Published on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 by Craig Murray
The UK Terror plot: What's Really Going On?
by Craig Murray
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.
If I'm correct, the U.K. doesn't have an extradition treaty with Pakistan, so I would assume unless the U.K. makes a formal request, which they haven't done yet, the alleged terrorists arrested in Pakistan will face Pakistani justice.
Interesting post. Thanks. I too am becoming increasingly disillusioned about our governments response to terrorism. Not because I believe there are no Muslims planning to blow me up, but because they are screwing up too much. We have to simply learn to live with terrorism, it's just one more danger in a dangerous world. Lets just say that crossing the street is a bigger 'threat' than these political and religous homocidal maniacs.
A repeal of 'anti-terror' legislation would be a good start!
I actually find the British "reasonable suspicion" much more effective than the American "probable cause". I know some people worry about civil rights and privacy, and that is good to worry about, but I also want my government to have the tools they need to take down terrorist cells before they can hatch their scheme.
A repeal of 'anti-terror' legislation would be a good start!
Finally, I agree with you on something! It feels kinda... nice.
I do wish Mr Murray had more proof to back up his theory though.
Heh, that's kind of how I feel about the authorities, too! Let's not bother with proof, just arrest them in the dead of night and deal with evidence later. Tally ho!
A repeal of 'anti-terror' legislation would be a good start!
Good idea. Lots open up bomb markets and make it even easier. Maybe some concession stands at the airport entrance. If we aren’t going to try to prevent crime, we can eliminate all the intelligence agencies. Just think of all the money that would be saved.
That way we will have plenty of money for all the funerals.
Good idea. Lots open up bomb markets and make it even easier. Maybe some concession stands at the airport entrance. If we aren’t going to try to prevent crime, we can eliminate all the intelligence agencies. Just think of all the money that would be saved.
That way we will have plenty of money for all the funerals.
You're thinking about money. I gather that KAding was thinking about civil rights.
Good idea. Lots open up bomb markets and make it even easier. Maybe some concession stands at the airport entrance. If we aren’t going to try to prevent crime, we can eliminate all the intelligence agencies. Just think of all the money that would be saved.
That way we will have plenty of money for all the funerals.
Well if you remove 'probable cause' then this is how you would have to catch terrorists:
Video tape him about to detonate the bomb and then jump on him so he doesn't.
I mean if you catch the guy an hour earlier making a tape about how he will blow something up in an hour that doesn't mean he will actually do it? Right?
We should get rid of this 'probable cause' garbage altogether! Taking ingrediants to make bombs into airports does not prove guilt!
I don't see that it is really off topic. It is truly a close relative. I do fully understand where you are comming from. And don't disagree.
I and you have rights. No one has the right to take them away. By the same token, we have the right to surrender some of our rights.
I want safety too. However, I don't want all of my rights stripped on the pretense of 'Anti-Terrorism'. It's a balancing act.
I agree. It is completly a balancing act.
If you do not give up some of your rights then you might find yourself with no rights because the goverment will have a hard time protecting you as a citizen of there country.
But on the other hand, if you keep giving your rights away, sooner or later your enemies could end up having more rights then you do.
Good idea. Lots open up bomb markets and make it even easier. Maybe some concession stands at the airport entrance. If we aren’t going to try to prevent crime, we can eliminate all the intelligence agencies. Just think of all the money that would be saved.
That way we will have plenty of money for all the funerals.
Thats not what I said. But we are going too far now. In my opinion the (unquantified) extra gain in security is not worth the loss in freedom and civil rights.
Thats just my opinion of course, I can see why others would disagree.
No, I think it was a stupid idea. I want more safty not less. I would perfer to give up some rights and keep my life.
But thats a false choice obviously. The chance of you losing your life because of terrorism is incredibly small, much smaller than the chance of you becoming a victim of a normal murder for example. Yet, we are not creating specialized laws granting police extensive powers to protect us from normal murders, are we? I simply believe that law enforcement will have to try their best with traditional civil protections still in place. Sure that makes it harder to fight any crime, including terrorism. But we have always known that having a true open society will mean authorities are at a disadvantage when fighting crime, but we chose that above tyranny nevertheless.
While terrorists certainly have the aim to kill me and you, they do not truly have the means. And while the government does not have intention of harming us, it is so incredibly bloated and clumsy that it does so nevertheless.
The chance of you losing your life because of terrorism is incredibly small, much smaller than the chance of you becoming a victim of a normal murder for example.
Will that statement remain true if we don't create more deterrents?
Will that statement remain true if we don't create more deterrents?
Well, looking at the UK and all those angry young Muslims on a forum like this, I think these laws can also do more harm than good, by inciting more distrust rather than less.
Nevertheless, if it ever comes to terrorists using WMD, then the whole picture changes. Once they have mastered or obtained WMD, they have achieved the means to kill on a truely massive and disruptive scale. At such a time we have no choice but to take horrible measures to prevent it from happening. We may be open societies but we should not be suicide societies!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks