be constantly scrutinised and overseen, not by government groupies in the press, but by Parliament. And this strategy must include Muslims.

Isaiah Berlin once described liberals as people 'who want to curb authority' while the rest 'want to place it in their own hands'. The question is how much authority is placed at the disposal of men like John Reid without constant scrutiny. Are we to have blanket surveillance of every person in this country, their movements, spending habits and communications, on the off chance that one of these young men will be snared, or is this an excuse for the extension of state powers? My firm belief is that the gradual reduction of everyone's liberties is an irrational, if not a cynical, response to the threat we face.

But it is difficult to deny that the threat posed by someone like Dhiren Barot, who was sentenced to 40 years last week for horrific plans to maim and kill his fellow citizens. He was caught through excellent intelligence work which may have drawn on interviews at Guantanamo and may at a distant remove have involved coercive interrogation, if not outright torture. Where does that leave the liberal? Would we each rather be party, however remotely, to torture and so save Britons travelling to work from another 7 July or do we stick to our principles and forgo the crucial intelligence? The answer is simple. We must adhere to international law on the treatment of suspects and prisoners and it is not for us to break universal conventions on their rights. They were put in place precisely because of such dilemmas.

The striking part of Dame Eliza's speech was the lack of prescription. She simply laid out the facts, as the security service sees them, and invited debate. It is essential to have that debate, particularly for Muslims. If there are, indeed, 100,000 Muslims who cannot see the wrong of 7 July, then we are in trouble. The only people who can change this are Muslims, but there is no obvious effort to address the problem from within. The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, couldn't have been more bald about the Muslim community last week. 'Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims ... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists.'

If the perpetrators of these outrages are Muslim - sometimes rather well-to-do Muslims, it seems - and the members of the 200- odd cells that MI5 is investigating are Muslim, it is not good enough for Muslims to fall back on bristling victimhood. To the rest of us, it simply seems nonsensical that a community which is the source of such a great menace, and which has offered support to it, can at the same time claim persecution. We need leadership from British Muslims and a contract between their community and the vast majority, in which the same ideals of peace, law and order are agreed upon without reference to religious needs. For this is not a religious matter; it is about law and order in a secular society.

Is this illiberal? No, and nor is the concern that Islamic faith schools are being used to distance a generation of young people from the values of the surrounding society, to say nothing about the recruitment that was described by the head of MI5. These schools are undesirable in the extreme and steps should be taken to end the separate development that they posit. But the government would rather reduce all liberties than be seen to target a minority.

They forget that one of the values of liberal democracy is discretion - the ability to concentrate the power of the state on a problem and make the distinction between those who are likely to break the law and those who aren't.

    Even in a time of terror, our liberties must be preserved, O, 12.11.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1945859,00.html

The al-Qaeda challenge

What motivates young Britons to embrace Islamist extremism?

November 10, 2006
The Times

It is, as she acknowledged, rare for the head of MI5, the Security Service, to speak out in public. What Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said yesterday on the threat from al-Qaeda in Britain also had to wait until after the trial of Dhiren Barot. But her assessment is as compelling as it is alarming. Since the suicide attacks in London, M15 has thwarted five major conspiracies in Britain. Last month a total of 99 defendants were awaiting trial in 34 cases. The Security Service is investigating about 200 extremist groups or networks, totalling 1,600 individuals — as well as many who are unknown — who are believed to be engaged in plotting terrorist acts here and abroad.

The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world. Polls say that up to 100,000 British citizens consider that the London attacks were justified. More people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism, radicalised by friends, families, in organised training events, by images on television, and in chat rooms and websites on the internet. And al-Qaeda is quick to take advantage, admitting that half its war is waged through the media.

How to confront this unprece- dented challenge to security must now be the priority not just for MI5 and the Government, but for employers, schools, faith leaders and the Muslim community itself. The Security Service has had to move fast. Its caseload has gone up 80 per cent since January. A 2,800-strong workforce has had an increase of almost 50 per cent since 9/11, a quarter of them under 30 — but only 6 per cent from ethnic minorities, a figure which will need to rise substantially given the need for special language abilities. The budget may need further increases. But recent proposals to create a more streamlined anti-terror organisation, similar to the US Department of Homeland Security, will help.

As important, however, is a better understanding of the causes of extremism. Dame Eliza mentioned a few, and rightly underlined that British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is indeed, despite official attempts to play this down, seen by many as anti-Muslim. She also identified the pernicious influence of a few preachers and people of influence promoting an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam. But other factors must be acknowledged. One is the heterogeneous nature of Islam in Britain, where adherents come from many different countries, traditions, sects and ethnic groups. In the absence of any religious hierarchy, primacy is achieved by a national profile that depends on how zealously and noisily Islamic credentials can be established. There are no rewards for moderation, seen often as compromise with the Establishment and secular society.

Another clear motivation is the alienation of young Muslims — low educational and economic achievement, a sense of exclusion and a growing generation gap. But the recent torrent of criticism of Islam, some of it provocative and distorted, has heightened fears and a sense of persecution. That must not mean silence on difficult issues of public concern, such as Jack Straw’s remarks on the veil. It does make more urgent the need for constant engagement, at all levels, in building bridges, seeking shared values and countering extremism. Otherwise, as Dame Eliza said, al-Qaeda will recruit here for years to come.

    What motivates young Britons to embrace Islamist extremism?, Ts, 10.11.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2445752,00.html

11am

Blair backs MI5 terror warning

Friday November 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Tony Blair today backed the assessment of the head of MI5 that the "very real" threat from terrorism would last a generation.

In a rare public speech yesterday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director general of the intelligence agency, expressed concern at the rate at which young people, including teenagers, were being radicalised and indoctrinated.

She said MI5 was tracking more than 1,600 individuals who were actively engaged in promoting attacks here and abroad. Many of these were British-born and had connections with al-Qaida, she said.

Responding to her comments that the threat would "be with us for a generation", the prime minister said today Britain faced a "long and deep struggle" to combat the danger posed by terrorism.

Echoing yesterday's speech by the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, he said it was important to "stand up and be counted", and to tackle the "poisonous propaganda" that warped young people's minds.

He said: "I have been saying for several years this terror threat is very real. It has been building up over a long period of time."

Mr Blair, who was speaking during a Downing Street press conference after a meeting with the New Zealand prime minister, Helen Clark, added: "I think [Dame Eliza is] absolutely right that it will last a generation.

"We need to combat the poisonous propaganda of those people that warps and perverts the minds of younger people.

"It's a very long and deep struggle, but we have to stand up and be counted for what we believe in and take the fight to those people who want to entice young people into something wicked and violent but utterly futile."

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said Dame Eliza had given "a very sobering warning".

But he said it was essential that British Muslims were seen as "a partner in the fight against terrorism and not some sort of community in need of mass medication".

"Holding a community responsible for the actions of a few would be counterproductive," he added.

He said that after the bombings and this week's conviction of Dhiren Barot for plotting terrorist attacks, "It must be prudent to assume there are cells out there plotting similar outrages."

But he repeated calls for a public inquiry into the July 7 attacks, saying this would be an "essential tool" in understanding how four young people had been radicalised into committing mass murder.

Ihtisham Hibatullah, of the British Muslim Initiative, said he was concerned that Muslim communities as a whole would be stigmatised by the claim that 200 groups were involved in plotting.

And Bill Durodie, a senior lecturer in risk and security at the Defence Academy, warned that high-profile speeches risked exaggerating the scale of the threat facing Britain.

"It's easy to pull out alarmist headlines," he said. "What we're seeing here on the whole are lone individuals [and] small groups."

