History > 2007 > UK > Terrorism (V)

British Inquiry of Failed Plots

Points to Iraq’s Qaeda Group
 

December 14, 2007
The New York Times
By RAYMOND BONNER,
JANE PERLEZ and ERIC SCHMITT
 

This article is by Raymond Bonner,
Jane Perlez and Eric Schmitt.


LONDON — Investigators examining the bungled terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow six months ago believe the plotters had a link to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which would make the attacks the first that the group has been involved in outside of the Middle East, according to senior officials from three countries who have been briefed on the inquiry.

The evidence pointing to the involvement of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia includes phone numbers of members of the Iraqi group found on the plotters’ cellphones recovered in Britain, a senior American intelligence official said.

British authorities have said that the plotters, Bilal Abdulla, a British-born doctor of Iraqi descent, and Kafeel Ahmed, an Indian aeronautical engineer, parked two vehicles laden with gas canisters and explosives near a popular nightclub in central London at the end of June. The cars, apparently positioned to strike people leaving the nightclub, failed to ignite.

The next day, the two men rammed a Jeep Cherokee loaded with gas canisters into the Glasgow airport. It erupted in flames, and the driver, Mr. Ahmed, was severely burned and died several weeks later.

British intelligence agencies have feared a blowback from Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war, and after the events in London and Glasgow officials and terrorism experts speculated that Iraq-based groups could have been involved. More recently, as the investigation progressed, British intelligence officials told foreign diplomats that they believed the attacks were the first sign of such a reaction, said a senior diplomat of a country allied with Britain.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence officials say is led by foreigners.

The American intelligence official noted several similarities between the events in Britain and attacks in Iraq attributed to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, including the use of vehicle-borne explosives aimed at multiple targets. The officials agreed to talk about the attack only on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing secret intelligence information.

While officials stopped short of saying that the plot originated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, or was directed by the group, they did say it was the closest collaboration they knew of between the Iraq group and plotters outside the Middle East. The American official who noted the evidence found on the recovered cellphones was unable to provide details about how often the accused plotters called Iraq or how soon before the bungled attacks calls were made.

Two other American counterterrorism officials generally concurred with this assessment of the link to the Iraqi group, but one of them cautioned against overstating the role of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, or A.Q.I., saying, “The event is best viewed as A.Q.I.-related, rather than A.Q.I.-directed.”

However, none of the officials would divulge the exact nature of the group’s involvement in the operation.

Recent terrorist attacks in Britain, including the July 2005 bombing of London’s transit system that killed 52 commuters, and several foiled plots appeared to have some connection to Pakistan. They have been conducted mostly by Britons of Pakistani origin, and some of the suspects trained in Pakistan.

Yet before the failed attacks in London and Glasgow, the British intelligence services suggested in a quarterly review on the terrorist threat that an attack against Britain was possible from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

“While networks linked to A.Q. (Al Qaeda) Core pose the greatest threat to the U.K., the intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other areas, particularly A.Q.-I (Al Qaeda in Iraq),” said the report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center based at the headquarters of MI5, the domestic intelligence service. Parts of the report were published in The Sunday Times in April. According to the newspaper’s account of the intelligence report, British intelligence officers wrote that “we are aware that A.Q.-I networks are active in the U.K.”

According to officials who have been briefed on the inquiry, investigators suspect that Dr. Abdulla, the British-born doctor reared in Baghdad, was the connection to the Iraq-based network, although it is not clear what they see as the nature of the link.

Dr. Abdulla was working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, Scotland, after qualifying for a limited registration in the diabetes department at the time of the attacks. After his arrest, colleagues told Scottish newspapers that Dr. Abdulla was hard to motivate to do medical rounds because he seemed preoccupied by following Islamic affairs on his computer.

Dr. Abdulla has been charged with conspiracy to use explosives, and the trial is expected to begin next year. Six people were initially detained in Britain in connection with the attack. Three have been released; two others in addition to Dr. Abdulla have been charged.

Martin Rackstraw, a lawyer for Dr. Abdulla, said he was unable to comment on the case under British law.

The son of a prominent doctor, Dr. Abdulla returned to Britain in 2004 with his new Iraqi medical degree, said Shiraz Maher, a British Muslim who knew him when they both lived in Cambridge. Before joining the hospital, Dr. Abdulla worked part time at a Staples store in Cambridge, while studying for the exams he needed to pass to practice medicine here, Mr. Maher said in an interview.

Mr. Maher, who at the time was a member of the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said he remembered Dr. Abdulla from that period as being obsessed by the war in Iraq, and as someone who practiced an intense and “austere” form of Wahhabism, a conservative strain of Islam. He was outraged, Mr. Maher said, by the American attack on Falluja, Iraq, in November 2004. Dr. Abdulla was not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Mr. Maher said.

He was with Dr. Abdulla on almost a daily basis for prayers, he said. Mr. Maher, who left Hizb ut-Tahrir in mid-2005, said he did not see Dr. Abdulla again after that.

Mr. Maher described Dr. Abdulla as “defiant” and said that Mr. Ahmed, the man who died of burns suffered in the Glasgow attack, was more passive. “They had a close relationship,” Mr. Maher said.

Whatever the extent of assistance or inspiration the plotters may have gotten from Iraq, counterterrorism officials and experts said they were struck by the amateurish nature of the attacks. The cars parked at the London nightclub were packed with propane gas tanks, but they failed to explode because the plotters did not leave the windows open enough to allow air in to ignite the fuel in the gas tanks, said two terrorism experts with knowledge of the case.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and professor of international relations at Georgetown University, said the plotters appeared to be relatively efficient at organizational planning but had failed to pay enough attention to making the bombs. “Technical expertise is different from operational sophistication,” Mr. Hoffman said.
 

Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez reported from London,
and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

British Inquiry of Failed Plots Points to Iraq’s Qaeda Group, NYT, 14.12.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/europe/14london.html

5.45pm GMT

No case for extending terror limit,

MPs say

Thursday December 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland

The government and the police have yet to make a convincing case for extending terror detention limits, an influential group of MPs said today.

In their response to plans by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to extend the current 28-day detention limit to 42 days, the home affairs select committee raised fears that the Muslim community could come to regard the rules as a form of internment if ministers failed to prove why a longer period was required.

Just two days after quizzing Smith on the proposals, the chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, said: "We saw no evidence there was a case for extending the pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.

"The home secretary herself told us only six out of 71 responses to the government's proposals on going beyond 28 days were supportive. This was a surprisingly small number."

Opposition to a higher limit from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, some Labour backbenchers and civil rights groups could turn the proposal into the toughest test for the prime minister, Gordon Brown, so far. A previous attempt to extend the detention limit from 14 to 90 days led to Tony Blair's first parliamentary defeat in 2005, with MPs and peers forcing through a tighter limit of just 28 days.

The report said that, while the threat from terrorism remained "real and acute", it could be counterproductive to raise the maximum time for which police can hold and question suspects. Alternative changes to the law could make it easier to bring prosecutions and avoid the need to raise the limit, it added.

The committee report took a dim view of the "ridiculous" bar on the use of evidence from telephone taps and other bugs - known as "intercept" evidence. The MPs instead suggest a modified version of the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) to deal with exceptional circumstances for emergency detention.

Though the report cautioned that it was not "sensible for a national state of emergency to be triggered in the middle of a major investigation", it suggested a reform of the act to deal with "exceptional circumstances".

The report stated: "The committee considered the issue of exceptional circumstances which would extend the period beyond the statutory maximum. The committee felt the current law as enshrined in the CCA needed to be reformed if there was to be a successful consensus achieved for those exceptional circumstances.

"We urge the government to enter into discussions with all stakeholders to see if it can build support for any new proposals."

One Labour MP on the committee, David Winnick, voted against the committee proposal on the grounds that it implicitly endorsed the argument that measures for detention beyond 28 days were needed.

Winnick said: "This report does tear strips out of the government's intention to go beyond 28 days. However, I fear the compromise that was agreed - to modify the CCA - could be used by the government to say the committee were not supportive to go beyond 28 days but recognised it may be necessary."

The Tory shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "The conclusions drawn in this report back up exactly what we have been telling the government.

"Namely, that none of the evidence available supports the case for extending the pre-charge detention period and that the fact intercept evidence is not admissible in terrorist trials is ridiculous."

Smith should drop the proposals to extend the 28-day detention limit and set her sights on implementing practical measures to get the best use of the current period, he added.

Those might include a "post-charge interview, the use of intercept evidence and enhanced sentences for withholding encryption keys," Davies said.

