| By culhavoc on News May 12th, 2006 LONDON: The government was yesterday accused of a whitewash after two reports said no one was to blame for failing to stop the July 7 bombers. The findings came despite new evidence that several opportunities to pick up the four terrorists before they struck were missed by the intelligence services. 
The most glaring was that an MI5 photograph of ringleader Mohamed Sidique Khan was not shown to a terrorist detainee who turned out to have known his face. Last July Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay detonated bombs on three Tube trains and a bus killing 52 commuters and injuring hundreds. Among the missed chances to identify the bombers as a possible threat were: • Last February a spy report said that a man with extremist views travelled to Afghanistan – that man was Khan but he was not identified. • In 2004 Khan was referred to under a pseudonym by detainees as someone who had sought meetings with Al Qaeda figures – MI5 tried to establish his true identity but failed. • In 2003, Khan and Tanweer were photographed by MI5 during a surveillance of suspected terrorists but they were not identified or followed. • A phone number registered to a ‘Sidique Khan’ was discovered in 2003 belonging to a terrorist suspect — but it was only after 7/7 that its significance was realised. • MI5 also found out too late that it had a phone number belonging to Lindsay in its files.
To make matters worse, less than four months before the attacks Britain’s most senior intelligence chiefs concluded that suicide attacks were unlikely to happen in Europe. Above all, a report by a parliamentary committee reveals how unprepared the security forces had been for the speed with which religious extremism could grip apparently normal Britons and turn them into fanatics. The all-party intelligence and security committee’s 45-page report was largely uncritical of the intelligence and security services. Rachel North, 35, who survived the King’s Cross blast, said: “It looks like a whitewash. There seem to be a host of failings and yet no one is to blame.” Calling for a public inquiry, she said: “The parliamentary report was put together after meetings behind close doors. But it was the public, not the politicians or MI5, who were attacked. Let the public know what risks they run, why there are those who seek to kill for an idea living among them. Let the people ask their questions.” The report found that the bombers had “crossed the radar” of MI5 and intelligence services several times in the two years before the bombings, without them being identified. An intelligence report passed to MI5 in February last year stated that a man travelled to Afghanistan around the late Nineties with another named “Imran” and both held extremist views. After the bombings it was realised that one of the men was Khan. The report revealed: “The security service and the police undertook some further investigation into the two men at the time, without significant result.” Khan was “referred to in reporting by detainees (from outside the UK) in early 2004. This reporting referred to men from the UK known only by pseudonyms who had travelled to Pakistan in 2003 and sought meetings with Al Qaeda figures”. Again, MI5 tried to establish the identity of the man but without success. The information appears to have come from detainees at the US-run base at Guantanamo Bay, from Iraq or from another secret centre where suspected terrorists are held. In 2003, Khan and Tanweer were photographed by MI5 during a major surveillance on suspected terrorists. But although the pictures were examined and distributed to agencies, they never found out the names of the pair. MI5 agents on the scene lacked the manpower and opportunities to follow everyone who came into the area. It states: “The security service did not seek to investigate or identify them at the time although we had been told it would probably have been possible to do so had the decision been taken. “The judgment was made (correctly with hindsight) that they were peripheral to the main investigation and there was no intelligence to suggest they were interested in planning an attack against the UK. “Intelligence at the time suggested that their focus was training and insurgency operations in Pakistan and schemes to defraud financial institutions. As such, there was no reason to divert resources away from other higher priorities, which included investigations into attack planning against the UK.” The report states: “In the aftermath of the July 7 attacks, Khan was identified by one of the detainees (having seen a press photograph) as one of the men referred to in the detainee reporting. It is now known that Khan travelled to Pakistan in 2003 and spent time there with Tanweer from November 2004 to February 2005.” The failure to show the photograph to the detainee was criticised by the committee. MP Richard Ottaway said: “We are critical on the issue of the photograph. That was clearly a missed opportunity, although we have to ask ourselves if he would have identified Khan and, if he had, whether it would have made any difference.” The MI5 surveillance picture was a blurred image compared with the clear photograph of Khan that was published in newspapers after he died, the committee noted. A phone number registered to a “Sidique Khan” had been discovered in 2003 by MI5 in records belonging to a terrorist suspect. The agency also had records of contacts between that individual and the suspect. But it was only after the bombings that the pieces of the jigsaw were put together. The committee accepted it was a common name. MI5 also found out too late that it had a phone number belonging to Lindsay in its files, another missed opportunity. The committee excused most of these as unfortunate examples of the decisions that have to be made by an overstretched agency whose investigations had thrown up dozens of leads, more than could be probed. There were large gaps in the understanding of the bomb gang, said the committee. And the extent to which the attacks were planned, directed or controlled by terrorist godfathers in Pakistan or elsewhere remained “unclear”. There was currently “no evidence” of direct links between the July 7 attacks and the alleged attempts to blow up Tube trains on July 21. As well as missed opportunities in the field, the security services seemed unprepared for suicide attacks in general. In March 2005, less than four months before the attacks, the Joint Intelligence Committee, which represents the most senior intelligence officials, concluded that suicide attacks were alien to British culture. In a key conclusion, the report went on: “We remain concerned that across the whole of the counter terrorism community the development of home-grown threat and the radicalisation of British citizens were not fully understood or applied to strategic thinking. A common or better understanding of these things among all those closely involved … is critical in order to be able to counter the threats effectively and prevent attacks.” The report says that MI5 wrongly thought the danger from terrorism was reducing at the time because of its success in other operations. Professor Anthony Glees, a UK intelligence expert at Brunel University, yesterday said MI5 had made mistakes. “At the moment my security sources say it was not a matter of resources. Rather, it was a failure of judgment.” In the Commons yesterday afternoon, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats called for a public inquiry. Shadow home secretary David Davis criticised security “failures” and said the quality of yesterday’s reports compared badly with independent reports commissioned by the US after 9/11 and the inquiry in Spain after the Madrid bombing. “This process has left too many questions unresolved,” he said. He said Khan and Tanweer had met Al Qaeda leaders and discussed jihad with them. “Given this, how can the government represent this as an independent, freelance group?” But Home Secretary John Reid said a public inquiry would disrupt security work and endanger lives. “It would mean a pretty massive relocation of resources over an extended period while they are carrying out an essential job,” he said. Downing Street defended the decision not to hold an independent public inquiry. Tony Blair’s official spokesman said ministers appreciated there were strong feelings about the attacks but he said it was important to allow the security services to focus on preventing future outrages. – London Evening Standard (source) | 
No comments:
Post a Comment