    Blair backs MI5 terror warning, G, 10.11.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1944679,00.html

Blair backs MI5 chief over terror warning

November 10, 2006
Times Online
By Philippe Naughton, and Michael Evans of The Times

Tony Blair has given his backing to the head of MI5 for her unprecedented public warning about the scale of the terrorist challenge facing UK security agencies.

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the MI5 Director-General, said yesterday that hundreds of young British Muslims are being radicalised, groomed and set on a path to mass murder.

She also revealed that the Security Service’s caseload had risen by 80 per cent since January and now involved about 30 "Priority 1" plots. It has identified 200 terrorist networks involving at least 1,600 people, many under the direct control of al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

"More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas," she said. "Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers."

Reacting to her comments, the Prime Minister said today: "I’ve been saying for several years that this terrorist threat is very real, it’s been building up over a long period of time.

"This is a threat that has grown up over a generation. I think she (Dame Eliza) is absolutely right in saying that it will last a generation."

Speaking at No 10 Downing Street after a meeting with Helen Clark, his New Zealand counterpart, Mr Blair described terror as a global problem that should be tackled both by tougher laws and by countering the propaganda of those who "warp and pervert" the minds of young people.

"The values that we have and hold dear in this country - that are about democracy, tolerance, liberty and respect for people of other faiths - are the values that will defeat those values of hatred and division and sectarianism," he said.

"It’s a very long and deep struggle this, here and right round the world, but we’ve got to stand up and be counted for what we believe in."

In an address to an audience from the Mile End Group run by Peter Hennessy, Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary, University of London, Dame Eliza said that she was alarmed by the "scale and speed" of the radicalisation. Security sources said later that process had intensified since the 7/7 bombings.

"It is the youth who are being actively targeted, groomed, radicalised and set on a path that frighteningly quickly could end in their involvement in mass murder of their fellow citizens, or their early death in a suicide attack or on a foreign battlefield," she said.

"Killing oneself and others in response is an attractive option for some citizens of this country and others around the world. [The] threat is serious, is growing and will, I believe, be with us for a generation. It is a sustained campaign, not a series of isolated incidents. It aims to wear down our will to resist."

Dame Eliza admitted that, despite a major recruitment drive, just 6 per cent of MI5’s staff came from ethnic minorities. This compares with 8 per cent in the Metropolitan Police. Security sources insisted that change was happening and, of 400 people recruited this year, 14 per cent were from ethnic minority groups.

The MI5 chief timed her stark assessment to coincide with the conviction of Dhiren Barot, the al-Qaeda planner who was jailed for 40 years this week for plotting car bomb and dirty bombs attacks in London.

In her speech she said the methods used by terrorists had become more sophisticated.

"Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices," she said. "Tomorrow’s threat may, and I suggest will, include the use of chemical, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," she said.

Her assessment of 30 Priority 1 plots is a significant increase on the 24 "major conspiracies" referred to by John Reid, the Home Secretary, in August.

Both police and security sources have given warning that Britain has become the No 1 target for al-Qaeda.

The significant Muslim population and the constant flow of British-born Pakistanis visiting their families in Pakistan every year have been cited as providing al-Qaeda with opportunities for converting young people to terrorism.

"My officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1,600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don’t know) who are actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas," Dame Eliza said.

Those terror networks "often have links back to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and, through those links, al-Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale".

The head of MI5’s speech, which was approved by ministers, comes after recent warnings given by Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command, and by Mr Reid. They both said that the terrorist threat would be long and enduring.

    Blair backs MI5 chief over terror warning, Ts, 10.11.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2447670,00.html

Terrorist threat to UK - MI5 chief's full speech

November 10, 2006
Times Online

Following is the full text of a speech delivered on November 9, 2006 by Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director-General of MI5, on the terrorist threat facing the UK:

The International Terrorist Threat to the UK

I have been Director General of the Security Service/M15 since 2002. Before that I was Deputy Director General for five years. During that time, and before, I have witnessed a steady increase in the terrorist threat to the UK. It has been the subject of much comment and controversy. I rarely speak in public. I prefer to avoid the limelight and get on with my job. But today, I want to set out my views on:

the realities of the terrorist threat facing the UK in 2006;
what motivates those who pose that threat

and what my Service is doing, with others, to counter it.
I speak not as a politician, nor as a pundit, but as someone who has been an intelligence professional for 32 years.

2. Five years on from 9/11, where are we? Speaking in August, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Metropolitan Police, described the threat to the UK from Al-Qaida-related terrorism as ‘real, here, deadly and enduring”. Only last week the Home Secretary said the threat will be “enduring — the struggle will be long and wide and deep.” Let me describe more fully why I think they said that. We now know that the first Al-Qaida-related plot against the UK was the one we discovered and disrupted in November 2000 in Birmingham. A British citizen is currently serving a long prison sentence for plotting to detonate a large bomb in the UK. Let there be no doubt about this: the international terrorist threat to this country is not new. It began before Iraq, before Afghanistan, and before 9/11.

3. In the years after 9/11, with atrocities taking place in Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Istanbul and elsewhere, terrorists plotted to mount a string of attacks in the UK, but were disrupted. This run of domestic success was interrupted tragically in London in July 2005. Since then, the combined efforts of my Service, the police, SIS and GCHQ have thwarted a further five major conspiracies in the UK, saving many hundreds (possibly even thousands) of lives. Last month the Lord Chancellor said that there were a total of 99 defendants awaiting trial in 34 cases. Of course the presumption of innocence applies and the law dictates that nothing must be said or done which might prejudice the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial. You will understand therefore that I can say no more on these matters.

4. What I can say is that today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don’t know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas. The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world. This view is shared, in some degree, by a far wider constituency. If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July 2005 are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July 2005 attacks in London were justified. What we see at the extreme end of the spectrum are resilient networks, some directed from Al-Qaida in Pakistan, some more loosely inspired by it, planning attacks including mass casualty suicide attacks in the UK. Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices; tomorrow’s threat may include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology. More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas, by images on television, through chat rooms and websites on the Internet.

5. The propaganda machine is sophisticated and Al-Qaida itself says that 50% of its war is conducted through the media. In Iraq, attacks are regularly videoed and the footage downloaded onto the internet within 30 minutes. Virtual media teams then edit the result, translate it into English and many other languages, and package it for a worldwide audience. And, chillingly, we see the results here. Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers. We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer……. thirty that we know of. These plots often have links back to Al-Qaida in Pakistan and through those links Al-Qaida gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale. And it is not just the UK of course. Other countries also face a new terrorist threat: from Spain to France to Canada and Germany.

6. A word on proportionality. My Service and the police have occasionally been accused of hype and lack of perspective or worse, of deliberately stirring up fear. It is difficult to argue that there are not worse problems facing us, for example climate change... and of course far more people are killed each year on the roads than die through terrorism. It is understandable that people are reluctant to accept assertions that do not always appear to be substantiated. It is right to be sceptical about intelligence. I shall say more about that later. But just consider this. A terrorist spectacular would cost potentially thousands of lives and do major damage to the world economy. Imagine if a plot to bring down several passenger aircraft succeeded. Thousands dead, major economic damage, disruption across the globe. And Al-Qaida is an organisation without restraint.

7. There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My Service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaida has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended. This is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the globe, presenting the West’s response to varied and complex issues, from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. Afghanistan, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and Lebanon are regularly cited by those who advocate terrorist violence as illustrating what they allege is Western hostility to Islam.

8. The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by:

perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims;

an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence;

their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Killing oneself and others in response is an attractive option for some citizens of this country and others around the world.