The director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen, said: "The consensus against extending pre-charge detention limits is growing day by day. We're seeing that people are ready to fight to preserve basic human rights in the UK.

"They quite rightly recognise that locking people up for six weeks without charge is totally excessive.

"The government has failed to make a convincing case for this draconian proposal and should abandon it as soon as possible."

Eric Metcalfe, of the human rights and law reform group Justice, said: "Parliament defeated the government's proposals for 90-day pre-charge detention back in 2005 and today's report has signalled that it would do the same to 42 days. "

"The committee's report is another nail in a coffin the government should never have exhumed in the first place."

No case for extending terror limit, MPs say, G, 13.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2227224,00.html

6pm GMT

US refuses UK request

for Guantánamo release

Thursday December 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Haroon Siddique

Details of a disagreement between the UK and US governments over the security threat posed by two British residents being held in the Guantánamo Bay prison camp emerged today.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said in a statement that Saudi national Shaker Aamer would not be released because the US government had "expressed significant additional security concerns" and had rejected the foreign office's request.

News of the refusal contradicted reports last Thursday that Aamer would be one of four British residents who would be released imminently from the camp, albeit to his home country of Saudi Arabia.

The continued detention of Aamer will be an embarrassment for Gordon Brown, as the release of all four men was seen as a triumph for the government, following apparently frank discussions with the US.

"They have so far declined the request for the release and return of Mr Aamer and we are no longer in active discussions regarding his transfer to the UK," said Miliband.

He said that another British resident, Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, would not be released, confirming last Thursday's reports, but said the foreign office was "still discussing" his case, even though "the US government is not inclined to agree to his release and return".

Miliband confirmed that the US had agreed the release of Jordanian Jamil el-Banna, Libyan-born Omar Deghayes and Algerian Abdennour Sameur.

He said the five detainees who were the subject of the statement were the only individuals remaining at Guantánamo who had been "given leave to enter or remain in the UK under the immigration acts".

He added that the foreign office had been in contact with the families of el-Banna, Deghayes and Sameur but said the decision did not "constitute a commitment that they may remain permanently in the UK", amid concerns raised by the opposition over the threat they might pose to national security.

"We will continue to discuss with the US government how best we can work with them to see the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility," he said.

The foreign secretary said he would also encourage Britain's allies "to consider taking steps similar to our own to reduce the numbers of those detained at Guantánamo Bay, such as accepting the transfer of eligible detainees, thereby hastening the closure of the detention facility".

US refuses UK request for Guantánamo release, G, 13.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2227236,00.html

And then there was one:

four British residents

freed from Guantánamo

· Foreign Office took up cases after policy change
· Amnesty questions why one man must stay in jail

Saturday December 8, 2007
Guardian
Ed Pilkington in New York,
Alexandra Topping

Four British residents held without charge at the American detention camp for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba are to be released, reducing the UK involvement with the camp to just one inmate.

The four men have all lived in Britain after being granted refugee status or temporary immigration status. They have struggled to have their cases heard because until recently Britain refused to represent them on the grounds that they were not UK citizens.

Three of the men - Jamil el-Banna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer - are to be allowed to return to the UK by Christmas. A fourth, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, will be sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia.

That leaves one UK resident, Binyam Mohammed al-Habashi from Ethiopia, still in Guantánamo. The Pentagon claims he is particularly dangerous and it is determined that he stays to face one of the military commissions established to prosecute prisoners at the camp.

News of the imminent release of the four men came three months after the UK reversed its previous policy and decided to represent the men.

Until August the official Foreign Office position was that the prisoners were not entitled to representation because they were not British nationals.

But David Miliband, the foreign secretary, responded to criticism of the government's position and agreed to take up their cases. He wrote to his US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, requesting their release.

The Foreign Office would not confirm reports last night that the men would be released and said discussions were ongoing. A spokesman said: "We have held detailed discussions with the Americans...

"We considered the circumstances of each case with the US and we are in contact with the families and the legal representatives of the five.

"Whilst the discussions are ongoing we are not going to make further comment."

Officials acknowledge that the fact Habashi remains in Guantánamo means the detention without charge of inmates at the camp will continue to be a point of tension between London and Washington.

Amnesty International said it would seek to establish why Shaker Aamer is to go to Saudi Arabia, Habashi would remain in detention and another former UK resident, Ahmed Belbacha, has not been mentioned in the reports.

Neil Durkin, Amnesty's UK spokesman said: "We've always said that Guantánamo is a travesty of justice and that detainees should either be given proper trials or released to safe countries."

Banna has been the subject of intense legal and political campaigning in recent months. His Brent East MP, Sarah Teather, in February called on the US authorities either to charge him or send him home.

Teather said she hoped the men could be back before Christmas. "Jamil has been held without any charges being brought against him for five years, he was cleared for release in March this year," she said. "The US has accepted that he is not a threat and he belongs at home with his family.

"Since the government has taken up the cause it has done everything in its power to secure his release but it is a disgrace that it took them four and a half years to take up the cause."

A Jordanian, Banna was on a business trip to Gambia in November 2002 when he was picked up, handed over to the Americans and flown to Guantánamo.

The freed men

Jamil el-Banna

Banna, 45, a father of five from London, was seized by the CIA in 2002, and flown to Guantánamo after MI5 wrongly told the US that his travelling companion was carrying bomb parts on a business trip to Gambia. MI5 had attempted to recruit him as an informer days earlier
 

Omar Deghayes

Born in Libya, Deghayes, 37, came to the UK as a child after his father was murdered. He studied law at Wolverhampton University and in Huddersfield. His family say he has condemned terrorism. He alleges he was by left blind in one eye after a US soldier poked his finger into it.
 

Abdenour Samuer

Samuer fled to the UK from Algeria and was granted asylum in 2000. He went to Afghanistan after 9/11. He says he was captured on the Pakistan border. He told US interrogators that in 2001 a man at Finsbury Park mosque gave him money to go to Afghanistan
 

Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer

Aamer, 38, is a Saudi national with a British wife and four British children living in Battersea, London. He was applying for British citizenship when he took his family to Kabul and was seized by troops fighting alongside US forces. He will return to his native Saudi Arabia.

    And then there was one: four British residents freed from Guantánamo, G, 8.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2224408,00.html

11.45am GMT update

'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry

Thursday December 6, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Claire Truscott and agencies

A 23-year-old former Heathrow shop assistant who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and scrawled her extremist thoughts on till receipts has been handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence.

Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Malik, described as an "unlikely but committed" Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an jury at the Old Bailey of a charge under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

She worked at WH Smith at Heathrow, where she scribbled her extremist lyrics on till receipts. On one she wrote: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

But Malik told the jury she only adopted her "lyrical terrorist" nickname because she thought it was "cool" and insisted: "I am not a terrorist."

Malik had tears in her eyes as she left the dock, while her mother wept during the court hearing. The judge said Malik's crime was on the "margins" of the offence of which she was found guilty.

He said Malik was of "good character" and from a "supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in".

"The Terrorism Act and the restrictions it imposes on the personal freedom exists to protect this country, its interests here and abroad, its citizens, and those who visit here. Its protection embraces us all. Its restrictions apply to us all, whatever our personal religious or political beliefs."

He told Malik that if she had been convicted of the more serious charge of possessing an article for terrorist purposes - of which the jury cleared her - she would have faced a jail term.

But he said, while a custodial sentence was merited, she had already faced "extremely rigorous" bail conditions which were "tantamount to house arrest". The court heard that she also spent five months in custody after being arrested in October last year.

John Burton, defending, said the jury's verdict meant that while Malik had "no reasonable excuse" for possessing the material, she had been cleared of holding it for a terrorist purpose.

Malik's sentence was suspended for 18 months, with the condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work.

Last month Malik was found guilty of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism by a majority of 10 to one. She cried as the verdict was read. Two female jurors were also in tears. The court heard that Malik stocked a "library" of material useful to terrorists at her family home in Southall, west London.

The court was told Malik was 20 years old when she "first started to consider Islam" and was "like most teenagers, somewhat rebellious".

Malik had been interested in poetry, and had written love poems, followed by rap poems and later by "what can only be described as the distasteful poetry which has been mentioned in this trial".

Burton said: "She became hooked on Abu Hamza-type addresses and that affected her mindset." The jury was told that she joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to spread terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told the court she visited a website linked to jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons. The court also heard Malik belonged to a social networking website called hi5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way which I can".

Under favourite TV shows, she listed: "Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs."

But Muhammed Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he did not think her actions were a criminal matter. "Many young people download objectionable material from the Internet, but it seems if you are a Muslim then this could lead to criminal charges, even if you have absolutely no intention to do harm to anyone else.

