Thursday, July 10, 2008

That speech

Yesterday I went up to East Riding with the irrepressible Bob Marshall Andrews and Shami Chakrabarti to take part in a debate about liberty on the eve of the by-election hosted by David Davis. This is the speech I made. Minus the Leeds United opening gag.

UPDATE: Now on The Guardian's Comment is Free

Three years ago I was on the way to work when a 19 year old British man detonated a suicide bomb in the carriage I was travelling in, killing 26 innocent people and wounding over a hundred more. So I understand first-hand how terrifying terrorism is. But I now know that the real aim of the terrorists is not to kill hundreds but to terrify millions. To terrify us so much that we forget who we are and what we stand for and become like frightened children begging only to be kept safe. To use our own nightmares against us and to amplify them through the media and news cycle's endless feedback loop of fear. But as any parent knows, it is not always possible to keep those you love safe, and a person who is always safe is a person who never knows freedom - and who has no life.

Tony Blair once said that the freedom not be to be blown up on the way to work was the most important freedom - and that sounds temptingly true, until you unpack it. For no government can keep us safe, even if they watch over us and film us and listen to us and check our emails and internet use and hold our most intimate data and fill hundreds of prison cells with people who are merely suspected of - but not charged with - any crime at all.

When terrorists attack us, they try to divide us. They want a panicked reaction and a divisive, draconian response. It plays into their propaganda machine and by deeming them our terrible enemies against whom we must wage all-out endless, limitless war, we dignify and glorify their hateful - and hopeless - cause.

But what I learned on 7 July was that we are each other's best security. We are the guardians of each other's liberties and lives. I learned this when the bomb exploded and on each carriage of the train, trapped underground, despite the terrifying darkness and choking dust and screaming, men and women still took each other's hands and comforted and calmed each other, shared water, passed tissues, whilst other men and women ran into dark tunnels, into unknown danger, to rescue the injured. Further horror and injury was only prevented by people's calm and altruistic response. And in the darkness, you could not know if the person who reached to touch your hand was male or female, or what race or religion or sexuality they were. Just a stranger in the dark on whom your own sanity and survival depended.

I have held on to that lesson ever since.

I expect terrorists to attack our way of life and to try to use fear to divide us and change our behaviour. I do not expect our government to do the same, nor do I expect us to collude in giving up our ancient liberties and thus to do the terrorists' work for them.

Make no mistake, this is not about being soft on terrorism. I have no empathy for terrorists and I will cheer loud and long when one is convicted by a jury of his peers of plotting murder and mayhem and is locked up for a very long time indeed. But it is simply not right that we should support laws where people merely suspected of terrorism should be locked up for 42 days and nights without being charged with any crime at all. More than half those arrested for terrorism so far have been found to be entirely innocent, and terrorism laws have been used to harass and harry ordinary people: poets and protesters, chefs and pensioners, students and parents and priests. Ordinary people like you or me.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, the ex-Director General of M15, in office during 7/7, many senior police and the ex Attorney General, and numerous others whose job it has been to protect us, and prosecute those who mean us harm say 42 days is not needed nor is it workable, and I support them. How can I not?

Sometimes an issue is so important that it transcends politics and party lines. We have a choice: whether we focus on our fears or our freedoms. To defy the terrorists by standing together, strong in what we know ourselves to be, looking at what unites us. Not to tolerate political posturing and base attempts to cajole and frighten us. I pray that we have the courage to stand up for the freedoms our enemies want to destroy, and older generations died to protect; whatever our party politics, whatever our background. To say that our liberty is our security and our freedoms the key to unlock our fears, and so let us breathe and live and love and work as we want to, as humans, as is our right. Our birthright, our human right.

I am not a Tory, but I am passionate about the debate that is playing out in David Davis' constituency and all over the UK. They say if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything, and I am glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from all across the political spectrum, knowing that freedom is something worth standing for, worth fighting for, worth dying for. I stand today asking for freedom. I ask you to stand up, and stand for it too.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 09, 2008

M15 not asking for 42 days

I said last Thursday that the security services were not pushing for 42 days. I also said, don't ask me how I know that, because I can't tell you.

Anyway, now it is all out in the open. Jacqui Smith has just been forced to admit that M15 have not asked for 42 days.

So there.