What Intelligence can do

9. As I said earlier, I have been an intelligence officer for some 32 years. And I want again to describe what intelligence is and is not. I wish life were like ‘Spooks’, where everything is (a) knowable, and (b) soluble by six people. But those whose plans we wish to detect in advance are determined to conceal from us what they intend to do. And every day they learn. From the mistakes of others. From what they discover of our capabilities from evidence presented in court, and from leaks to the media. Moreover intelligence is usually bitty and needs piecing together, assessing, judging. It takes objectivity, integrity and a sceptical eye to make good use of intelligence: even the best of it never tells the whole story. On the basis of such incomplete information, my Service and the police make decisions on when and how to take action, to protect public safety. Wherever possible we seek to collect evidence sufficient to secure prosecutions, but it is not always possible to do so: admissible evidence is not always available and the courts, rightly, look for a high standard of certainty. Often to protect public safety the police need to disrupt plots on the basis of intelligence but before evidence sufficient to bring criminal charges has been collected. Moreover we are faced by acute and very difficult choices of prioritisation. We cannot focus on everything so we have to decide on a daily basis with the police and others where to focus our energies, whom to follow, whose telephone lines need listening to, which seized media needs to go to the top of the analytic pile. Because of the sheer scale of what we face (80% increase in casework since January), the task is daunting. We won’t always make the right choices. And we recognise we shall have scarce sympathy if we are unable to prevent one of our targets committing an atrocity.

And the Service?

10. As I speak my staff, roughly 2,800 of them, (an increase of almost 50% since 9/11, 25% under 30, over 6% from ethnic minorities, with 52 languages, with links to well over 100 services worldwide), are working very hard, at some cost to their private lives and in some cases their safety, to do their utmost to collect the intelligence we need. The first challenge is to find those who would cause us harm, among the 60 million or so people who live here and the hundreds of thousands who visit each year. That is no easy task, particularly given the scale and speed of radicalisation and the age of some being radicalised. The next stage is to decide what action to take in response to that intelligence. Who are merely talking big, and who have real ambitions? Who have genuine aspirations to commit terrorism, but lack the know-how or materials? Who are the skilled and trained ones, who the amateurs? Where should we and the police focus our finite resources? It’s a hard grind but my staff are highly motivated: conscious of the risks they carry individually; and aware that they may not be able to do enough to stop the next attack. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude and I thank them. On July 8 last year I spoke to all my staff. I said that what we feared would happen had finally happened. I reminded them that we had warned that it was a matter of when, not if, and that they were trained to respond — indeed many had been up all night, from the intelligence staff to the catering staff. I told them that we had received many messages of support from around the world, and that we, along with our colleagues in the police and emergency services, were in the privileged position of being able to make a difference. And we did. And we have done so since.

11. My Service is growing very rapidly. By 2008 it will be twice the size it was at 9/11. We know much more than we did then. We have developed new techniques, new sources, new relationships. We understand much better the scale and nature of what we are tackling but much is still obscure and radicalisation continues. Moreover, even with such rapid growth, we shall not be able to investigate nearly enough of the problem, so the prioritisation I mentioned earlier will remain essential but risky. And new intelligence officers need to be trained. That takes time as does the acquisition of experience, the experience that helps one with those difficult choices and tough judgements.

What else can others do?

12. That brings me on to my final point. None of this can be tackled by my Service alone. Others have to address the causes, counter the radicalisation, assist in the rehabilitation of those affected, and work to protect our way of life. We have key partners, the police being the main ones and I’d like today to applaud those police officers working alongside us on this huge challenge, those who collect intelligence beside us, help convert it into evidence for court, and face the dangers of arresting individuals who have no concern for their own lives or the lives of others. The scale and seriousness of the threat means that others play vital roles, SIS and GCHQ collecting key intelligence overseas, other services internationally who recognise the global nature of the problem, government departments, business and the public.

13. Safety for us all means working together to protect those we care about, being alert to the danger without over-reacting, and reporting concerns. We need to be alert to attempts to radicalise and indoctrinate our youth and to seek to counter it. Radicalising elements within communities are trying to exploit grievances for terrorist purposes; it is the youth who are being actively targeted, groomed, radicalised and set on a path that frighteningly quickly could end in their involvement in mass murder of their fellow UK citizens, or their early death in a suicide attack or on a foreign battlefield.

14. We also need to understand some of the differences between non-Western and Western life-styles; and not treat people with suspicion because of their religion, or indeed to confuse fundamentalism with terrorism. We must realise that there are significant differences between faiths and communities within our society, and most people, from whatever origin, condemn all acts of terror in the UK. And we must focus on those values that we all share in this country regardless of our background: Equality, Freedom, Justice and Tolerance. Many people are working for and with us to address the threat precisely for those reasons. Because: All of us, whatever our ethnicity and faith, are the targets of the terrorists.

15. I have spoken as an intelligence professional, describing the reality of terrorism and counter-terrorism in the UK in 2006. My messages are sober ones. I do not speak in this way to alarm (nor as the cynics might claim to enhance the reputation of my organisation) but to give the most frank account I can of the Al-Qaida threat to the UK. That threat is serious, is growing and will, I believe, be with ç us for a generation. It is a sustained campaign, not a series of isolated incidents, It aims to wear down our will to resist.

16. My Service is dedicated to tackling the deadly manifestations of terrorism. Tackling its roots is the work of us all.

    Terrorist threat to UK - MI5 chief's full speech, Ts, 10.11.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2447690,00.html

Britain now No 1 al-Qaida target - anti-terror chiefs

Officials say group sees July 7 attacks as 'just the beginning' of UK campaign

Thursday October 19, 2006
Guardian
Rosie Cowan and Richard Norton-Taylor

Britain has become the main target for a resurgent al-Qaida, which has successfully regrouped and now presents a greater threat than ever before, according to counter-terrorist officials. They have revised their views about the strength of the network abroad, and the methods terrorists are able to use in the UK.

Intelligence chiefs with access to the most comprehensive and up to date information have told the Guardian that al-Qaida has substantially recovered its organisation in Pakistan, despite a four-year military campaign to seek out and kill its leaders. In that time, the organisation has become much more coherent, with a strong core and a regular supply of volunteers.

More worrying, officials say, is evidence of new techniques that would-be terrorists within the UK have adopted. The structure of individual al-Qaida-inspired groups is much more like the old Provisional IRA cells, with self-contained units comprising a lead organiser/planner, a quartermaster in charge of weapons and explosives acquisition and training, and several volunteers.

Officials describe these groups as "multi-tasking" - involved in fraud and fundraising and courier work as well as planning attacks. "There is a hierarchy within each cell with a very tightly run command and control," said one counter-terrorism source.

Many suspects appear to be aware they are under surveillance and have taken to having important conversations outside - in parks and other public spaces - similar to the tactics used by PIRA leaders during the Troubles.

Intelligence experts fear the UK is a target as never before, with extremists intent on carrying out a huge spectacular, on the scale of the US atrocities in 2001.

"They viewed 7/7 as just the beginning," said one senior source. "Al-Qaida sees the UK as a massive opportunity to cause loss of life and embarrassment to the authorities." A second source agreed: "Britain is sitting at the receiving end of an al-Qaida campaign."

Britain is an easier target, they have concluded, because of its traditional links with Pakistan which is visited by tens of thousands of people each year. Intelligence agencies have found it very difficult to penetrate the camps there.

Previously, security chiefs described the UK terrorist threat as comprising small groups which shared the same basic jihadi philosophy but lacked structure and were largely self-taught. Now, intelligence suggests a much more hierarchical system, with a far greater degree of organisation and inter-linkage, and sophisticated methods of recruitment, training and planning attacks.