"Samina's so-called poetry was certainly offensive but I don't believe this case should really have been a criminal matter. Young people may well have some silly thoughts. That should not be criminalised. It is their actions that we should be concerned about."

After her conviction, Judge Peter Beaumont, the recorder of London, told her: "You have been, in many respects, a complete enigma to me."

    'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry, G, 6.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2222911,00.html

11am GMT update

Smith seeks 42-day detention limit

Thursday December 6, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Haroon Siddique and agencies

The government wants to increase the length of time that terror suspects can be held without charge to 42 days, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said today.

The move appears to be an attempt at a compromise as the government had previously indicated it favoured a 30-day extension to 58 days.

But the Lib Dems immediately condemned the government's insistence on pushing for an increase in the detention limit as "pig-headed stubbornness".

Smith said the power would "only be used where there is a clear operational need related to a particular operation or investigation".

"We are proposing that where there is a compelling operational need, the home secretary can extend the operational limit that a terrorist can be held for up to a maximum of 42 days," she said.

"This isn't about win-win. It is about legislating now for a risk that I am clear does exist, chief constables are clear exists and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is also clear exists."

Before the home secretary signed an order allowing detention up to 42 days, the relevant chief constable and the director of public prosecutions (DPP) would have to prepare a report putting the case.

If approved by the home secretary the powers would then come into force immediately for a 60-day period.

She would have to inform parliament of her decision within two days and then both houses of parliament would have to decide whether to support it within 30 days.

If there was no parliamentary approval, the limit would revert to 28 days. But the 30-day window means some suspects could already have been held for 42 days by the time the houses made a decision.

"It is pig-headed stubbornness for the government to push on with extending pre-charge detention just as the consensus against it is deepening," said the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg.

"All the so-called safeguards in this latest scheme are just a fig leaf for an unwarranted extension."

He pointed out that there had been widespread opposition to the extension and there was "no compelling evidence" for increasing the limit.

Jago Russell from Liberty said he was "very disappointed" and "vital safeguards" were absent from the proposal.

The DPP, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and - briefly - the security minister, Lord West, all expressed doubts to the home affairs select committee investigating the government's counter-terrorism proposals that longer detention was needed.

The committee is expected to report later this month that there is insufficient evidence to justify an extension.

The new plans would require the DPP's consent for individual extensions beyond 28 days, and each seven-day extension would have to be approved by a judge but there would be no need for parliament to look at each case individually, as had been reported earlier today.

    Smith seeks 42-day detention limit, G, 6.12.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2222890,00.html

8.45am GMT

MPs to decide detention limit

on case-by-case basis

Thursday December 6, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Claire Truscott

The home secretary is due to announce government plans today to allow MPs the right to extend the detention period for terrorism suspects on a case-by-case basis.

Ministers have sought to lengthen the time limit that suspects can be held without charge beyond the current 28 days - against a tide of opposing opinion.

Previous proposals would have extended the period to 56 or 58 days. A shorter 42-day limit has also been discussed.

But asking MPs to approve any further limits on a case-by-case basis would allow ministers to avoid discussion of a maximum time limit.

Under the plans, MPs and peers would be given a vote on whether to trigger emergency powers that would allow terrorist suspects to be held beyond 28 days.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, supports a detention period of 50 to 90 days.

He told the Commons home affairs select committee in October that parliament needed to resolve the detention issue now before an emergency arose.

He said: "At some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient, and the worst time to debate whether an extension is needed would be in the aftermath of an atrocity."

The new plans would allow a vote in parliament during a major anti-terrorist operation, although how sensitive evidential material would be handled has not been explained.

Prosecutors are also said to worry that vital time would be lost in debating the issue, and that such debate could prejudice a future prosecution.

Civil liberties groups are angry about introducing parliamentary control over the process.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the civil liberties campaign group, accused the government of abandoning attempts to build a consensus.

She told the BBC: "It seems more like politics than policy-making to me. I think it is a real mistake, as I've never seen such goodwill in the House of Commons.

"I believed there was a unique opportunity to end the arms race on terror laws, to actually achieve something that would last beyond just one government."

Opposition parties have argued that current powers, to call a national emergency if a case requires going beyond 28 days, are sufficient.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "Not only is it a breach of fundamental liberties enjoyed for centuries by the British people, it is likely to prove counter-productive in the fight against terrorism."

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, added: "Unless some real evidence is produced, the suspicion will only grow that this is being pushed forward for political reasons, not because of a demonstrable need in law."

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and - for a time - the security minister, Lord West, all expressed doubts that longer detention was needed.

The home affairs committee is also believed to be unconvinced.

A Home Office spokesman said: "We believe there is a case for going beyond 28 days in the future.

"We have consulted widely on how this might work in exceptional circumstances."

    MPs to decide detention limit on case-by-case basis, G, 6.12.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2222890,00.html

3.30pm GMT update

July 21 plotter jailed

Tuesday November 20, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Allegra Stratton and agencies

The man who was supposed to be the fifth July 21 bomber was sentenced today to 33 years in prison for his part in helping to plan the failed suicide attacks on London's transport network.

Ghanaian-born Manfu Asiedu was meant to have exploded his rucksack device but "lost his nerve at the last moment" and dumped it in woodland, London's Kingston crown court heard. He admitted a charge of conspiracy to cause explosions.

The attacks were attempted two weeks after four British Islamists killed 52 people in suicide bombings on three underground trains and a bus in the capital.

Four men - Muktah Said Ibrahim, Yassin Hassan Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman - tried to detonate hydrogen peroxide-based bombs on July 21, but their homemade devices failed to explode and no one was killed.

They were all jailed in July for a minimum of 40 years, but a jury failed to reach a verdict against Asiedu and another man Adel Yahya. Yahya was jailed for nearly seven years earlier this month after pleading guilty to a lesser offence.

Asiedu dumped the rucksack with his device in a park in north London on the day of the failed attacks. He denied losing his nerve and said he just wanted to get rid of the bomb.

A few days after the failed attacks, he handed himself in to police and then lied to detectives on an "epic scale", he admitted in court.

During the trial, he dramatically turned on his co-conspirators, contradicting their defence that the plot was a hoax, designed as a publicity stunt, meaning he had to be seated separately from the other accused in the dock.

His lawyer said Asiedu had returned to the flat where the bombs were made to remove the hydrogen peroxide, and said his client had dismantled a booby-trapped sideboard that could have destroyed the entire apartment block.

The basis of Asiedu's guilty plea was that he had bought the hydrogen peroxide for the bombs, his lawyer said.

Yesterday, the prosecution QC, Nigel Sweeney, reminded the court that Asiedu had admitted buying all the hydrogen peroxide used in the attempted bombings.

Sweeney said Asiedu "brought some significant talents to that role".

He told the court: "His experience as a painter and decorator would help with the false cover story that it was being purchased for painting and decorating. His appearance was unlikely to raise suspicion."

Asiedu was charged under the names of Sumaila Abubakhari, also known as Manfo Kwakuasiedu, as he had used fake identities since coming to the UK in December 2003.

"He is plainly, or thinks he is, a consummate liar or deceiver - only someone who thinks that could go about false entry into the UK, adopting a false identity to remain here and go to the police taking them on in over 1,000 transcripts of interviews during which he sewed an intricate web of lies to try and avoid his guilt," said Sweeney.

"He went on to give false statements and evidence on oath."

The QC claimed Asiedu had been in telephone contact with three of the others jailed in connection with the attempted attacks, Yassin Omar, Muktar Said Ibrahim and Adel Yahya.

Asiedu lived in a one-bedroom flat which was turned into a bomb-making factory in New Southgate, north London, with some of the men now convicted in connection with the attack.

"Further, he took part in a cover-up after the bombs failed to explode both for his benefit and the benefit of his conspirators," Sweeney said.

    July 21 plotter jailed, G, 20.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,2213418,00.html

Rail passengers face anti-terror searches

· Security at shopping malls to guard against car bombs
· Guidance for cinemas, theatres and restaurants

Thursday November 15, 2007
Guardian
Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour


Rail passengers at Britain's largest stations face being searched and having their bags screened as part of a package of national security measures unveiled by Gordon Brown yesterday.

The PM said he hoped inconvenience could be minimised but the checks were needed alongside new concrete anti-car bomb barriers and vehicle exclusion zones outside airport terminals, shopping centres and the 250 busiest rail stations.

The measures follow a review by Brown's security adviser, Lord West, on how best to protect crowded public places, hubs in the transport network and more than 100 sensitive installations, including nuclear power stations, after this summer's failed terror attacks in Glasgow and London.