I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee about this. I wrote about it in the Sunday Times and the Guardian. I have gone on and on and on and on about this on my blog and elsewhere for a very long time, since 90 days was first mooted in fact, and I expect regular readers are sick of me on the subject,

so here are some other people saying it.
David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary on the BBC Politics Show
Sir John Major, ex-Prime Minister in the Times
Senior police officers in the Guardian,
The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Goldsmith
The former Attourney General, Lord Falconer
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty
Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International
The General Synod of the Church of England
Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner

65% of the public are reported to back 42 days. Large swathes of the public also back hanging, castration of child sex offenders and Jack Bauer-esque torture of baddies. Large crowds of the public used to come along to watch public executions. If the public are presented with the question 'do you think the police should be allowed to lock up suspected TERRORISTS for 42 days?' they will tend to hear the word TERRORIST and think, yeah, throw away the key.

But nothing is stopping the police from investigating and charging terrorists, and juries finding them guilty and judges locking them up for forty years. It is not a case of protecting the human rights of 'terrorists' over the human rights of everyone else including those who are directly impacted by terrorist bombs. And it is wrong to present it in such terms, as the Sun has been doing.

The grief and anger of victims are not sound bases from which to start to start constitution-shredding. Nor is political posturing and playing to the gallery about who can look toughest on terror.
42 days has not been needed to stop any plots so far.
42 days would not have stopped 7/7, or the Madrid bombings or the Bali attacks or 9/11.
42 days is not going to stop the downwards plunge in the polls for Brown's Government either, which is really the whole point of it.

Yes - it is that cynical.
It's not about protecting us at all. It's about protecting politicians' ambitions and careers.

Which is why, if by some miracle of whipping and bullying it goes through, it will get absolutely trashed by the House of Lords, and sent straight back again, and thus carry on being a stinking albatross round the neck of an increasingly authoritarian government who show disgracefully little respect for the human rights and liberties of all of us.

If the government really cared about 7/7 victims, why are they so slow with injury compensation payouts and why have the families still not had inquests into the deaths of their loved ones? Why is there a clause in this cursed anti-terrorism bill which allows inquests to be held in secret, without juries?

Why indeed?

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

42 days: and so it all comes down to this

"The hard politics is very simple: are Labour MPs prepared to defend British civil liberties even if it's at the cost of their own party leader?" - Nick Clegg

Well, you'd bloody well hope so, wouldn't you?

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 30, 2008

Time to talk to Al Qa'ida?

Vikram Dodd in today's Guardian has an interview with a senior police officer, Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who is tipped to be the next Chief Commissioner. Orde said the experiences of his force tackling the IRA had convinced him that policing alone - detecting plots and arresting people - would not defeat al-Qaida inspired terrorism.

Orde said: "If you look at some of the biggest risks my people have taken it is talking to people who historically they would not have dreamed of talking to. Were we going to actually police our way out of the Troubles? No. Are we actually going to police our way out of the current threat? No."

He added: "It means thinking the unthinkable."

Before everyone flips their lids and starts howling about appeasement and standing strong in the face of terror, and leaving aside the fact that the set-up of the paramilitary Irish mainland-based IRA was and is very different to the Al Qa'ida global franchise, there are solid strategic reasons for talking to your enemy.

Louise Richardson, in her excellent book What Terrorists Want, explains clearly the three things that terrorist groups seek : Revenge, Renown and Reaction. 'There is no greater affront to terrorists than being ignored', she adds.

For a terrorist to be created, you need a disaffected individual, a supportive group and a legitimising ideology. And to deter, contain and prevent terrorism, it stands to reason that you need to know your enemy. Know who your would-be terrorists are, how many of them there are, where they are, what they believe, why they believe it and what support they have in their beliefs and to facilitate their plans.

How can you find this out? Well, you can read books, hold seminars and meetings, set up think tanks, but there is no substitute for actually talking to the people involved and finding out for yourself - whether by recruiting double agents, intelligence penetration and interception, or in secret meetings. Spycraft, intelligence and diplomacy have always been key tools of war, as Sun Tzu pointed out in The Art of War.

The snag is, Al Qaida is not a disciplined, well-funded well-organised group with clear leadership. If it ever was such a thing, it is not now, not since the US and coalition forces disrupted its base in Afghanistan after 9/11. After this set-back, and the capture of many of its active planners and leaders, it morphed and reformed and is now best described as a very loosely affiliated network of people and groups spread across the world who have in common a shared ideology which is anti-Western, anti-democratic, sees violence against civilian and military targets as justifiable in terms of achieving its objectives, which tend to be local, often vague and even personal, and in some cases, hopelessly idealistic and unachievable. A Caliphate is but a dream of a golden age; it never existed and will not come into being now. Other objectives are more measurable and even achievable.


In Spain for example, the Madrid bombings were ''successful'' in that they caused a victory for the party who supported withdrawal from Iraq. In London, the bombers cited UK foreign policy and the Iraq and Afghan wars as justification for bombing those who elected the government who went to war. They also wanted to raise awareness of causes that inflamed and angered many UK Muslims.

As the current 7/7 conspirators trial is indicating, the London bombers spent time in Pakistan and Afghanistan, learning from and talking to their heroes, battle-hardened jihadis/mujahideen before deciding to bring the fight back to the capital of their own country.


Who led the 7/7 bombers? Ostensibly Mohammed Siddique Khan, but he himself took inspiration, and probably clear instruction in bomb-making, anti-surveillance techniques and tactics from others who were based in the mountains of Pakistan.

Are the mujahideen of the distant mountains likely to sit down and discuss their aims and objectives with a British police officer? Not likely. But by talking to those who call themselves jihadi leaders or sympathisers in this country, and hearing what they have to say, it is possible to find out much about the aims, objectives, numbers and levels of support for what they say they stand for. This is extremely valuable information.

It s often assumed that the desire of terrorist groups like Al Qa'ida is to kill as many innocent people as possible. Actually, this is a tactic, not an objective. It's important not to mistake the effects of their actions for their aims and objectives.

Bin Laden himself has laid out many times his objectives. They are

  1. End U.S. support of Israel
  2. Force American troops out of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia
  3. End the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and (subsequently) Iraq
  4. End U.S. support of other countries' anti-Muslim policies
  5. End U.S. pressure on Arab oil companies to keep prices low
  6. End U.S. support for "illegitimate" (i.e. moderate) Arab governments, like Pakistan
Since 9/11 and the subsequent disruption of his base-camps there, he has managed to further his appeal by issuing proclamations appearing to be backing a series of issues to garner local support in different countries and communities. This shows an adept use of communications and an understanding that his movement can change to being a franchise with a life of its own, even if he is captured or killed or dies of kidney failure. Al Qa'ida is, these days, whatever you want it to be, and that's true if you are a member of a cell that cites Al Qa'ida as an inspiration or a politician making a speech.

If you sit down with those who consider themselves to be Al Qa'ida sympathisers and bother to discover what it is they say they want, you can then do several things: you can choose to demonstrate to them that you are inflexible on their issues and that their tactics therefore doomed to failure, which is a psychological and strategic blow to them, you can demonstrate to the communities who might support them what their objectives are and see if they truly have community support for them, you can indicate that you are reasonable and willing to listen rather than being driven by reactionary vengeful ''crusading attacks against Muslims'' and you can gather information about your enemy and assess his chances of success. You may find that some of his grievances, if not his methods, are legitimate

You also grab back some of the moral high ground. And listening to grievances often takes out some of their poison. It shows that everyone has a voice, and that jaw jaw is better than war, war, as Churchill pointed out.

Being willing to listen is a sign of strength, not weaknesses. Even the Olympian immortal gods, we're told, frequently heard supplication from humans; they did not feel it demeaned them to listen. Angry rhetoric and swingeing attacks on liberties are seen as unfair by those who think they are already victimised and ignored - and such actions have consequences in terms of further radicalisation and hardening of attitudes. So I agree with Sir Hugh; let those who claim to speak for the angry and dispossessed, the bombed and the maimed and the suffering downtrodden Muslims of Britain and the world (which is what Al Qa'ida and affiliated groups claim they do) step up to the plate and make their case.

And we will see with what right and by whose mandate and authority they speak, and what support they really have, what future they plan and how they intend to achieve it, and we will see how attractive to people it really is, and whether it has any real chance of success and support.

We already know of course, and there is a reason why democracy is disliked by hardline fringe revolutionary movements: they know they would never get enough people to vote for them.

Let's hear what those who consider bombing us have to say, in all its paranoid, disjointed, angry, incoherent, idealistic entirety. Then we might have less reason to feel afraid. Though we'd not sell as many newspapers, and politicians would not be able to grandstand as much and pass as many laws.

UPDATE: Just about to go and discuss this on the World Service 6-7pm

Labels:

Friday, May 09, 2008

Open democracy: A language sea-change?

'According to documents recently published by the National Counter-Terrorism Center, a US agency responsible for coordinating the government response to terrorism, officials are now being asked to stop using terminology that could "unintentionally legitimate terrorism," and reorient their vocabulary away from language that might frame radicals in a sympathetic light. This entails ceasing to describe radical cells as either Islamic or Muslim, and also rejecting the term "Islamist," which experts argue is confusing to the general public. Instead of using words such as jihad or mujahedin, which "have positive connotations for Muslims," the report recommends replacing these terms with "'death cult,' ‘cult-like,' ‘sectarian cult,' and ‘violent cultists'" as more accurate indicators of "the ideology and methodology of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups."