However, core al-Qaida figures in Pakistan and their emissaries to Europe are still happy to delegate initiatives to different cells. The cells, intelligence shows, have different approaches - some might discuss a method of attack before talking about a target, while others discuss a potential target first.

Potential new recruits are carefully selected and targeted - mainly Muslim men in their late teens and early 20s - with recruiters often shunning the more obvious recruiting grounds of mosques and Islamic bookshops.

These young men are then put through a psychologically compelling indoctrination of weekend and evening briefings which start with legitimate religious lectures and prayer, but move gradually to more radical teachings and political discussions about the position of Islam in relation to the western world.

"It's all about building up these recruits to consider themselves as Muslim 'patriots' and encouraging them to make the leap and ask themselves 'This is how the west treats Muslims, what are we going to do about it?'" said one source.

The next stage often involves technical instruction in bomb-making, and during this phase, the recruiters do their best to engender a sense of brotherhood and bonding, sometimes putting recruits through bizarre initiation rites, such as staying out all night in remote areas in bad weather to prove their macho credentials and that they will not let their comrades down.

From this, the cells will move into latter-stage preparations, making martyrdom videos and shaving all their body hair off in readiness for an imminent suicide attack.

Even though the police and M15 have disrupted terror plots and groups influenced by al-Qaida, they describe the networks as very resilient.

They say there is a frightening number of young men willing to step up and replace those who have been arrested or gone to ground.

"It's like the old game of Space Invaders," said one senior counter-terrorism source. "When you clear one screen of potential attackers, another simply appears to take its place."

    Britain now No 1 al-Qaida target - anti-terror chiefs, G, 19.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1925698,00.html

Blunder over terror suspect's disappearance before police arrived to serve control order

· Missing man legally free of curbs, Home Office admits
· Details not revealed to MPs in written statement

Wednesday October 18, 2006
Guardian
Vikram Dodd and Will Woodward

The government has been accused of fresh blunders over the disappearance of two terror suspects, after it emerged that one of the men disappeared before police had served him with a control order.

The man, who the government says is Iraqi, is suspected of being part of a terror cell. He should have had restrictions on his movement renewed on August 1 when a previous order ended, but police did not get to him in time, the Guardian learned.

The revelation adds to the government's embarrassment over the control orders after it was confirmed this week that the authorities have no idea of the whereabouts of the two men, said by the government to be dangerous.

One of the two, a British citizen, escaped two weeks ago from a secure psychiatric unit. But the foreign national has not been seen since August. Police failed to physically hand him the control order, as required by law. That means he is legally not subject to any restrictions, officials admitted last night.

The opposition said the revelation was further evidence of government incompetence. Yesterday Tony Blair defended the government's record on control orders amid signs that ministers may use the row to seek tougher powers.

In a second controversy, the security minister was accused of keeping news of the disappearance of the foreign national from MPs in a written statement he made to them six weeks after the authorities lost track of him.

The man had been under a control order, but that was quashed by the court of appeal at 4.30pm on August 1, with immediate effect. Three senior judges upheld an earlier court ruling in April striking down the control order regime.

According to sources with knowledge of the case, police found the man missing from his Manchester home when they went round to serve him with the new order. The Home Office says police went "at the earliest opportunity", but he had already disappeared.

The security services claim the man was part of an Iraqi terror cell. He claims to be Iranian.

Last night David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, said the man's disappearance was another example of Home Office incompetence: "You would have thought they would have foreseen this. They were warned enough times they could lose, and they ought to have considered what they needed to do to keep track of people they said were terrorists who were a danger to the public. It's an act of incompetence."

Last night the Home Office said the man, who cannot be named and is known as LL, could not be prosecuted for what they claim is his breaching of the first control order against him. A spokeswoman said: "Both individuals absconded from the control orders that were in force against them at the time that they absconded. Only one of those control orders is still in force - but both individuals breached their control orders. The police and CPS cannot prosecute LL for breach because the original control order in question was quashed by the court of appeal."

The row blew up on Monday after it emerged that the British man had escaped from a psychiatric secure unit a fortnight ago. It later emerged that the Home Office minister Tony McNulty had made no mention of the Iraqi's disappearance in a written answer to MPs on September 11 updating them on the use of control order powers. The Home Office said the statement was intended to update merely on how many control orders had been issued.

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "It adds insult to injury. For a government concerned about public relations it isn't good enough to duck any meaningful scrutiny when the going gets tough. It's hardly an example of new leadership if they choose to play dumb on an issue of great concern to the public."

Yesterday, at a press conference in Downing Street, Mr Blair brushed off the claim that the control orders fiasco showed that John Reid was losing control of the Home Office. "We, of course, wanted far tougher laws against terrorism. We were prevented by the opposition in parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that that was done. Of course, we will do everything we can to make sure that control orders - which are not the same as house arrest, which we have tremendous difficulties with; which are not the same as detention, which is what we originally wanted - of course they are not as effective.

"I think people have got to be careful of forgetting completely the history of this. I wanted to make sure that the original anti-terrorist legislation was maintained in full. Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention. But of course if someone breaches their control order, then they are properly sought after, and that is a job for the police.

"The reason it's difficult is that the legislation we have in place and we wanted to maintain was then overturned. Some of the same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to continue with this."

    Blunder over terror suspect's disappearance before police arrived to serve control order, G, 18.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1924833,00.html

4.15pm

PM hits back over escaped suspects

Tuesday October 17, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Tony Blair today threw back criticism of the escape of two terror suspects being held under control orders - pointing out that opposition parties and law courts had opposed the "much tougher" restrictions originally put forward by the government.

With pressure growing on the home secretary, John Reid, to offer an explanation as to how and when the escapes were made, the prime minister said the compromise control orders would never be as effective as detention.

But - speaking at his monthly press conference - Mr Blair confirmed the two men were being sought by the police after breaching their control orders.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has demanded Mr Reid come to the Commons and explain the disappearances.

Mr Davis also all but accused the home secretary of misleading the house by not mentioning the abscontions earlier.

Referring to a previous statement on control orders on September 11 - when one of the men had already escaped - Mr Davis told the Speaker of the Commons there had been "no mention of a breach of the orders, no mention of an escapee, no mention of the risk to the public."

He added: "I am sure that the home secretary would not wish it to be thought that he had in any way misled the house, and would seek to correct any misunderstanding immediately."

In the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks the government initially legislated for the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects - something the law lords later ruled unlawful, as it discriminated between UK and foreign terror suspects.

After marathon sittings of the Commons and Lords, the government eventually got through compromise legislation allowing for control orders to be placed on suspects, tagging them, limiting their visitors, and putting curfews on them leaving their homes.

Mr Blair today defended the government's original intentions, saying: "Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention.

"But of course, we've got to make sure that if someone breaches their control order, then they're properly sought-after and we will do that and that's a job for the police," he added.

"We wanted far tougher laws against terrorism, we were prevented by the opposition in parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that was done," he said.

"Some of the self-same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to detain these people," he said.

A major police investigation is ongoing after the men's disappearance, with ports and airports on watch to prevent them leaving the country.

One man is believed to have absconded through the window of a secure mental unit.

The British suspect is accused of wanting to go to Iraq to fight. He had been subject to a control order since March.

The second man is thought to have been missing for some months.

Mr Davis has described the escapes as "extraordinary".

He said the government had been warned about weaknesses in the operation of the orders, adding: "It's more than an embarrassment. These are people they describe as being a danger to the public."

Nick Clegg, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, said control orders did not work.

"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?

"On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial."