New guidance is also to be sent to thousands of cinemas, theatres, restaurants, hotels, sporting venues, hospitals, schools and places of worship advising them to train staff to be more vigilant and to carry out searches and practise evacuation drills. The programme will be backed up by the recruitment of 160 "counter-terrorism advisers" by local authorities.

The list of extra security measures was leavened by the prospect that the ban on taking more than one bag of hand luggage aboard planes leaving Britain will be progressively eased from January. However, size restrictions on liquids and cabin luggage will remain in force.

The Department for Transport said later it had no plans to install permanent security screens but said trials had already taken place using portable systems and sniffer dogs.

The prime minister coupled the announcement with disclosing some elements of the detailed national security strategy being worked on in Whitehall, with a strong emphasis on stepping up the effort to tackle the spread of extremism in a renewed "hearts and minds" drive.

In particular, he announced that £240m is to be spent by the Home Office on policing in order to focus as much on "preventing the next generation as pursuing current targets". The hearts and minds drive will involve internet companies, the media, universities, schools, mosques, youth clubs and prisons in moves to counter the influence of radical fundamentalists.

Brown told MPs that West had uncovered "no major failures in our protective security", although the security adviser's review is not being published to avoid alerting terrorists to any weak spots.

At the same time the Home Office announced it had awarded the main contract for its £1.2bn "e-borders" programme to ensure that the personal details of everyone who travels into and out of Britain are logged in advance so they can be tracked against US-style "no fly" lists. Immigration airline liaison officers posted abroad are to be given the on-the-spot power to cancel visas to prevent travel.

The £650m contract signed with a consortium led by US defence company Raytheon will involve up to 90 separate pieces of information being supplied to the security services before a passenger flies to or from Britain. The programme aims to achieve 100% coverage by 2014.

Mr Brown also confirmed an intention to set up a single, 25,000-strong, border force, merging the immigration service with customs and some visa staff. He indicated that legislation would be introduced to ensure that its officers have police-style powers to detain and investigate criminal and terror suspects for up to nine hours.

A detailed review published by the Cabinet Office yesterday of the structure of the new force detailed the danger of creating a national police force if it included police officers as well. However, the review explicitly says the door has been left open to merger in the longer term.

Public sector union leaders warned yesterday of teething problems in recent trials in which immigration officers had been expected to do customs work with less than three hours' training, and customs offices expected to carry out key roles such as "passenger profiling".

David Cameron gave a broad welcome to the national security package, including the checks at rail stations, but questioned how the battle for hearts and minds could be won without banning groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and Hizbullah in Britain.

The main measures

 

Protecting public places

Travel Screening of baggage and passenger searches at some large rail stations but one-bag-only luggage rule to be lifted at airports in January. Barriers against car bomb attacks at 250 busiest rail stations, airport terminals, ports and more than 100 sensitive installations.

Other crowded places Guidance to be issued to thousands of cinemas, theatres, restaurants, hotels, sporting venues, commercial centres, hospitals, schools and places of worship. Up to 160 counter-terrorism advisers to train civilian staff to identify suspect activity and ensure premises have secure emergency exits, effective CCTV and regular searches and evacuation drills.

Security Service

Staff numbers to rise from 3,300 to more than 4,000. Dedicated regional counter-terrorism units with more than 2,000 police and support staff to investigate those who recruit terrorists and promote hate. An extra £240m for the Home Office to "prevent the next generation of terrorists pursuing current targets". Extra £70m to be spent on community projects to counter violent extremism.

Terror trials

A single senior judge to be nominated to manage all terrorism cases and a single senior prosecutor to handle violent extremism cases. Fourteen new specially protected courtrooms to be built.

Unified border force

25,000-strong agency uniting Borders and Immigration Agency, Customs and UK Visas staff. All officers to have powers of arrest and detention for criminal as well as immigration offences. Overseas airline liaison officers to be given power to revoke visas and operate "no fly lists". £650m contract signed yesterday for the £1.2bn "eborders" programme to log all movements in and out of the UK by 2014. Checks on people leaving the country to be restored.

Isolating extremism

New police and security intelligence unit to identify those at risk of falling under influence of extremist groups. Series of events at home and abroad, including Pakistan, to counter extremist propaganda. Home secretary to invite largest internet companies to counter online incitement to hatred. Television and newspaper editors to debate terrorism in the media. Charity Commission to ensure that voluntary organisations are not exploited by extremists.

 

Education

Debate to be held over how to ensure extremists cannot impose their views while maintaining academic freedom. Museums, libraries and archives to agree common approach to dealing with inflammatory material. Headteachers' forum to advise on protecting young people in schools. Schools of different faiths to be twinned in £2m scheme.
 

Faith

Green paper on encouraging interfaith groups in every constituency. European centre for excellence in Islamic studies to be set up and greater understanding of contribution of Islam to European history and culture to be promoted.

    Rail passengers face anti-terror searches, G, 15.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2211224,00.html

PM: British Sites Need More Security

November 14, 2007
Filed at 9:20 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

LONDON (AP) -- Britain unveiled plans Wednesday to tighten defenses against car bombs at its airports and rail stations, with the country's terrorism minister warning of a 30-year battle against extremists.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said airports and 250 of the busiest train terminals will get new blast barriers and impose strict limits on access for public vehicles.

In addition, Internet and technology companies in Britain will be asked to help stop terrorist propaganda being distributed online, Brown said.

The review of nearly 900 public spaces was conducted following failed car bomb attacks in London's West End entertainment district and Glasgow airport earlier this year.

Thousands of movie theaters, shopping malls, hospitals and schools will be advised on how to protect the public from bombs.

Brown said a review led by terrorism minister Alan West, former head of the Navy, had found no lapses in safety, but recommended extra protection against car bombs -- a tactic once used by Irish Republican terrorists and now adopted by Islamic extremist groups.

The review came more than two years after the July 2005 suicide bombings on London's transportation system that killed 52 people and the four British attackers.

Brown said new baggage checks will be introduced at major rail terminals, but restrictions limiting air passengers to one piece of hand luggage per flight are being relaxed.

He acknowledged that changes likely will spell more disruption for passengers, who already face strict baggage checks and long lines at security gates.

Some business leaders already claim to avoid London's main Heathrow airport because of the associated hassles.

At a breakfast meeting with architects and security experts, West and Brown discussed plans to design new public buildings, including stadiums and concert arenas, to reduce the impact of explosions and shrapnel.

West, also a former head of defense intelligence, warned that the current threat of terrorism is likely to last for a generation.

''It will take 30 years to excise that cancer of terrorism, I believe,'' he said.

Brown told parliament major work was needed to isolate extremist preachers and neutralize their message, particularly following worries school children have access to violent propaganda.

Jonathan Evans, head of the domestic spy agency MI5, claimed last week young teenagers were being radicalized to carry out terrorist plots.

Brown said Internet and technology companies will be asked to help stop the online distribution of terrorist propaganda, and he announced that a meeting would be convened by ministers.

Public libraries and universities will also check extremist literature is not being handed out on their premises.

Brown made no announcement on contentious proposals to extend the period police can hold terrorism suspects before they are charged or released.

Civil rights campaigners and many Muslims oppose raising the maximum of 28 days. Police claim the complexity of current plots means they need more time to investigate.

    PM: British Sites Need More Security, NYT, 14.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Terrorism.html

UK terror detention limit is longest of any democracy

New research piles pressure on ministers over plans to extend 28-day limit

Monday November 12, 2007
Guardian
Alan Travis, home affairs editor

Britain's existing 28-day limit on holding terror suspects without charge is already far longer than that for any comparable democracy, according to a study to be published tomorrow.

The survey, by the human rights organisation Liberty, was carried out by lawyers and academics in 15 countries. It shows that the four-week maximum in Britain outstrips limits in countries that have also suffered al-Qaida inspired terrorist attacks in recent years, including the United States, Spain and Turkey.

Although police in these countries also face increasingly complex terror plots with growing international dimensions, their maximum periods for pre-charge detention remain as short as 48 hours in the US, five days in Spain and seven and a half days in Turkey.

The findings are released as MPs await the publication of a new counter-terrorism bill that will propose extending detention without charge beyond 28 days.

Police chiefs have argued that complex investigations, including trawling computers and telephones for evidence of terrorist plots, mean they need the option of holding suspects for longer.

But critics have expressed concern that police have failed to bring forward compelling evidence to show the need for an extension.

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, is determined to avoid a repeat of the humiliating Commons defeat suffered by Tony Blair two years ago when he proposed a 90-day limit and saw 49 Labour MPs rebel.