Grounding the report in an awareness of the wider connotations of these terms for Muslims, experts advised that officials must be more "careful and judicious" in "navigating the rocks and shoals of terminology to avoid unnecessarily alienating a large segment of the Muslim community." To this end, the main focus of this initiative is to divorce al-Qaida and other radical cells from control of their own language, or in other words, to distance them from language steeped heavily in historical and religious import, which US officials claim has the effect of legitimating their goals.

toD analysis: While the effort to jettison sweeping terms like "Islamic" or "jihad" in official discourse is definitely one of the more enlightened suggestions made by a government agency recently, what is most striking about this project is its attitude towards its stated target audience, the international Muslim community. In choosing to eliminate words that bear religious and cultural significance to Muslims, the report is clearly attempting to distinguish between extremist groups and the Islamic community at large, an effort that has largely been ignored until now. However, by recasting radical groups in the Manichean framework that is at work now, the report ultimately remains faithful to the same Cold War logic of "us-versus-them" that permits alienation to ferment in the first place. In order to truly attend to the question of the alienation of Muslim communities, the US government must address this issue, and disrupt the cyclical thinking that has structured foreign policy.'
article by
Jessica Loudis

Labels:

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

What Terrorists Want

One man from Manchester says that in 2006 he was beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and had three fingernails slowly extracted by ISI agents at the Rawalpindi centre before being interrogated by two MI5 officers. A number of his alleged associates were questioned in Manchester at the same time and two were subsequently charged. This man's lawyers say his fingernails were missing when they were eventually allowed to see him, more than a year after he was first detained. They say they have pathology reports that prove the nails were forcibly removed.

Guardian today

How can you win against people who are motivated by ideology and idealism? For these people who attack us are not mad, however monstrous and wicked their plans to attack innocent civilians; they honestly believe that they are acting in the name of God to help and revenge their suffering brothers and sisters?

You can only claim to have the moral high ground and to act in the name of freedom and democracy and justice if your deeds bear out your words.

That there are appalling regimes in this world, that there are men who do not scruple to cause innocent blood to flow is not in doubt. But this is not a war that can be fought with armies. It is not even really a war. It is a battle of idealogies, of liberal democracy versus fundamentalism. Tactics and strategy and intelligence to isolate those who wish to cause harm whilst bringing all together in pursuit of our common humanity are our best assets; this conflict plays out in hearts and minds. And in the media headlines. And by stooping so low, by all the acts of wickedness and injustice that we commit, which are then reported around the world and used as propaganda against us by our enemies, we make things worse for ourselves. Much worse.

Revenge, renown, reaction; the unholy trinity that terrorists want.
To commit acts of terrorism, you need a disaffected individual, a legitimising ideology and a supportive group. ( See What Terrorists Want: Louise Richardson)

If you want to fan the flames of hate and rage, today's story gives you more fuel for the bomb makers, if not their bombs.

Sometimes I despair of what we are doing in the name of a 'war on terror'.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Atilla Ahmet renouncing hate makes the Mirror

Musa Ahmet, has just called me sounding thrilled because the story I passed on to the Mirror about his brother Atilla speaking out against hate, and condemning the bombing of civilians has been published today.

When I interviewed him for the Sunday Times, Musa told me about how his brother had stepped in to protect a prison officer who was being threatened by another prisoner. (This was confirmed by the officer who made a statement to the court when Atilla was sentenced.)

When I managed to speak to Atilla in prison to check, he confirmed to me what Musa had told me after a phone call with his brother - that he wanted to apologise to the British and American people for the things he had said before he was jailed. Like this

This change of heart came about after Atilla got away from his extremist gang and began studying the Qur'an for himself in his cell. Musa had described when we talked to me how Atilla had often been heard been 'banging on the wall' of the adjoining cell to Musa, calling out to Musa how he was realising as he read that what he had been told was wrong, and there was nothing about killing civilians - especially women and children - or condoning suicide or suicide bombing in the Qur'an.

Yesterday I spoke to Atilla again. He said he was very keen to 'make things right' when he came out of jail; he hoped that he could get involved in anti-extremism work 'because I know how to get to them and say it, they will listen to me because I was there, I've done it, I was one of them'.
He asked me to come and visit him and I said I would do so as soon as possible.

Atilla is currently in isolation in the hospital wing for his own protection from the other Muslim prisoners, because of what he has said and done. It takes courage to apologise; it takes guts to say you are wrong and to try to make it right. Respect to Atilla for what he is doing.

The Mirror was the paper who outed Atilla as a hate-preacher when he was speaking at Friday prayers outside Finsbury Park Mosque, so he is really pleased that they have recognised his change of heart and reported it accurately.

Not quite as much space given to the new improved Atilla as the old scary ranting Atilla, but that it made it in at all is another hopeful sign.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Looking for Paradise: Musa Ahmet's story

This is the original Sunday Times article, before editing. The link to the ST and discussion of the article is in the shorter post below this one

Ever since I was caught up in the London bombings of 7 July 2005, I have tried to learn more about terrorism. To understand is not to condone, nor to forgive. But I believe that by studying the roots of radicalization, we have a better chance of preventing atrocities in future.

Last year, I read about Hassan Butt, an ex-jihadi who has renounced extremism and is now engaged in de-radicalisation work. A fortnight ago I participated in a Newsnight discussion about whether Butt, who was co-authoring a book with journalist Shiv Malik about his journey, until police seized the manuscript and notes, should be prosecuted for his past fundraising for terrorism and radicalizing British youths. I argued that if Butt’s outreach work could stop potential suicide bombers, he was more useful to us outside jail.

April 22 sees the launch of Quilliam, a new counter-extremism think-tank, created by former activists of radical Islamist organisations, who are familiar with the mindset and methods of extremist groups. Another hopeful sign. But sometimes I still want to weep.

On Thursday I sat in Kingston Crown court with some of the families bereaved by the London bombings, watching the trial of three men alleged to have conspired to cause explosions on 7/7. The court was shown CCTV footage of the 7/7 bombers’ journey from Beeston to Kings Cross underground network. We saw footage of two of the explosions and pictures of the devastated carriages and bus. We saw a home video of lead bomber Mohammed Siddique Khan kissing his baby daughter, telling her ‘I have to do this thing for our futures’ as he prepared to head off for martyrdom. It was shattering to watch.

Researching extremism led me to blogger and independent film maker Dave Bones, who has spent five years filming the men who used to gather outside Finsbury Park Mosque listening to Abu Hamza preach. A few weeks ago, Dave introduced me to Musa Ahmet, who spent nine months in Belmarsh with some of the UK’s most notorious terrorists and terror suspects before being found innocent and released in May 2007. Musa’s younger brother Atilla is still inside Belmarsh. Formerly the bodyguard of radical cleric Abu Hamza, he is serving 6 years 11 months after pleading guilty to incitement to murder. After Abu Hamza was jailed in February 2006, Atilla led Friday prayers in the streets outside the Mosque. He was dubbed ‘Hate Preacher Atilla the Scum’ by the media. In an infamous interview with CNN in August 2006, Atilla said Bush, Blair, the army, police and banks which charged interest were ‘targets’ and that 9/11 was a ‘deserved punch in the nose for America’.

Musa tells me how his brother has changed inside Belmarsh, stepping in to protect a guard from another prisoner, studying the Qur’an properly for the first time. Atilla says he now understands that the words of the Prophet should not be used to justify violence against innocents. He is being kept in the hospital wing for his own safety. Later, I manage to speak to Atilla on the phone in prison, and he confirms to me that he wants to ‘say sorry to the British and American people for what he said’.

I ask the engagingly friendly Musa, who is smartly dressed in a suit with a shaved head and neatly-trimmed goatee, why his brother said such incendiary things to the cameras.

‘He likes the limelight’ explains Musa, who loves his younger brother, but is of the opinion that his previous business partner and ‘closest person in the world’ ‘lost it’ when he became part of a radical group.

Settling down on my sofa, Musa tells me his family’s story.

Born in Islington in 1959 to ‘strict’ Turkish Cypriot parents who moved to the UK in the 1950’s, Musa was the second of five brothers, with two sisters. Atilla is the youngest brother, (‘he looks older because of his big beard’), and closest to Musa. Their father worked hard to support the family, taking a job as a chef at the Savoy, then working for British Rail, before becoming a textile designer. Musa enjoyed primary school, but his eldest brother had a bad reputation. Aged 11, Musa had his first experience of getting into serious trouble because of one of his brothers when he was falsely accused by the primary school headmistress of letting down her car tyres. His father gave him ‘a right good hiding’.

'I couldn’t believe it. I begged. It was a shame, when you’re a kid and you’re telling the truth and your parents don’t believe you – it hurts. It’s sort of a double smack. But there was nothing I could do, so I had to take it’. But the unfairness rankled, and he began to play truant from school. Aged 13, he and his best friend managed to get work loading scrap metal onto ships at Greenwich Docks, passing themselves off as 18 year olds. Musa gave most of the money he earned to his Mum. ‘I loved it. I preferred working to going to school. I was earning three or four times my father’s wages’. The job ended abruptly when the school found out and threatened to sue the company if the boys did not return to school.

Musa got into gang fights in his teens, and aged 14, spent two years in a young offenders institute. He worked in his father’s textile factory on his release, but another fight aged 17 saw him put into Borstal. Released at 19, he decided he had ‘learned his lesson’. He and his brothers – including Atilla – lived for the weekend, when they would ‘get done up all nice, go clubbing… rock and roll. I loved Elvis and all that, I grew up doing the bop, and I used to pull a big crowd when I danced'

Unlike many of his school friends, he had always avoided hard drugs, and although he considered himself a Muslim, he knew little about Islam. ‘I classed myself as a Brit, doing what everyone else was doing’. Lacking qualifications, Musa and his brothers found themselves unable to get steady jobs. They began working as minders for a Turkish gangster family. Violence, drinking, late nights and girlfriends were a way of life. ‘Me and my brothers, we were well-known to the police’. Then Atilla’s older brother was shot through both legs in the early nineties. Did that feel like a message? ‘Yes’

Both men settled down with women they loved. Atilla married and had four children; Musa's first son was born when he was twenty-three, and he went on to have four more children with his partner.

One day an old clubbing mate came to the café the brothers ran in London’s Old Kent Rd and urged them to join him in embracing Islam. Atilla ‘loved it. He grabbed it straight away. He changed within weeks’. Musa felt that he could not be a ‘strong Muslim’ as he sold alcohol in his club. Meanwhile, Atilla, who had begun praying five times a day and had given up drinking, smoking, swearing and ‘naughty stuff’ was upset that the police seemed to have not noticed his new sincerity. ‘Now Atilla’s become a good guy, but he still wasn’t accepted. That’s why he said in one of his speeches ‘I owe this country nothing. What has this country done for me apart from mixing me with drug dealers, killers…? They’re trying to protect young impressionable Muslims from me… but where was my protection from the likes of the extremists?’

Soon after, Atilla was asked by his new friends to manage security for Abu Hamza at Finsbury Park Mosque. Musa had by now embraced Islam himself, but was not part of the radical group.

Journalists, police officers, spooks and crowds of young men would hang around the mosque watching Abu Hamza talk. The controversial cleric’s speeches were headline news, and soon Atilla began to notice the cameras were trained on him too. ‘Him getting into the papers gave him a buzz. It gave him a big head, because he would run out and get all the papers. He loved the limelight.’

Encouraged by Abu Hamza, Atilla began to give impromptu sermons of his own He copied Abu Hamza’s style of fiery rhetoric, mixed with conspiracy theories and angry condemnations of British and US foreign policy. Musa thinks it unfair that his brother was thrust into such a high profile position, although he admits that his brother did not keep his mouth shut when journalists encouraged him to deliver the controversial quotes that make good copy.

‘There was people behind it, they put him up front…he said at first ‘I can’t do it’. He wasn’t an expert on the Qur’an. He was under a lot of pressure to get a Friday speech together… I know there was a few knowledgeable people behind him, that wouldn’t go up front, wrote for him, said, look, speak on this subject. … Where are these people now? Where were they when my brother was arrested?’

After Abu Hamza was jailed, Atilla became even more outspoken. Musa was horrified when he saw Atilla boast to journalists of his ‘thousands’ of followers and being the 'Number One Al Qaeda in Europe'.

‘He lied. He put himself right in it. Because he didn’t have followers. He didn’t have anything. He said some really stupid things’. Musa tried to get his brother away from the cameras. ‘Me and my friend Kem asked Atilla, what did you go and say that for? And Atilla said ‘I’ve had enough.’ He was giving it up anyway. You know, that was his last media thing.’

Musa maintains that pressure from Hamid, who could be charming but who also 'wound people up', combined with the volatile environment of the group, the increasing media interest and the paranoid fears about police surveillance and infiltration was causing Atilla to become unstable. In August 2006 Musa decided to take his brother to Cyprus, away from the group, to start a new quieter life. But time had run out.

On September 1st, 2006, Atilla asked Musa to accompany him to a Chinese restaurant where he was meeting ‘some of the brothers’. But Musa was decorating his house and had his family with him. Finally Atilla tempted him with the £5 Buffet Menu. It was to be the costliest meal of Musa’s life.