    PM hits back over escaped suspects, G, 17.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1924518,00.html

Control orders failure as terror suspects flee

· Control orders failure as terror suspects flee
· Embarrassment for ministers over disappearance of two 'dangerous' men

Tuesday October 17, 2006
Guardian
Vikram Dodd and Will Woodward

Two alleged terrorism suspects - said by the government to be so dangerous they had to be subjected to highly restrictive control orders - are on the run, with the authorities clueless as to their whereabouts, it emerged last night.
One of the men, an Iraqi, went missing at least two months ago when he went on the run after outwitting counter-terrorism officials. Last night neither

Scotland Yard nor the Home Office would explain why the public were not told until yesterday that a man who the authorities had previously claimed to be so dangerous that his liberty had to be severely curtailed without charge or trial was on the loose .

The other man, a British citizen, escaped two weeks ago from a supposedly secure psychiatric unit in London. He had been sent there after having a nervous breakdown. He is alleged to have been a member of a cell in the UK with links to al-Qaida. Sources with knowledge of the case say the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, climbed out of a window at about 10.30pm and that the police and security services have no idea whether he is still in Britain or has fled abroad.

A counter-terrorism official said last night: "This man is still believed to pose a danger of involvement in terrorist attacks within the UK."

The Home Office did not release details of either disappearance at the time. Officials admitted the news yesterday after details of the security breaches were disclosed to the media. The admission means that two out of the 15 Muslim men under the tough control order regime have managed to give the authorities the slip.

The news is embarrassing for the government and particularly the home secretary, John Reid. He took over the department in May, amid the scandal over foreign prisoners being released from jail without being considered for deportation. He declared then that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose" and promised root-and-branch reform. He has fiercely defended the control order regime.

Last night policing minister Tony McNulty said the government had not revealed details of the escapes because anti-terrorism legislation prevents the suspects' identities from being revealed. He also rejected concerns that both men posed a danger to the public, or could mount a terrorist attack against Britain.

"People who needed to know, in the context of public safety, did know," McNulty told the BBC's Newsnight.

The man who escaped from the West Middlesex secure psychiatric unit was alleged to have been part of a cell of Britons planning to travel to Iraq to attack coalition forces, anti-terrorist officials believe. He had been held in Pakistan for several months where he claimed he was tortured repeatedly. Originally from west London, he returned to Britain only to be served with a control order in April 2006.

Friends and supporters last night said he had been harassed by police and became so ill he was placed in the psychiatric unit in the middle of September, only to escape after a week. One friend of the 25-year-old said: "The pressure they put on him led to him suffering a breakdown. He thought he was being persecuted. I spoke to him about 5pm on the day he escaped and he seemed all right." He has been assessed as posing less of a risk than the Iraqi escapee.

Opposition parties reacted with disbelief to the control order failures. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "Since control orders were the government's flagship anti-terrorism measure, this is a huge embarrassment ... the danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in limbo. Our aim must be to get suspects into court and, where they are guilty, convicted. This should act as a spur for the government to develop more robust ways to get suspects into court in the first place, such as using intercept evidence."

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The government justified control orders on the basis of protecting the public from potentially dangerous terrorists. It is therefore hard to understand how this man was allowed to escape, especially while undergoing psychiatric assessment."

Scotland Yard said last night that it was investigating the alleged breaches and would take any appropriate action.

Nine foreign nationals and six British citizens had been subjected to control orders since they were introduced last year. The government says control orders are necessary as some people pose a serious risk of terrorist activity, yet it is claimed that evidence to try them in a criminal court cannot be gathered.

A Home Office spokeswoman, asked why the public had not been told about the escapes sooner, said: "How control orders are enforced and and policed is a matter for enforcement agencies and not politicians. Any breach of security will be investigated on a case-by-case basis."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights organisation Liberty, said the two escaped terror suspects revealed the "farce" of control orders. She said: "They are both unsafe and fundamentally unfair. If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect why would you leave them at large?"

    Control orders failure as terror suspects flee, G, 17.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1924108,00.html

6.45pm

Terror suspect on the run

Monday October 16, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

A suspected terrorist has escaped the authorities after being placed on a control order, in the latest embarrassment to hit the Home Office.

It was understood the man, who has not been named, escaped from a mental health unit and has been on the run for two weeks.

The British citizen was believed to have climbed through a window to evade staff at the London unit.

Control orders act as a loose form of house arrest, usually placing suspects under a curfew and requiring them to report regularly to police. The man now on the run will have been suspected of playing a role in international terrorism, possibly linked to al-Qaida groups.

It was thought he was handed his control order on April 5.

His admission to the mental health unit is understood to have been a more recent development and would not normally have been part of the control order conditions.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Any breach of security will be investigated on a case-by-case basis. We do not discuss individual cases."

Control orders were brought in at the beginning of last year as a replacement for indefinite detention without trial or charge.

The Home Office does not reveal the identities of people on control orders. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "Since control orders were the government's flagship anti-terrorism measure, this is a huge embarrassment for them.

"As we have always made clear, the danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo. Our aim must be to get suspects into court and, where they are guilty, convicted.

"This should act as a spur for the government to develop more robust ways to get suspects into court in the first place, such as using intercept evidence."

    Terror suspect on the run, G, 16.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1923853,00.html

3.30pm update

Kelly tells councils to identify extremist 'hotspots'

Monday October 16, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and agencies

The government has told key local authorities to identify "hotspots" prone to Islamic extremism, as the communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, warned that the far right could exploit community divisions if Muslims did not root out their own extremists.

Ms Kelly held an hour-long meeting behind closed doors with representatives of 20 councils in London this morning to discuss community cohesion.

Her meeting comes after two weeks of increasingly political rows about the role of Islam in a multicultural society, sparked by Jack Straw's declaration that he asked female Muslim constituents to remove their veils when they came to see him.

The debate has evolved into a dispute over the right to wear religious symbols at work, with a Dewsbury teaching assistant who wears a veil in the classroom and a British Airways employee told not to visibly wear a crucifix necklace coming under particular scrutiny.

But opposition politicians have warned Ms Kelly - a member of the devout Catholic Opus Dei group - against "demonising a whole faith".

The Liberal Democrats' communities spokesman, Andrew Stunell, said: "Once again the government is guilty of chasing votes, not seeking solutions.

"If ministers really want to build a strong partnership with minority communities to confront extremism, they have done almost everything wrong so far.

"Honesty about the impact of our foreign policy on Muslim communities here and abroad over the last two decades would achieve much more."

Mr Stunell said that Muslims were as appalled by terrorism now "as Catholics were by the IRA campaign 20 years ago".

"It is no solution to separate and demonise a whole faith because of the actions of fanatics," he said.

Ms Kelly - whose post was created in May this year - told the meeting that extremism was the "biggest security issue" currently faced by "major parts" of Britain.

She urged the local government representatives to consider whether they were doing enough to tackle extremism in schools, colleges and universities, and whether they had identified "hotspot" neighbourhoods and sections of the community which could be breeding grounds.

"This is not just a problem for Muslim communities," she said. "The far right is still with us, still poisonous, still trying to create and exploit divisions.

"Extremism is an issue for all of us. We all must play our part in responding to it. The world has changed since September 11 and 7/7.

"The government has had to change and respond to that, and we appeal to local authorities to do the same."

Yesterday, the government's race minister waded into the row over a Muslim teaching assistant's refusal to remove her veil, leading to increasingly bitter exchanges with Muslim groups.

Phil Woolas demanded that 24-year-old Aishah Azmi - already suspended - be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education".

Mr Woolas said that Ms Azmi's stand meant that she could not "do her job" at Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and insisted that barring men from working with her would amount to "sexual discrimination".