Ministers have indicated they would favour a maximum of up to 56 days, but no government position has been made clear. There is evidence that Gordon Brown has not yet formed any strong personal opinion and he is said to remain "genuinely open-minded" on his preferred option.

Liberty's experts around the world found that in comparable democracies the closest equivalent to a charge for those who have been detained in connection with terrorist activities must happen within days and not the months or even the years claimed by those who want to double the British limit to eight weeks.

The absence of a final decision has been reflected in a slippage of the publication date of the counter-terror bill. It was expected to appear by the end of this month but has now been pencilled in for December-January, with Smith only saying publicly that she hopes it will happen by Christmas.

The home secretary has claimed that carrying out international comparisons of pre-charge detention limits are so complex that they are on a level with doing a PhD thesis, while the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, has claimed that in countries such as France and Germany judicial oversight allows people to be detained for years.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said any extension of pre-charge detention would put Britain even further out of line with comparable democracies around the world: "The new prime minister is neither Tony nor Ian Blair. I have every hope that this new, damning evidence, alongside proportionate alternatives to lengthy pre-charge detention, will persuade him to think again."

She said the Liberty study "explodes self-serving assertions about extended detention in inquisitorial Europe and other western democracies. It makes embarrassing reading for all of us in the land that gave Magna Carta to the world."

The human rights organisation acknowledged that comparisons with other common law systems such as in Canada, New Zealand and Australia were more straightforward than those with inquisitorial civil law systems such as France and Germany, but said it had asked legal experts in each country to identify the closest equivalent to pre-charge detention.

"We found that the closest equivalent to a charge must happen within a matter of days, not months or years as Sir Ian Blair and others have suggested," the Liberty study concludes.

It also warns that any extension of pre-charge detention in Britain could have broader implications around the world and give the green light to other governments such as Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe to pass more draconian anti-terror laws: "Some states, and some individuals seeking to radicalise Muslim youths also might use the disparity to undermine the UK's claim to civility and moral authority."

    UK terror detention limit is longest of any democracy, G, 12.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2209542,00.html

6.45pm GMT update

'Fifth bomber' admits July 21 terror charge

Friday November 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Haroon Siddique and agencies


A man who was supposed to be the fifth bomber in the failed July 21 terror attacks on London today admitted conspiring to cause explosions.

Manfo Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty to the single charge at the Old Bailey, after an earlier charge of conspiracy to murder was dropped.

Four other men were jailed for life in July at Woolwich crown court after being convicted of conspiracy to murder in relation to the failed attacks, which Asiedu did not carry out because he "lost his nerve".

The head of the Metropolitan police counter terrorism command, deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke, said Asiedu was the latest in what was becoming a long line of terrorists pleading guilty to their offences.

"This shows the scale of the threat we are facing, and the strength of the evidence we are putting before the courts," he added. "Asiedu is a dedicated terrorist who has consistently lied about the role he played in this plot. Only now has he finally admitted his guilt."

Asiedu had been due to be retried on the same charge next week but he entered a plea of guilty today to the lesser charge of conspiring to cause explosions, at a hearing before trial judge Mr Justice Calvert-Smith.

He admitted purchasing the hydrogen peroxide used in the attempted bombings, but said he refused to take part in the attacks.

The failed terror bombings on July 21, 2005 took place on three London underground trains at Shepherd's Bush station, Oval station, Warren Street station and on a bus in Hackney Road.

The home-made bombs failed to go off because of mistakes calculating the ratios of the deadly ingredients.

After their conviction in July, Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed, Yassin Omar and Hussain Osman were told they would all serve a minimum of 40 years in prison.

Woolwich crown court heard during their trial that Asiedu was involved in the planning of the attacks but "lost his nerve at the last moment", dumping his bomb in a wooded area in Little Wormwood Scrubs, where it was found two days later.

Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said Asiedu would be sentenced at Kingston crown court on November 19.

Ghanaian-born Asiedu, also known as Sumaila Abu Bakari, faces a maximum life sentence for the charge.

    'Fifth bomber' admits July 21 terror charge, G, 9.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,2208513,00.html

11.30am GMT

'Lyrical terrorist' convicted over hate records

Thursday November 8, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association


A 23-year-old Heathrow Airport worker who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" today became the first woman to be convicted under new terrorism legislation.

Samina Malik burst into tears in the dock at the Old Bailey as a jury found her guilty of possessing records likely to be used for terrorism by a majority of 10 to one.

Malik wrote poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs and stocked a "library" of documents useful to terrorists, the Old Bailey heard.

Malik, who worked airside at WH Smith, was an unlikely but committed Islamic extremist, a jury was told.

The court heard she wrote on the back of a receipt from the shop: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

Today Malik was convicted of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000. She was earlier cleared by a jury of a separate count of possessing an article for terrorism.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told a jury that Malik liked to be known as the "lyrical terrorist" or "a stranger awaiting martyrdom".

He said: "She is a committed Islamic extremist, who supports terrorism and terrorists. She had a library of material that she had collected for terrorist purposes.

"That collection would be extremely useful for someone planning terrorist activity. She was an unlikely person to be an active supporter of terrorism."

The court heard she visited a website linked to jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons at her family home.

But Malik, of Townsend Road, Southall, west London, told the jury: "I am not a terrorist."

She claimed to have used the nickname "Lyrical Terrorist" because she thought it was "cool".

    'Lyrical terrorist' convicted over hate records, G, 8.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2207426,00.html

Suspect In London 2005 Bomb Plot Jailed Nearly 7 Years

November 5, 2007
Filed at 12:55 p.m. ET
By REUTERS
The New York Times

LONDON (Reuters) - A man accused of helping to plot botched 2005 suicide bombings on London was sentenced to nearly seven years in jail on Monday after he pleaded guilty to a lesser offence.

Ethiopian-born Adel Yahya was one of six men to go on trial accused of plotting al Qaeda-inspired attacks on London's transport system on July 21, 2005, two weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 people in the British capital.

Detectives said the second plot only failed because the bombers' homemade devices failed to explode.

Yahya, who had flown to Ethiopia six weeks before the bombings, was not accused of being one of the four men who tried to carry out the attacks. However, prosecutors had accused him of being a central figure in the plot.

While four of his co-accused, Muktah Said Ibrahim, Yassin Hassan Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman, were jailed for at least 40 years each in July for conspiracy to murder, the jury failed to reach a verdict over Yahya.

On Monday, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of collecting information useful for militants, a week before he was scheduled to face a re-trial.

He was jailed for six years and nine months.

During the trial, Yahya admitted making inquiries about hydrogen peroxide -- the main ingredient in the homemade bombs -- on behalf of his friend Omar but said he did not realize it was for making bombs.

Yahya, who came to Britain as a young child to live in north London, told the court he was "sick" when he had learnt what Omar had been planning.

A sixth man suspected of being involved in the plot, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, is due to face a re-trial next week after the jury also failed to reach a verdict in his case.

    Suspect In London 2005 Bomb Plot Jailed Nearly 7 Years, NYT, 5.11.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-britain-july21.html

12.30pm

MI5 chief says terrorists targeting UK teenagers

Monday November 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver

Children in the UK as young as 15 and 16 have been implicated in "terrorist-related" activity as extremists "methodically" target them to help their aims, the head of MI5 said today.

In his first public speech since becoming MI5's director general in April this year, Jonathan Evans, an expert in Islamist extremism, said terrorists' increasing use of children was a worrying development.

Mr Evans, who also warned that Russia's "unreconstructed" attempts to spy on the UK were tying up resources, said: "As I speak, terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country. They are radicalising, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."

The MI5 director general said the country's rightful concern to protect children from exploitation needed to be extended to cover violent extremism.

Speaking more generally, he said the UK's greatest security threat continued to be al-Qaida, which was conducting a "deliberate campaign against the United Kingdom" and there was "no sign of it reducing".

"I not think that this problem has yet reached its peak," he added. Speaking to newspaper editors at a hotel in Manchester, Mr Evans said that when his predecessor, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, made a similar speech this time last year she said MI5 had identified 1,600 supporters of terrorism who were a "direct threat to national security and public safety".

"That figure today would be at least 2,000," Mr Evans said. Part of the increase was due to success of MI5 monitoring of extremist groups, he indicated. He said the increase was due to a flow of new extremist recruits and "improved coverage of extremist communities" by MI5.

Another worrying development in the last year was the "extent to which the conspiracies here are being driven from an increasing range of overseas countries".

Mr Evans said for the last five years the control and inspiration for attacking the UK had come from al-Qaida's core leadership in Pakistan, often using young British citizens to "mount the actual attack".