Musa and Atilla were swept up in a huge police and security services operation to smash an Al-Qaeda-inspired UK recruitment network meeting at the restaurant. The group attended Friday ‘Islamic chat nights’ at the Hackney home of a 50-year old man nicknamed ‘Osama Bin London’ - Mohammed Hamid. Hamid also ran paint-balling and para-military training sessions in the English countryside, which were attended by young men - including 4 men later convicted for trying to bomb the London transport network a fortnight after 7/7. The group had been infiltrated by an undercover police officer, and the Friday meetings bugged. Last month, Hamid and some of the men received sentences of between five and seven years for terrorism offences.

Atilla never went on the training weekends, though he did attend nineteen of the Friday night meetings over two years. Although the prosecution maintained that Atilla was the ‘amir’ – commander- of the group, Musa disagrees. ‘You can’t be the amir in somebody else’s house’.

Musa describes the police raid on the restaurant. ‘All of a sudden, there was vans, cars, coppers, you name it, all running in. The place was filled. ’ Musa watched, ignoring a warning to move on. ‘I thought, well, I haven’t done anything, and this is exciting to me.’

Several police officers then arrested a startled Musa, punching and kicking him to the pavement ‘I’ve been in some rows, but this really scared me. They sat on my neck’.

He was taken to Paddington Green station, hoping he would be released once the police realised that he was not on the list of men to arrest. But the police kept him in, angry and distressed, whilst they searched his house for a week. They found a flare signal kit in his wardrobe, which Musa had confiscated from his son years before. The flare was classed as a ‘firearm’. The police also claimed that they had found a copy of the Anarchists’ Cookbook, which Musa denies owning

Charged at the secret court inside Paddington Green police station, and then locked up in Belmarsh, Musa tried hard not to worry too much about his five children and his future. He describes the atmosphere amongst the Muslim inmates as friendly and brotherly, with people playing practical jokes ‘like the Marx brothers,’ at association time. He became very close to several of the young men convicted for plotting to set off a huge fertilizer bomb in a London nightclub and shopping centre, particularly Anthony Garcia, who was jailed for life in May 2007.

I asked him if the young radicals who had been convicted of plotting the deaths of civilians preached extremism inside, or vowed to continue the struggle on their release.

‘People just want to forget. They just want to have a laugh. They want to phone up their mum, they want to speak to their wife, they’re having a game of pool, having a laugh and a joke.’

Those who planned to hurt innocents, he says, ‘will have to answer to Allah for their actions, for what they’ve caused – and for what they haven’t done.’

Whilst Atilla struggled inside Belmarsh, and suffered claustrophobic panic attacks, Musa says that the knowledge that he was innocent and would eventually be released kept him sane. ‘The thing is with the police, yeah, I was bitter. I am bitter. But I’m not telling them not to do their job. If you look at it, they’ve done a really good job. Look at how quiet it is…you’ve got no one out there screaming, you’ve got no one out there really saying anything anymore.’

Why was he kept inside for nine months?

‘I wasn’t mixing with anybody bad outside. The undercover cop, he knew I was nothing to do with the group. He could have got me out. But he didn’t.’ He frowns. ‘No, I don’t blame them, because they do have to do their job – fifty two people dead. But nine months, I feel it’s too much.’

‘I think they was hoping to find something – thinking ‘if we look hard enough, long enough, we will get this guy.’ It’s possible that they may have just locked me up with my brother to keep me out of the way of the investigation. Or they thought I was financing terror.’

Musa thinks that the hyped-up intensity in radical groups creates the problem with young Muslims ‘This isn’t a Muslim country, you’ve got to follow the laws of the land, like it or don’t like it, that’s they way it is.’ Of the fearsome boasts and the bloodcurdling speeches that landed his brother and so many others in jail he says ‘Sometimes I think, was it just kids, trying to get a buzz, trying to feel big‘

I asked him whether he had listened to the tapes of his new ‘brothers’ inside jail that were played in court and on TV – of them discussing gruesome attacks on UK soil. He has. ‘It sounded like two little kids in cuckoo land, dreaming up something that could never be. I looked at it and I thought ‘Idiots. It sounds like a load of bull’

But the men who bombed London on 7/7 seemed like normal British guys until they murdered dozens.

The subject clearly makes Musa uncomfortable. He maintains of his terrorist friends that he ‘finds it hard to see beyond what I knew of them. It’s strange, because I was with them all my time in there, and I got to know them so personally. I never got to see that side to them. They seemed so bright, they was fun loving…’

What is the magic ingredient, that turns ‘fun-loving lads’ into jihadi warriors on a suicide mission?