But the Muslim Council of Britain condemned Mr Woolas for his "outrageous" and "reckless" foray into a "matter that should be decided by the school, and if necessary by the courts".

Meanwhile, the shadow home secretary, David Davis, attacked Muslim leaders for risking "voluntary apartheid" in Britain, and expecting special protection from criticism.

Mr Davis warned in an article for the Sunday Telegraph that "closed societies" were being created in the UK.

In an apparent hardening of the Conservatives' attitude to radical Islam, Mr Davis also supported Mr Straw's practice of asking female Muslim constituents to lift their veils during private discussions.

After Ms Kelly's meeting, Mr Davis said: "It is vital ... that the issues raised today are followed up on. What steps have been agreed by whom? Who is responsible for their follow-up and when?"

The education secretary Alan Johnson is expected further to fuel the religious debate this week by putting forward plans forcing new faith schools to allocate a quarter of places to pupils who follow other religions, or none.

A leaked letter from Mr Johnson to cabinet colleagues set out plans to add the measures to the government's education and inspection bill.

The Church of England has already announced that it will set aside 25% of places at its new schools, but a bid to make Catholic, Jewish and Muslim institutions do the same is likely to meet resistance.

Other key officials who attended today's meeting included senior Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan police, who was representing the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Other officers from various forces around the country were also thought to have attended the meeting, as well as the chief executives from a number of local councils.

In an interview later, Ms Kelly played down suggestions that the government wanted university lecturers to report students that they suspected of involvement in Islamic extremism to the police.

It followed the leak of a Department for Education document disclosing that proposals for tackling extremism on campuses would be sent to colleges and universities by the end of the year.

According to the Guardian, which obtained the report, it acknowledged that, for some academic staff, passing information to Special Branch would seem like "collaborating with the secret police".

Ms Kelly rejected suggestions that the proposals - which are still being worked on - involved asking lecturers to "spy" on their students.

"This is about protecting students from individuals who might be out there trying to prey upon them, trying to groom them into a path towards violence and extremism," she told the BBC's World at One.

"It is important that we strike the right balance but this isn't about picking on individual students or even spying on them, it is about sensible monitoring of activities to make sure that individual students on campuses are protected."

    Kelly tells councils to identify extremist 'hotspots', G, 16.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1923713,00.html

Universities urged to spy on Muslims

Monday October 16, 2006
Guardian
Vikram Dodd

Lecturers and university staff across Britain are to be asked to spy on "Asian-looking" and Muslim students they suspect of involvement in Islamic extremism and supporting terrorist violence, the Guardian has learned.

They will be told to inform on students to special branch because the government believes campuses have become "fertile recruiting grounds" for extremists.

The Department for Education has drawn up a series of proposals which are to be sent to universities and other centres of higher education before the end of the year. The 18-page document acknowledges that universities will be anxious about passing information to special branch, for fear it amounts to "collaborating with the 'secret police'". It says there will be "concerns about police targeting certain sections of the student population (eg Muslims)".

The proposals are likely to cause anxiety among academics, and provoke anger from British Muslim groups at a time when ministers are at the focus of rows over issues such as the wearing of the veil and forcing Islamic schools to accept pupils from other faiths.

Wakkas Khan, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, said: "It sounds to me to be potentially the widest infringement of the rights of Muslim students that there ever has been in this country. It is clearly targeting Muslim students and treating them to a higher level of suspicion and scrutiny. It sounds like you're guilty until you're proven innocent."

Gemma Tumelty, president of the National Union of Students, said: "They are going to treat everyone Muslim with suspicion on the basis of their faith. It's bearing on the side of McCarthyism."

The document, which has been obtained by the Guardian, was sent within the last month to selected official bodies for consultation and reveals the full extent of what the authorities fear is happening in universities.

It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and speakers. The document warns of talent-spotting by terrorists on campuses and of students being "groomed" for extremism.

In a section on factors that can radicalise students, the document identifies Muslims from "segregated" backgrounds as more likely to hold radical views than those who have "integrated into wider society". It also claims that students who study in their home towns could act as a link between extremism on campuses and in their local communities.

The government wants universities to crack down on extremism, and the document says campus staff should volunteer information to special branch and not wait to be contacted by detectives.

It says: "Special branch are aware that many HEIs [higher education institutions] will have a number of concerns about working closely with special branch. Some common concerns are that institutions will be seen to be collaborating with the 'secret police'.

"HEIs may also worry about what special branch will do with any information supplied by an HEI and what action the police may subsequently take ... Special branch are not the 'secret police' and are accountable."

The document says radicalisation on campus is unlikely to be overt: "While radicalisation may not be widespread, there is some evidence to suggest that students at further and higher educational establishments have been involved in terrorist- related activity, which could include actively radicalising fellow students on campus." The document adds: "Perhaps most importantly, universities and colleges provide a fertile recruiting ground for students.

"There are different categories of students who may be 'sucked in' to an Islamist extremist ideology ... There are those who may be new to a university or college environment and vulnerable to 'grooming' by individuals with their own agenda as they search for friends and social groups; there are those who may be actively looking for extremist individuals with whom to associate. Campuses provide an opportunity for individuals who are already radicalised to form new networks, and extend existing ones."

The document urges close attention be paid to university Islamic societies and - under the heading "inspiring radical speakers" - says: "Islamic societies have tended to invite more radical speakers or preachers on to campuses ... They can be forceful, persuasive and eloquent. They are able to fill a vacuum created by young Muslims' feelings of alienation from their parents' generation by providing greater 'clarity' from an Islamic point of view on a range of issues, and potentially a greater sense of purpose about how Muslim students can respond."

It suggests checks should be made on external speakers at Islamic society events: "The control of university or college Islamic societies by certain extremist individuals can play a significant role in the extent of Islamist extremism on campus."

The document says potential extremists can be talent-spotted at campus meetings then channelled to events off campus.

The document gives five real-life examples of extremism in universities. The first talks of suspicious computer use by "Asian" students, which was reported by library staff. In language some may balk at, it talks of students of "Asian appearance" being suspected extremists.

A senior education department source told the Guardian: "There's loads of anecdotal evidence of radicalisation. At the same time there are people who pushing this who have their own agendas, and the government has to strike the right balance."

    Universities urged to spy on Muslims, G, 16.10.2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1923325,00.html

Plot to hit UK with dirty bomb and exploding limos

Man admits plan to cause 'injury, terror and chaos' with synchronised strikes

Friday October 13, 2006
Guardian
Rosie Cowan, crime correspondent

A British Muslim yesterday admitted plotting mass murder through a series of terrorist outrages in the UK and the US that were "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible".

In one of the few major successes for anti-terrorist investigators since September 11, Dhiran Barot, 34, also admitted planning to use a radioactive dirty bomb in the UK that would have caused "injury, fear, terror and chaos", a court heard.

Among the other targets for the synchronised bombings were landmark financial institutions in New York and Washington.

Another of his plans involved blowing up three limousines, packed with flammable gas cylinders and explosives, in underground car parks somewhere in Britain. The locations were not specified.

Prosecutors told Woolwich crown court how Barot, of Willesden, north-west London, was arrested in August 2004 and how details of the plans to target a series of high-profile buildings were found on a computer. Edmund Lawson QC, for the crown, said the buildings included the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York stock exchange and Citigroup headquarters in New York, and the Prudential premises in Newark, New Jersey.

"These being plans ... to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," said Mr Lawson, outlining the basis of Barot's plea.

The plan to detonate limousines full of explosives and gas cylinders - the "gas limos project" - was to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of attacks in the UK, added the prosecutor.

Kenyan-born Barot, who moved to Britain with his Indian parents as a child and is believed to have converted to Islam as an adult, also wanted to set off a dirty bomb made up of radioactive material.