"But worryingly, we have more recently seen similar processes emerging elsewhere. For instance, there is no doubt now that al-Qaida in Iraq aspires to promote terrorist attacks outside Iraq. There is no doubt that there is training activity and terrorist planning in east Africa - particularly in Somalia - which is focused on the UK.

"And there is no doubt that the extension of what one might call the 'al-Qaida franchise' to other groups in other countries - notably in Algeria - has created a significant upsurge in terrorist violence in these countries. It is no coincidence that the first suicide bombing in Algeria followed the creation of the new 'Al Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb'."

Mr Evans also spoke about Russian intelligence, which has been of heightened concern to UK intelligence since the killing in London in November 2006 of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive isotope. Russia has blocked the UK's extradition requests for a former KGB man, Andrei Lugovoi, who the UK says is the chief suspect in the case; Mr Lugovoi denies involvement.

In his speech today, Mr Evans made no explicit reference to the Litvinenko case, but he warned: "There has been no decrease in the numbers of Russian intelligence officers conducting covert activity in the UK, despite the cold war ending nearly two decades ago. MI5 is expending resources to defend the UK against unreconstructed attempts by Russian, and others, to spy on the UK."

Crucial resources were being tied up in combating Russian intelligence, which could be deployed to fight "international terrorism", Mr Evans said.

MI5 has been praised for Operation Crevice, which successfully stopped a plot to target nightclubs and other sites with fertiliser bombs, but it has attracted criticism because of links between the terrorists in that plot and the July 7 2005 suicide bombers.

It emerged at the end of the Crevice trial in April this year that Mohammed Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the July 7 London bombers, had been a close associate of the leader of the fertiliser cell, Omar Khyam.

Mr Evans said the security service "cannot know everything" and was allocating finite resources. If there was an attack in the future, it was a benefit if MI5 had information about one of the perpetrators, as this would speed up investigations.

He said: "There will be instances when individuals come to the notice of the security service or the police, but then subsequently carry out acts of terrorism. This is inevitable. Every decision to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else. Knowing of somebody is not the same as knowing all about somebody."

Mr Evans also confirmed that MI5's new Northern Ireland headquarters would open soon. He described it as part of the service's "UK-wide counter terrorism network". By 2011, MI5 expects to have 4,000 staff, and 25% of them will work outside MI5's London headquarters.

    MI5 chief says terrorists targeting UK teenagers, G, 5.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2205577,00.html

Leading article: London's police deserve a new leader

Published: 04 November 2007
The Independent on Sunday

The question that should be asked about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes is: have the lessons been learned and are we as a result safer now from the threat of terrorism and from the police reaction to it? The question of Sir Ian Blair's future as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a secondary one and can be rephrased thus: would Sir Ian's resignation make us safer?

This requires us to scrape away the less relevant mud that has been hurled at him since he took the job in February 2005. He has been accused of all manner of failings, many listed by Brian Coleman, a Conservative member of the London Assembly, in today's Independent on Sunday. It even requires us to look beyond the issue of last week's court finding against the Met over the killing of de Menezes.

There is no question that his death was a truly awful mistake, the outcome of a series of ghastly failings by several police officers operating under rules and structures that were Sir Ian's responsibility. Yet the court's findings as to culpability were quite clear. Collectively, the Met Police deserved censure but no one person was adjudged to have done anything so wrong as to justify prosecution. The picture painted in court of the confusion of that day, 22 July 2005, was all too credible. We can all ask why, if they thought de Menezes was a possible suicide bomber, they allowed him to travel so far, and we can wonder why there were no fallback procedures for the police to confront him. Equally, we all remember the shock of the 7 July bombings, and the aftershock of the attempted bombings of 21 July. That de Menezes was mis-identified as one of the 21 July bombers the next day was terrible, but we should remember too the speed with which the real bombers were arrested, within eight days.

The question that dominated the headlines last week, however, was the wrong one. Sir Ian should not have to go as some form of ritual sacrifice on the altar of the principle of "accountability". Not every time that failings are identified in an organisation is the head of that organisation required to resign.

No, he should go because we are drawn reluctantly to the conclusion that he is not the best person to lead the Met as it learns the lessons of this unfortunate affair. Although there are questions about Sir Ian's responsibility for the "Kratos" guidelines for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, which contributed to the confusion in Stockwell station that day, his serious failings occurred afterwards. These were less the focus of last week's court case, but will be examined in the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission expected soon.

Even on the day of the shooting, Sir Ian showed a bizarre lack of curiosity. He held a news conference before he knew all the facts, and went home at the end of normal office hours. From then on he gave the impression of a man determined only to prevent his position being damaged. He initially tried to fend off the IPCC; he secretly recorded phone conversations with the IPCC and the Attorney General; and he persistently sought to represent de Menezes as a more credible suspect than he was. He was also slow to repudiate the erroneous suggestions that seemed to come from the police that de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket and behaved suspiciously. The impression was left that the Met under him clutched at any excuse, including the cocaine found in de Menezes' blood. And it was Sir Ian who rejected advice to plead guilty to the proceedings that concluded last week.

The threat from suicide terrorism is serious. The real criticism of last week's court verdict is that it might prompt the police to hold back when there is the need for quick and decisive action. Countering that tendency and demanding clarity rather than caution requires strong leadership, which we do not believe Sir Ian can provide. One weakness that has become apparent in recent months is the lack of support and loyalty that he commands at all levels in the Met. His supporters seem to be mostly politicians – and some of the most important are holding back.

The support offered to him last week by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, was the minimum required: "I have full confidence in the Metropolitan Police and their Commissioner to continue the fight against the serious terrorist threat that we are facing." What was particularly ominous for Sir Ian, though, was the silence of the Prime Minister. On Friday, Gordon Brown found time to congratulate Countdown, the Channel 4 quiz show, on its 25th anniversary. Yet he had nothing to say about the future of the country's most important policeman. Sir Ian's job is not formally in Mr Brown's gift, and nor should it be. It is up to the Metropolitan Police Authority, and its members should decide that the next phase of London's defence against terrorism needs new leadership.

    Leading article: London's police deserve a new leader, IoS, 4.11.2007, http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3127341.ece

Guilty, but Blair refuses to go

· Met convicted for failings that led to De Menezes death
· Tories and Lib Dems demand resignation
· Commissioner says shooting was an isolated tragedy


Friday November 2, 2007
Guardian
Vikram Dodd, crime correspondent


Sir Ian Blair vowed yesterday to stay on as Britain's top police officer, despite sustained calls for his resignation, after his force was found guilty of "catastrophic" failings that led to the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes.

An Old Bailey jury found the Metropolitan police guilty of breaking health and safety law in July 2005 when De Menezes was killed after being mistaken for a suicide bomber. Fining the force £175,000 and ordering it to pay £385,000 in costs, judge Mr Justice Henriques called on the force to learn lessons.

He said: "Every single failure here has been disputed. Some of these failings have been simply beyond explanation. There has been no single admission to any one of the alleged 19 failings."

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats demanded Sir Ian resign as commissioner of the Met. But he was given public backing by home secretary, Jacqui Smith, and prime minister, Gordon Brown.

Within the police service, the Guardian has learned that senior figures argued the force should plead guilty, but Sir Ian decided to fight the case. The unprecedented trial came after prosecutors said no individual officer could be held responsible for the electrician's death, but that the force should be tried for failing to protect the public from risk.

At the heart of the trial was the Met's failure to follow its own plan on the morning of July 22 2005, thereby placing the public at risk. The force was hunting suicide bombers who had launched failed attacks on the capital's transport system the previous day.

Evidence led detectives to a block of flats in south London, and at 5am a senior commander ordered surveillance officers to be posted outside with support from elite firearms officers to stop and question anyone who emerged.

But the firearms officers were not in place for more than four hours, so when De Menezes left the flats he was allowed to travel on two buses and then on to a tube train at Stockwell. It was only there that firearms officers caught up with him and he was shot seven times.

Delivering their guilty verdict, the jury made clear that Cressida Dick, who led the operation, bore "no personal culpability". Mr Justice Henriques said a "corporate failure" lay behind the tragedy. "This was very much an isolated breach brought about by quite extraordinary circumstances," he said.

But he said the failure to have firearms officers in place had led to the killing of the 27-year-old Brazilian. If the strategy had been followed, he said, it "would have prevented any suspect boarding the public transportation system and would ... have avoided this terrible tragedy".

The prosecution had outlined 19 separate failures. Sentencing the Met, the judge highlighted particular shortcomings including commanding officers' mistaken belief that surveillance officers following De Menezes had "positively" identified him as a terrorist. The control room at Scotland Yard was noisy, making communications difficult, said the judge, who added that the briefing firearms officers received was inaccurate and "unbalanced".

