British terror trial raises question of what MI5 knew about 2005

[جوري]

British terror trial raises question of what MI5 knew about 2005
London bombings
By Julie Hyland
9 May 2007
Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

Following a series of ****ing revelations during the trial of seven
men for their roles in the alleged "fertiliser bomb plot," the
government is continuing to dismiss calls for an independent inquiry
into the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

Last week, Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, Salahuddin Amin
and Anthony Garcia were jailed for life for conspiring to cause
explosions likely to endanger life between January 1, 2003, and March
31, 2004. Two other men, Nabeel Hussain and Shujah Mahmood, were
found not guilty after one of the longest-running anti-terror trials
in the world. Operation Crevice involved 3,644 witness statements and
105 prosecution witnesses. The jury took a record 27 days to
deliberate their verdict.

The seven were accused of purchasing 600 kg of ammonium nitrate (used
as fertiliser) and storing it in a London unit in preparation for a
major bomb attack in Britain. The 13-month hearing heard transcripts
of the accused discussing potential targets including the Bluewater
Shopping Centre in southern England and nightclubs.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair described the trial
and its outcome as a "triumph" for Britain's intelligence services
and denounced those accusing the police of making strategic errors
as "nay-sayers."

His comments were part of a sustained offensive by the police,
government and much of the media to quash renewed demands for an
independent inquiry into the July 7 bombings, after the trial heard
fresh evidence that two of the ringleaders of the explosions on
London Underground trains and a bus—Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad
Tanweer—had been known to the intelligence services at least five
months before they made their attack.

On May 1, survivors and relatives of those killed on July 7 delivered
a letter to the Home Office calling for an "independent and impartial
public inquiry" into the attack. Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected
their demand and insisted MI5 was doing an "amazing job." An inquiry
would only divert resources from the fight against terrorism, Blair
claimed.

In an unprecedented move, MI5 published a reply to criticisms on its
website, "Rumours and Reality—the facts behind the myths," whilst the
press rolled into action to defend the intelligence agency. The
Guardian editorialised, "An inquiry might rake over old failings, not
current ones. It could add to the pressures on those policing
terrorism. Carried out in private, it might not even do much to
reassure the public...."

Whilst acknowledging that mistakes had been made, the editorial
continued, "A one-off inquiry into an investigation that succeeded
much more than it failed is not the way to make it better."

Writing in the Independent, Deborah Orr Deborah complained, "The last
thing we need, in the wake of the Operation Crevice verdict, is an
elaborate inquiry, which would simply be another way of throwing
money away."

In the same newspaper, Howard Jacobson argued, "I wonder how many of
those calling for this inquiry were busy telling us not all that long
ago that there was no terrorism for our security services to police.
An invention of our respective governments—Blair's and Bush's—the lot
of it."

Disparaging the questions raised over the real purpose of Bush and
Blair's "war on terror," he continued, "is that a `sorry' I hear amid
the accusations that we have not been sufficiently vigilant? A sorry
from those who thought vigilance was uncalled for and sinister?"

Such a pose of self-serving triumphalism will do nothing to quell the
questions raised by the Old Bailey hearing, and their grave
implications for democratic rights.

Most ****ing of all is the revelation that MI5 was well aware of the
identities of several of those of went on to carry out the July 7
bombings and their involvement in terror activities, but decided not
to follow them up.

The trial heard that, several months before the accused were
arrested, police had been tipped off by the storage unit as to the
quantity of fertiliser being held on its premises. Having replaced
the fertiliser with a harmless substance, a plainclothes police
officer was stationed at the reception whilst hidden surveillance
cameras recorded everyone attending the facility.

"Operation Crevice" was therefore intended as a massive information-
gathering exercise. The court heard how the probe uncovered 55
individuals known to have associated with the plotters, of whom 15
were considered "essential" targets. Yet, Khan and Tanweer
were "parked up" with the remainder—i.e. treated as non-urgent cases.
This is despite MI5 recording meetings between Khan and Tanweer on
four occasions in 2004 with Omar Khyam, described at the Old Bailey
as the ringleader of the fertiliser plot.

The court also heard how Khan was amongst several of the accused that
had attended a terrorist camp in the Afghan border region in July
2003, and that anti-terror police had investigated two cars linked to
him, five months before the July 7 bombings. Yet, despite having his
name and address, no follow-up was made.

MI5 claims that this was because the two had not been heard
discussing terrorist acts and "appeared as petty fraudsters." But in
transcripts of bugged conversations played in court, Khan is heard
discussing attending a terror training camp and conducting financial
scams in preparation for what his co-conspirator describes as "a one-
way ticket."

Neither has MI5 been able to explain why it omitted sending
surveillance pictures of Khan to the FBI during its interrogation of
the so-called Al Qaeda "supergrass" (informer) Mohammed Junaid Babar,
who gave evidence for the prosecution.