Mr Lawson said that, according to expert evidence, this would have been unlikely to cause fatalities by itself, but was designed to affect about 500 people, and raise widespread panic and social disruption.

"The project was, on its face, designed to achieve a number of further and collateral objectives so as to cause injury, fear, terror and chaos."

Mr Lawson said three additional projects, including the dirty bomb plan, were designed to be executed in a "synchronised, concurrent and back-to-back way" with the main gas limos project. "The gas limos project was supplemented by three other projects which were presented for consideration, the first being as it was described the 'rough presentation for radiation or dirty bomb project'," said the QC. "The defendant's expressed preference was that the radiation project was designed to be an independent project on its own."

The crown did not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the plots, nor had any of what would have been the necessary vehicles or bomb-making equipment been acquired.

Armed police stood guard outside the courtroom and prison officers surrounded Barot as he appeared in the dock behind high transparent screens.

He had a short beard and was wearing a khaki-coloured zip-up sweater, black shirt and jeans.

The court clerk said: "On count one of this indictment you are charged with conspiracy to murder. The particulars of the offence being that on diverse days between January 1 2000 and August 4 2004, you conspired together with other persons unknown to murder other persons. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?"

Barot stared intently ahead and showed no emotion as he answered: "I plead guilty." Mr Lawson said Barot had indicated that he pleaded guilty in respect of count one against him, which concerned both the US and the UK.

Barot had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes, and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purpose.

Following the defendant's guilty plea, the judge, Mr Justice Butterfield, ordered all 12 to lie on file. He will sentence Barot at a later date.

Mr Lawson said that by pleading guilty, Barot "makes no admission with regard to the involvement of any of his seven co-defendants in the conspiracy". Seven other men, who deny all charges against them, are due to face trial next year.

    Plot to hit UK with dirty bomb and exploding limos, NYT, 13.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1921297,00.html

4pm update

Man admits plotting UK and US terror strikes

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

A London man today pleaded guilty to plotting to murder people in terrorist attacks on Britain and the US, with targets including the World Bank in Washington.

Dhiren Barot planned to use a radioactive so-called dirty bomb in one of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK, with the intention of causing "fear, terror and chaos".

He intended to strike British targets in a conspiracy known as the gas limos project, packing three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonating them in underground car parks.

Woolwich crown court heard that the 34-year-old, who was arrested in 2004, planned to cause blasts in Washington, New York and Newark.

The proposed attacks were to have taken place between 2000 and 2004, and were in conspiracy with other "unknown" people.

Edmund Lawson, QC, told the court Barot plotted to attack the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York, and the Prudential building in Newark.

"These being plans ... to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," Mr Lawson said.

Details of the gas limos project were found on Barot's computer, and were the "main cornerstone" of a series of attacks in the UK, the court heard.

The so-called dirty bomb plot was however, unlikely to kill anyone, Mr Lawson told the court. "The radiation project was designed, among other things, to affect some 500 people," he added.

"The expert evidence, from a witness described as EU, is that the radiation project, if carried through, would have been unlikely by itself to cause death as opposed to causing considerable fear, panic and social destruction."

Ian Macdonald QC, representing Barot, said the radiation plot had not been intended to kill.

The prosecution said Indian-born Barot's plans were not at an advanced stage - he had no funding, vehicles or bomb-making equipment.

He entered his guilty plea this morning, but reporting restrictions were only lifted by Mr Justice Butterfield this afternoon.

He faces 12 other charges, including one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes, and will be sentenced at a later date.

    Man admits plotting UK and US terror strikes, G;12.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1920900,00.html

2.45pm

Heathrow terminal an easy terror target, expert says

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Tania Branigan

Heathrow airport's terminal three is a "very easy target" for a terrorist attack that could result in numerous deaths, an independent air security expert has warned MPs.

Professor Alan Hatcher, of the private International School for Security and Explosives Education, said changing car parking arrangements and traffic direction through the area could reduce the risk.

He argued that anti-terror measures could have unforeseen consequences, potentially increasing the number of casualties in an incident.

Prof Hatcher was giving evidence to the Commons select committee inquiry on transport security, which also heard police and aviation industry representatives clash on whether taxpayers or passengers should foot the bill for extra security measures.

"The movement of vehicles around Heathrow is phenomenal and, if we could define a better transport plan, this may alleviate some direct threats," he said. "Terminal three is currently a very easy target for a simple terrorist attack ... even a small device would result in large scale loss of life.

"As a result of our well-meaning security practices, we now see hundreds of people in lines that coil around each other. A well placed suitcase containing several kilograms of explosive left in the line would result in catastrophic fatalities and injuries."

Prof Hatcher urged the authorities to rely less on high-tech responses and focus instead on support for frontline staff. "In the main, these people are paid very poorly, they do not always have a structured career path and this can lead to a very high turnover of staff," he said.

Mike Todd, who deals with transport security issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, called for a policing levy to be added to the cost of air tickets.

"I don't think it's right that so many people near airports have to pay for policing and security. Fifty pence on each passenger would pay for the price of policing," Mr Todd, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said.

In his submission to the committee, he warned that the risk assessment process involving the police and the aviation industry "lacks dynamism, accountability and resilience".

He said it suffered from a lack of investment and had a "bias towards cost saving at the expense of security outcomes".

However, British Airways said the regime was too strict and that the government should pay for the extra safety measures needed on British flights.

"BA believes there is over-regulation in the UK when compared with security regimes existing in both Europe and the US in particular," the airline said in its submission. "This compromises the competitive position of the UK's airlines and airports."

However, it added that it believed Britain required the highest standards of security anywhere in the world, bar Israel.

"The higher level of threat faced by UK aviation can be attributed to government policy ... additional [safety] measures, imposed by individual countries as a result of an increased threat due to nationality, must be government funded," it said.

    Heathrow terminal an easy terror target, expert says, G, 12.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1920869,00.html

4.15pm update

Brown gives troops tax bill bonus

· Chancellor to prioritise security
· Terrorists' assets to be targeted
· Voices support for Jack Straw

Tuesday October 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and Mark Tran

British troops fighting in combat zones will get a cash rebate on their income tax, the chancellor, Gordon Brown, revealed today, as he pledged a "global battle for hearts and minds" in the fight against terrorism.

Mr Brown - making a speech that went far beyond his Treasury role - also announced a series of new measures designed to choke off terrorist funding.

He declared he would "increase the award our forces receive when on operational service in the most dangerous conflict zones".

Unlike US troops, who pay no tax while in war zones, the bonus is likely to come in the form of a cash rebate. Mr Brown said it would make British service personnel "among the best paid of any armed forces in the world".

The amount set aside for the rebate is £60m, and will cover all troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. In a statement to MPs, the defence secretary, Des Browne, said that the cash would be backdated to April 1 this year.

In a lengthy speech on security and anti-terrorism measures, the chancellor also reiterated his support for holding terror suspects for 90 days without charge, and pledged new measures to freeze terrorist monies without revealing intelligence surveillance methods.

Currently, only publicly available material can be used as a justification for freezing assets, and terror suspects can be held for a maximum of 28 days without charge.

In addition to economic and security measures, Mr Brown - who is almost certain to become prime minister next year - said the west needed to match al-Qaida's ideology with its own. "We have undervalued the cultural campaign in the last few years," he said, in a shift of emphasis from Tony Blair's approach.

"It is only by standing up for our values, by winning the battle for ideas, by showing the values of liberty, democracy and justice are the best ways of respecting the dignity of individuals that we will prevent the indoctrination of future generations of terrorists."