The judge praised the bravery of individual officers but said the force should learn lessons and questioned its tactics in the trial. He said the bill to the taxpayer could "very easily have been minimised".

After the verdict Sir Ian refused to consider resigning, saying the failings were not systemic: "The difficulties shown in this trial were those of an organisation struggling, on a single day, to get to grips with a simply extraordinary situation."

One of Britain's most senior officers told the Guardian: "The Met should have pleaded guilty. The stuff that comes out is embarrassing for the Met even if it's found not guilty." He added: "Stockwell will damage him in the end. It's his millstone and will be with him to the end."

The furore over the shooting will continue. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is considering the release of a report into the failings within days. A full inquest into the killing will take place next year, and the De Menezes family will also issue civil proceedings.

Later this month Sir Ian will face a meeting of his police authority where he will be questioned about the guilty verdict.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said the commissioner's position was "untenable" and the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said his resignation was unavoidable.

The Met is under fire for its trial tactics. The closing speech of its barrister Ronald Thwaites QC angered De Menezes's family, who said it was a "smear". They demanded Sir Ian resign.

    Guilty, but Blair refuses to go, G, 2.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,2203996,00.html

5.30pm update

Terror accused planned multiple attacks, court told

Thursday October 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies

An alleged terrorist plotter accused of organising British jihadi camps planned "six or seven" attacks to be carried out before the 2012 Olympics in London, a court heard today.

Mohammed Hamid, 50, who was said to refer to himself as "Osama bin London", also praised the September 11 hijackers, Woolwich crown court was told.

Mr Hamid is accused of organising military-style camps across England, including paintball sessions, indoctrination meetings and combat drills, which were attended by several of those who later carried out the failed July 21 2005 attacks in London.

The group was infiltrated by an undercover police officer who got in by claiming he wanted to convert to Islam, according to the prosecution.

Today the jury was told the officer had heard Mr Hamid taunting police as he drove past Paddington Green police station in west London. He allegedly shouted: "Here is your terrorist, I'm here, come and get me."

Hamid and a group of associates were travelling back from a trip to the New Forest where they had practised military drills, it was claimed. The undercover officer also attended the camp.

The second alleged leader of the gang, who has pleaded guilty to soliciting murder, was Atilla Ahmet, 43, a former preacher at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London.

Jurors heard evidence of Ahmet's growing suspicion that MI5 and the police were watching them.

At one meeting at a Chinese restaurant in south London last September, Ahmet told the group "they needed to get their stories straight before the 'feds' came and busted their doors down", the prosecutor, David Farrell QC, told the court.

Minutes later, armed police rushed into the room and arrested four of the five defendants.

Footage of an earlier visit to the New Forest in 2004, shot by one group member on his mobile phone, was shown to the jury.

It showed several men and what appeared to be a young boy performing forward rolls and crawling across the ground.

Mr Farrell said to the jury: "What you see in these sections is not mere religious instruction, is it?

"The prosecution say these video clips show basic military training, training which prepared them for further military training. It forms the first part of their terrorist training."

Police were also said to have hidden a camera in the woods.

Mr Farrell said an MI5 listening device recorded Mr Hamid speaking to other members of the group in his east London home prior to one New Forest trip.

The court was told he said: "We are supposed to take on two kuffars [non-believers]. One Muslim is supposed to take on two kuffars. Lucky if we could take on one kuffar."

Mr Farrell also referred to a song that police secretly recorded Ahmet singing during a weekend visit to an Islamic centre in East Sussex in 2006.

Mr Farrell read out the lyrics: "Hey Mr Taliban, come kill the dirty kuffars; Hey Mr Taliban, boom, boom, boom; Come bomb England, before the daylight come; Inshallah [God willing], it shall be done."

Jurors heard an interview Ahmet gave to CNN after the radical cleric Abu Hamza was jailed for inciting murder in February 2006. He claimed that "sincere" Muslims were pleased with the September 11 attacks and that further attacks on Britain and the US were justified.

Mr Farrell said: "This was not the subtle brainwashing that he and Hamid were conducting at their Friday meetings.

"This was him speaking his real hatred for western civilisation and western values. If Hamid did not agree with these views, why did he not say so?"

Mr Hamid was arrested at his religious bookstall in Oxford Street in October 2004 for public order offences, along with Muktar Said Ibrahim, one of the convicted 21/7 conspirators.

Mr Hamid is accused of providing weapons training, soliciting murder, providing training for terrorism and possessing terrorist documents.

Mousa Brown, 31, is charged with providing weapons training and receiving weapons training.

Kibley da Costa, 24, is accused of providing training for terrorism, attending a place used for terrorist training and possessing terrorist documents.

Kader Ahmed, 20, is charged with attending a place used for terrorist training. Mohammed al-Figari, 43, is charged with attending a place used for terrorist training and possessing terrorist information.

All have pleaded not guilty. They are all from greater London. The trial continues.

    Terror accused planned multiple attacks, court told, G, 11.10.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2188876,00.html

1.45pm update

Man admits encouraging terror attacks

Wednesday October 10, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A man today admitted soliciting murder in connection with an alleged plot to organise terrorist training camps across the UK.

Atilla Ahmet, 42, from south-east London, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to three counts of encouraging others to commit murder.

Five men linked to Ahmet went on trial today at Woolwich crown court for a number of terrorist offences. One of the men, Mohammed Hamid, is accused of organising camps attended by the July 21 bombers, the court heard.

The prosecution claim Mr Hamid was involved in the radicalisation of Muslim youths for two years from 2004. David Farrell, prosecuting, said Mr Hamid was arrested at a stall in Oxford Street, central London, in October 2004.

Also arrested was Muktar Said Ibrahim, the ringleader of the failed July 21 plot, Mr Farrell said.

"Hamid told the police that his name was 'Osama bin London', and on the way to the police station he said to a police officer, 'I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow you all up'," the lawyer said.

Mr Hamid, 50, of Clapton, East London; Mousa Brown, 41, of Walthamstow, east London; Kibley da Costa, 24, of West Norwood, south-east London; Mohammed Al-Figari, 42, of Tottenham, north London; and Kader Ahmed, 20, of Plaistow, east London, deny a number of terrorism charges.

The court heard that the alleged terrorist training was carried out under the guise of camping and paint-balling trips in the UK.

Mr Farrell said the trips were designed to "foster within the participants that they were training for 'Jihad' against the 'Kuffir', or non-believers".

He added: "To put it another way, their statements and actions resulted in the encouragement, direct and indirect, of the commission of acts of terrorism.

"Indeed, as you will hear, a number of young men who attended camps organised by Hamid were in fact involved in attempts to kill and seriously injure passengers on the London transport network on July 2 2005."

The jury was told that Ahmet attend meetings at Mr Hamid's home, where "aggressive unlawful violence" was preached in the name of Islam.

Mr Farrell said: "At meetings held at Hamid's home address and elsewhere, the methods of Hamid and Ahmet involved the encouragement of the use of unlawful violence in the name of Islam."

The court heard that some of those involved in the failed July 21 bombings attended the camps and paint-balling trips, as well as meetings at Hamid's home.

The jury was shown evidence of phone contact between Mr Hamid and the four convicted bombers - Ibrahim, Hussein Osman, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar.

Mr Farrell said: "The prosecution do not suggest that Mr Hamid's role in seeking to train and influence those who took part in 21/7 was the only training or influence they received.

"The prosecution's case is that Hamid, assisted by Ahmet, was a recruiter, groomer and corrupter of young Muslims.

"His purpose was to convert such men to his own fanatical and extreme beliefs and, having given them such a foundation, thereby enabling them to move on to join others in the pursuit of 'Jihad' by acts of terrorism."

The court heard that Mr Hamid's east London home was bugged by police from September 2005 onwards.

Officers were able to listen to meetings held each Friday by Hamid, Ahmet and others when discussions took place.

In April 2006, an undercover police officer approached Mr Hamid at his Oxford Street stall and was invited to the Islamic meetings. He was subsequently invited to camping weekends in the New Forest and to an Islamic school in East Sussex.

Speaking about the recordings, Mr Farrell said: "What you'll hear is not mere religious discussion and teaching, but the preaching of aggressive, unlawful violence - terrorism in the name of Islam.

"Indeed Hamid's partner in terrorist conversions, Atilla Ahmet, has admitted that that was his intention when he addressed meetings at Hamid's house."

Mr Farrell said when the defendants were arrested in September 2006 their homes were searched and a "great deal" of extremist material was seized, including CDs and DVDs containing recordings of murders, beheadings and suicide bombings.