MI5's claims regarding Khan and Tanweer are, moreover, contradicted
by a 37-page document compiled for the Crown Prosecution Service,
which was revealed by the Sunday Times on May 6.

According to the newspaper, the CPS document states that "MI5
surveillance showed the pair [Khan and Tanweer] `were concerned with
intended terrorist activity' when they met with a gang planning a
bombing at the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent."

It also states that Kahn was "identified" six months before he
carried out the July 7 bombings.

It is proof that Khan and Tanweer had been identified by the
intelligence services months before July 7 that has particularly
angered survivors of the London explosions. At the time, then-Home
Secretary Charles Clarke had claimed those involved were "clean
skins"—i.e., unknown to the police and intelligence services—whilst
Blair told parliament, "I know of no intelligence specific enough" to
have prevented the attacks.

The Times notes that only last week, current Home Secretary John Reid
had told MPs that that "neither Khan nor Tanweer were `known' to the
security services until after July 7. He later said police and
security services had `no records on them.' "

The Times added that the CPS document "argues that meetings between
the two men and the fertiliser plotters in 2004 were so significant
they should have been brought to the jury's attention."

Evidence that MI5 had been able to identify Khan and Tanweer has also
led to accusations that it withheld information from parliament's
Intelligence and Security Committee.

The ISC report issued in May 2006 stated that none of the July 7
bombers had been "named and listed" as potential terror threats. It
stated that although MI5 had come across Khan and Tanweer "on the
peripheries" of other investigative operations, their identities were
unknown.

The ISC was also not shown surveillance photographs of the meetings
between Khan, Tanweer and Omar Khyam. Security officials have said
this was not necessary, as members of the ISC were aware of the
links. "The reason they were not shown them is because it didn't add
to the facts. If they had felt the need to ask to see them, they
would have asked," one source was reported as stating.

The ISC is a toothless body, appointed by the prime minister and
responsible directly to him. It is for this reason, and to divert
demands for a more far-ranging independent inquiry, that Blair
established his 2005 investigation. It is for the same reason that
the ISC has meekly said it will "look again" at information revealed
during the trial.

In addition to the ****ing evidence of MI5's foreknowledge of Khan
and Tanweer's involvement in terror plots, the fertiliser trial has
raised many other fundamental questions.

In the same leader cited above, the Guardian revealed
that "restrictive limits on reporting" over the last 13 months meant
that the "story of Operation Crevice...will come as a surprise to
almost everyone outside the narrow circle of politicians and security
professionals who—together with those present in court—were aware
that one of the most remarkable trials in British criminal history
had been underway."

On what grounds were such restrictions imposed, and for whose
purposes? The Guardian does not say. In a separate article, the
newspaper also noted that the ISC's 2006 findings were "written under
restrictions to avoid prejudicing the trial of the fertiliser bomb
plotters." In other words, the findings of the only "investigation"
into July 7 were themselves subject to even further restrictions.

Then there are the allegations made during the trial that Britain's
security services had sanctioned the torture in Pakistan of one of
the accused, Salahuddin Amin.

A British citizen, Amin was arrested and interrogated in Pakistan for
10 months, during which he alleges he was beaten and flogged,
threatened with an electric drill, and forced to listen to the
screams of others being abused before confessing to his involvement
in a bomb-making conspiracy.

He has accused MI5 of directing his abuse—alleging that he was
visited on at least 10 occasions during his detention by MI5
officers, and that one of his interrogations may have been filmed for
Britain's security forces who were simultaneously questioning his co-
accused in London. Amin was eventually freed in Pakistan, having been
told that he had been "cleared in England" and could leave the
country. He was arrested as soon as his plane landed at Heathrow.

In court, Amin's counsel, Patrick O'Connor QC—who is helping prepare
a civil action against the British government—suggested that both
sides in the so-called war on terror had come "to share common
standards of illegality and immorality."

What of the role of "supergrass" Babar, who was given immunity from
prosecution in Britain after pleading guilty to terrorism offences in
a New York court?

Babar said that he faced the death penalty for his role in a
conspiracy to kill Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf if he had
not collaborated with the FBI. In the US, he also confessed to
obtaining ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder for use by the
fertiliser plotters, and in court, he testified that he had attended
a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003 where he met Khyam,
Mahmood, Garcia and Amin.

The BBC reported how Babar had been "well trained" for his role in
the trial and had "memorised his statement to the British police,
given to counter-terrorism officers while he was in custody in the
US, and knew every date and location in the long story of the
conspiracy." Under questioning, however, "cracks began to appear in
his carefully prepared account," and at the end of his evidence, "the
jury themselves sent a note" asking for him to explain again key
details of his testimony.

For their part, defence lawyers have accused Babar of being a double
agent.