Mr Brown announced that he would make resources available for the BBC's new Farsi television channel, broadcasting to Iran.

Veil debate

The chancellor also offered support for leader of the Commons, Jack Straw - criticised in recent days by other ministers - saying the debate he had started about the wearing of the veil by Muslim women would continue.

"In the wider debate about diversity and integration, we should also emphasise what we in Britain need to have in common - the responsibilities we should accept as citizens, as well as the rights," he said.

"I believe all who live in this country should learn English, understand our history and culture, take citizenship tests and citizenship ceremonies."

He launched an attack on "anti-Americanism", saying that it should have no place in Europe.

The chancellor hinted that next summer's comprehensive spending review, which will set government spending priorities for the years up until 2011, will see more money for the security services, armed forces and emergency services.

Mr Brown said the CSR would give priority to the "first task of government - the security and safety of the British people".

Forensic accounting

The chancellor praised the work done behind the scenes in tracking financial transactions, calling it "forensic accounting" equivalent to the second world war efforts of the Bletchley Park code-breakers.

He called it the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting in the 19th century and DNA in the last century.

Mr Brown told a Chatham House audience there would be a new tougher licensing regime for bureaux de change, and a consultation on new measures against money laundering.

While promising more parliamentary accountability, Mr Brown announced a new Treasury order, to be laid down tomorrow, to "stop funds reaching anyone in the UK suspected of planning terror or engagement with terror".

On terrorist financing, Mr Brown said there would be a review of the entire charitable sector to "root out" those organisations which were being exploited by terrorists.

He also announced that "closed source evidence" - effectively information gathered by MI5 and MI6 - would be permitted to freeze assets.

Mr Brown expressed fears that a new younger generation would be brainwashed by al-Qaida's ideology, saying: "If we wait much longer to isolate extremists and their ideas another generation will be indoctrinated."

He described their ideology as full of "barrenness, sterility and violence", calling Islamist extremism "a totalitarian animosity to our values".

ID cards

Although the chancellor restated his public support for ID cards, it was in noticeably more tepid terms than those used by the prime minister and the home secretary, repeatedly saying merely that "there are advantages" to a national identity scheme, but there would need to be "acceptable safeguards to protect civil liberties".

The Home Office announced yesterday the cost of a national ID card scheme would be around £5.4bn, but other independent estimates have put it at triple that.

In an echo of a key New Labour catchphrase, he declared western governments had to "tackle not just terrorism, but the roots of terrorism" - an echo of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" which Mr Brown himself coined.

Last month at the Labour party conference, the home secretary, John Reid, announced a fundamental review of the government's capacity to deal with terrorism. The review was ordered by Tony Blair after an alleged airline plot in August.

Following Mr Brown's speech, human rights group Liberty said it had "grave concerns" about plans to extend the 28-day limit on the detention of suspected terrorists, saying it "undermines the right to a prompt trial and could act as a recruitment tool for extremist groups".

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "The chancellor's speech contains neither new thinking nor additional comfort. There is already judicial and parliamentary oversight in the existing regime which is no substitute for charges and evidence.

"Ninety days is equivalent to a six-month prison sentence without even being charged or tried. Terrorist recruiters will rub their hands with glee."

    Brown gives troops tax bill bonus, G, 10.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1891920,00.html

Britain to US: we don't want Guantánamo nine back

· Documents reveal secret talks in Washington
· British residents have no right to return say officials

Tuesday October 3, 2006
Guardian
Ian Cobain and Vikram Dodd

The United States has offered to return nearly all British residents held at Guantánamo Bay after months of secret talks in Washington, the Guardian has learned.

The British government has refused to accept the men, however, with senior officials saying they have no legal right to return. Documents obtained by the Guardian show US authorities are demanding that the detainees be kept under 24-hour surveillance if set free - restrictions that are dismissed by the British as unnecessary and unworkable.

Although all are accused of terrorist involvement, Britain says there is no intelligence to warrant the measures Washington wants, and it lacks the resources to implement them. "They do not pose a sufficient threat," said the head of counter-terrorism at the Home Office.

The possible security arrangements appear to have caused months of wrangling, but senior UK sources have told the Guardian the government is interested in accepting only one man - Bisher al-Rawi - who is now known to have helped MI5 keep watch on Abu Qatada, the London-based Muslim cleric and al-Qaida suspect who was subsequently arrested.

At least nine former British residents have been detained without trial at Guantánamo for more than four years after being taken prisoner in the so-called war on terror. Their lawyers say some have suffered appalling mistreatment.

With the US government anxious to scale down and eventually close its prison at the Cuban base, however, the US state department is putting pressure on the British government to allow some to return. Foreign Office officials have denied that any talks have taken place.

In Washington, the state department confirmed that there are "ongoing diplomatic negotiations", as the documents show. They were written by the most senior counter-terrorism officials at the Home Office and Foreign Office at a time when some ministers were voicing their harshest criticism of Guantánamo.

The documents are witness statements from David Richmond, director general of defence and intelligence at the Foreign Office, and William Nye, director of counter-terrorism and intelligence at the Home Office. Mr Richmond wrote: "The British embassy in Washington was told in mid-June 2006 that, during an internal meeting between US officials, the possibility had been floated of asking the UK government to consider taking back all the detainees at Guantánamo who had formerly been resident in the UK. Information about what had occurred at this meeting had been fed back informally to the embassy, and the UK government wished to clarify the significance of this idea."

On June 27 UK officials met US officials from the departments of state, defence and the national security council. Mr Richmond wrote of that meeting: "The US administration would only be willing to engage with the UK government if it sought the release and return of all the detainees who had formally resided in the UK (ie, regardless of the quality of their links with the UK), rather than just a subset of the detainees falling in that category."

Britain says the only way to meet the security conditions would be to have MI5 spy on them.

Mr Nye wrote: "The US administration envisages measures such that the returnees cannot legally leave the UK, engage with known extremists or engage in support, promote, plan or advocate extremist or violent activity, and further have the effect of ensuring that the British authorities would be certain to know immediately of any attempt to engage in any such activity."

But Mr Nye says the evidence and intelligence he has seen is not enough for a control order severely restricting their movements: "I am not satisfied it would be proportionate to impose ... the kind of obligations which might be necessary to satisfy the US administration."

The measures the US wants in place would have to be enacted by MI5 and take effort and resources away from countering more dangerous terrorist suspects. Mr Nye wrote: "The use of such resources ... could not be justified and would damage the protection of the UK's national security." He says the Guantánamo detainees "do not pose a sufficient threat to justify the devotion of the high level of resources" the US would require.

The talks have been held against the backdrop of a growing realisation within the Bush administration that it would be in the interests of the US to shut down the camp.

In addition to growing public unease, the supreme court ruled in June that there could be no military tribunals of detainees without the protections of the Geneva conventions and American law, reaffirmed the rights of inmates to challenge the legality of their detention, and implicitly outlawed torture and the enforced movement of detainees known as extraordinary rendition.

As well as arguing that none of the former residents has a legal right to return to the UK, British officials are concerned that human rights legislation would forbid the deportation of any who are permitted to return. However, the supreme court ruling means that it may be impossible for the US to return them to the countries of their birth if there is a risk of them facing persecution. "The result is that the arguments are going around and around like a washing machine cycle," said one official familiar with the talks.

Last month Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, said Guantánamo was a "shocking affront" to the principles of democracy. In June he branded it a "recruiting agent" for terrorism, whose existence was "intolerable and wrong".

Lawyers for the British residents say they are still being ill-treated, with four being subjected to the extremes of freezing cold and then high heat.

    Britain to US: we don't want Guantánamo nine back, G, 7.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1886236,00.html