    Man admits encouraging terror attacks, G, 10.10.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2187948,00.html

4.30pm update

Scottish student convicted on terror charges

Monday September 17, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


A 21-year-old student was convicted today of possessing CDs and computer material linked to Islamist terrorism, along with threatening to become a suicide bomber and other offences.

He faces a potential jail sentence of up to 15 years, the trial judge has warned.

Following the verdict, police said Mohammed Atif Siddique, from Alva, Clackmannanshire near Stirling in central Scotland, had been found guilty of "serious terrorism offences" that posed a genuine threat.

Siddique's lawyer said he would appeal, arguing the student's actions amounted to nothing worse than "what millions of young people do every day - looking for answers on the internet".

"This verdict is a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech, and undermines the values that separate us from the terrorists, the very values we should be fighting to protect," Aamer Anwar said outside Glasgow high court.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on four charges, including one of possessing CDs and videos that could be used for terrorist purposes.

Siddique was also convicted on two charges of setting up websites with links to terrorist publications that showed how to use weapons and make bombs, and causing a breach of the peace at Glasgow Metropolitan college by threatening to become a suicide bomber and blow up Glasgow. He will be sentenced on October 23.

The trial judge, Lord Carloway, said the court must take the offences "extremely seriously" and warned Siddique he was considering an extended sentence, which would mean up to 15 years' jail followed by a term on licence.

During the four-week trial, the prosecutor, Brian McConnachie, called Siddique a "wannabe suicide bomber" who helped distribute material that amounted to "a call to arms for Muslims".

"It's clear from that material that the whole idea was to glorify martyrdom operations, which we call suicide bombings," Mr McConnachie said.

The jury heard that Siddique was stopped at Glasgow airport as he was about to fly to Pakistan and had his laptop seized.

Police examined his home computer and found he had set up websites with direct links to inflammatory publications featuring detailed information about survival techniques and guerrilla warfare - for example, the use of rocket launchers, and the making of bombs and booby traps.

A CD found under a carpet in his home included footage produced by the official al-Qaida media wing, said a US terror expert.

The trial heard how the 21-year-old showed fellow students videos of a beheading and a man who had blown himself up, and talked of his support for suicide bombers and how he wanted to become a "sacrifice to God".

Assistant Chief Constable Maureen Brown of Central Scotland police, who was in charge of the investigation, said the trial was nothing to do with Islam or an individual community and had "only ever been about one thing: criminality".

"This case and other recent events have shown that terrorism is not just an issue for the major cities in England," she said. "The threat is with us now, it's real and we should all take responsibility for helping to tackle it."

Mr Anwar, however, said young Muslims in the UK lived in "a climate of fear", calling some of the evidence against his client "farcical".

"When detained at Glasgow airport by Special Branch on April 6 2006, his laptop was confiscated and he was released," Mr Anwar said. "At liberty for seven days, he made no attempt to escape or to destroy his home computer - hardly the actions of al-Qaida."

    Scottish student convicted on terror charges, NYT, 17.8.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2171138,00.html

Man ablaze

in Glasgow airport attack dies

Friday August 3, 2007
Guardian
Saeed Shah

Kafeel Ahmed, the man who set himself on fire after crashing a jeep into Glasgow airport, has died in hospital. The 27-year-old Indian national was one of two men held at the airport after the attack on June 30. Television footage had shown the badly burned Ahmed being detained by police at Glasgow airport.

He sustained 90% burns and had not been expected to survive. He died at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, police said last night. He had been in hospital since the incident.

Bilal Abdulla, a doctor arrested at the airport at the same time as Ahmed, has been charged with conspiring to cause explosions and remains in custody. The pair were allegedly driving a Jeep laden with gas canisters.

Ahmed, from Bangalore, was an engineer with a PhD, and was related to Sabeel Ahmed, who has also been charged in relation to the attempted car bombings in London and Glasgow. Ahmed was also distantly related to Mohammed Haneef, the Indian doctor detained in Australia after the attacks in Britain. Dr Haneef was released by the Australian authorities at the end of last month.

A spokesman for Strathclyde police said: "We can confirm that the man seriously injured during the course of the incident at Glasgow airport on Saturday June 30 has died in Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

"The man died earlier this evening and the circumstances surrounding the death have been reported to the procurator fiscal."

    Man ablaze in Glasgow airport attack dies, G, 3.8.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2140934,00.html

De Menezes shooting:

UK's top anti-terror officer

is singled out

· Final verdict on two-year saga
· Met chief Blair is cleared
· Report criticises Hayman

Wednesday August 1, 2007
Guardian
Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

The country's most senior anti-terrorist officer will be heavily criticised in an official report published tomorrow into the events surrounding the killing of an innocent Brazilian man in south London, the Guardian understands.

While Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police will escape serious censure from the Independent Police Complaints Commission over his role, Andy Hayman, the overall head of counter terrorism and intelligence, is understood to have been singled out for being deliberately misleading.

The Guardian understands that in the last two weeks the IPCC has withdrawn its criticism of three other officers after being threatened with legal action because it had failed to follow its own guidelines over the way it dealt with them.

The expected findings of Stockwell 2, a two-year IPCC investigation into who in the Metropolitan police knew what and when in the aftermath of the shooting of the innocent De Menezes have caused disquiet at Scotland Yard.

The force has always maintained that anti-terrorist officers were faced with unprecedented challenges on Friday July 22 2005 as they searched for at least four suicide bombers who had attempted to blow themselves up on tube trains and a bus on the London transport system the day before.

There has also been private criticism of the way the IPCC has conducted its first high-profile investigation since the watchdog body was reformed and made independent of the police.

"This was London in the grips of an attack, two weeks after another terrorist attack had killed 52 people," said one source. "Four men were on the run who could have attacked again, the events of the day were extremely fast moving. There is a sense that the IPCC, having failed to recommend any action against any of the officers involved in the shooting itself needed a scapegoat."

De Menezes, 27, who was making his way to work, was shot seven times in the head by an armed police surveillance team after being mistaken for one of the suspected July 21 suicide bombers. In the hours after the shooting, Scotland Yard maintained that the man targeted was a suspected terrorist, but were forced to concede the following day that an innocent man had been killed.

In tomorrow's report, Mr Hayman is accused of being deliberately misleading over what he revealed on the day of the shooting about the identity of the man the police had killed.

Sir Ian, who said initially the dead man was "directly linked" to anti-terrorist operations, was not told that he was an innocent man until the next day - Saturday July 23.

But, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, sources say there were unconfirmed rumours that the man who had been killed may not have been one of the four suicide bombers being hunted. Mr Hayman is criticised by the IPCC for not passing this on to Mr Blair at a briefing he had with him at 6pm that night.

However, senior sources question how he could have passed on the unsubstantiated rumours at that stage.

It was not until midnight that De Menezes was finally formally identified and the picture became clear.

Other senior Met officers have given testimony to the IPCC that when they left Scotland Yard at 11pm there was still no indication that the wrong person had been shot.

Sir Ian was told of the development by Mr Hayman the next morning and later that day - 24 hours after the shooting - Scotland Yard admitted the victim was not connected to attempted terror attacks on the capital. Hours later Sir Ian apologised to the family, describing the death of De Menezes as a tragedy for which the police accepted full responsibility.

Sir Ian will be cleared in the IPCC report of breaking the senior officers' code of conduct by lying. He may face criticism that he is out of touch with senior officers.

Three officers who were facing criticism began an application for a judicial review of the findings alleging the IPCC had breached procedural rules.

As a result the IPCC is understood to have re-edited the report in the last two weeks to remove the bulk of the criticism against them.

The first official report by the IPCC into the shooting itself - which has yet to be published - recommended no disciplinary action against 11 officers, including the two firearms officers who shot Mr de Menezes on the tube.

Four senior officers - including Cressida Dick, the senior commander who ran the armed operation and is thought to have authorised the order to shoot - were told by the IPCC that they will have to wait for a decision on discipline until the end of a criminal prosecution of the Met under health and safety laws. Ms Dick has since been promoted.

Despite an alleged admission to the IPCC that officers in the bungled surveillance operation altered the official log, the Crown Prosecution Service has said no individual officers will face prosecution. There is therefore surprise at the top of Scotland Yard that Mr Hayman appears to have been singled out.

Asad Rehman, a spokesman for the De Menezes family, said they had not seen the full report yet. "What the family wanted to know was what happened and for people to be held accountable for their actions if they have misled the family," he said.

The IPCC last night confirmed that there had been threats of a legal challenge over the Stockwell 2 report, and that minor changes had been made.

    De Menezes shooting: UK's top anti-terror officer is singled out, G, 1.8.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,2138931,00.html