‘I think as soon as they get into extremism, if they don’t come out of it, over time it can build up. They get it instilled into them and these youngsters, if they can’t see a future, if they haven’t got anything going for them, and they’re down – it could be any one of those reasons, and they just think – what is there for me? And if you’re promising Paradise, and dreams like that, and they’re in dreamland thinking, Paradise, wives…it could be anything that could turn a person’

He thinks ‘a good percentage, maybe 25%, 30% of the brothers inside would rejoice if there was another 7/7 or 9/11 There is arguments about this subject, we used to discuss this kind of thing in there’. He remains adamant that whilst his brother may have spoken favourably of those training to fight abroad, Atilla has never approved of attacking civilians on UK soil.

How do people who have prepared to kill themselves and others cope with facing the rest of their lives in jail? Musa describes talking to a remand prisoner who surprised him by saying ‘If I’m in here and Allah has decreed that for me, I’m better in here than out there. What am I going to do out there?’ He didn’t mention attacking. He just mentioned that there’s so much sinning going on out there, he would rather be banged up away from it all, being cleansed for 35 years. Lo and behold, the guy’s smiling at me having a laugh and a joke - and then he went and got sentenced - 35 years. And when he came back, he was the same, he still had this smile. For me personally, I don’t think I could cope with that.’

‘There’s a lot of them like that, they believe so much. You have to have strong beliefs… I told you, I’m just a Muslim who does his prayers… I ain’t strong; I would love to be strong. Not like that way, not in the way that I’d want to do some flipping atrocity, just in myself, you know, to be better than I am, to have that kind of faith. There are these guys doing these years and it don’t seem to bother them’

‘I think he’s looking for Paradise, because that’s what he said. He’s being punished now – they always say its better to be punished whilst you are on earth than God punish you there, because the punishment there is going to be totally different to here. Whatever befalls you, you’re still meant to praise Allah.

So people accept it as their fate?

‘Yeah, a strong believer will say this was written for me’

Do you think the bombings were ‘written’?

‘No! No, because that isn’t written…you have the free will to do it or don’t do it. You could have changed it. You could have said no, I’m not doing it. It’s wrong.’

Do many people in Belmarsh advocate bombing civilians?

‘I believe after a taste of prison, a lot of people have come to their senses’

Musa was released after the jury found him not guilty of the firearms charge. The terrorism charge relating to the Anarchist’s Cook book was dropped. When he finally came out, he cried with relief. He was particularly worried about his five children, who had ‘gone haywire’ whilst he was inside.

I ask Musa if he thinks his brother was preaching hate ‘outside’. Musa says no, then talks about the pressure of the media wanting controversy, and Atilla playing to the cameras. ‘When you are new to Islam, you take what knowledgeable people say. If you don’t have the knowledge, you have to take it from these people, and if it’s the wrong knowledge…he’s at the learning stage still, he hasn’t studied himself to know this is wrong…. So all of a sudden, he’s there, he’s doing security, the media are there, things are getting out of hand… ‘

I ask Musa if he thinks it would make a difference if the people teaching Islam were more experienced, given that a lot of people who get involved in extreme Islam, like Atilla, know very little about theology. Musa agrees that is it is easy ‘to put people on the wrong road, that people new to Islam are vulnerable to the wrong messages.’

‘Knowing what you know now, would you let your kids listen to Abu Hamza?’

‘No’.

Musa is visibly shocked when I tell him that the security services say there are a couple of thousand people believed to be actively involved in attack planning. ‘Where are they then?’ he asks. ‘Because it’s so quiet. Why has not one or two of them succeeded?’

As we talk, sirens blare outside Finsbury Park mosque and the Muslim cafes outside my flat. I wonder how hard it is being a young Muslim these days.

‘There are loads of Muslims, they get raided because someone’s phoned up intelligence or M15 and said, look, this guy’s bad. And they find some kind of literature. That’s enough to warrant the police putting them in prison. And they’re going, look , you had jihadi material, you had extremist material. And yet the person isn’t [extremist]. You can always find extreme material, like in Hadiths and this and that, even some verses in the Qur’an. And people think whoa, don’t like the sound of that. But the police are arresting them. There are so many people like that, they don’t deserve to be in jail. Not everybody in there is having that view of ‘let’s go and bomb someone.’

But you have to stop the people who want to detonate bombs. Musa agrees. I ask him if he has a message for people.

‘Yes. Ask for evidence. Even a newcomer has the right to be shown the evidence’

‘Learn from your teacher, but be careful who your teacher is?’

‘Yes. Definitely’.

I guess that is all we can hope for. That people will realise that self-righteousness and rhetoric is not the same as discovering the facts for yourself. That submission to God is not the same as vengeance against unbelievers. That some dreams of Paradise lead to hell on earth.

I hope that Musa ‘s fierce brothers do temper their anger in future. Without figureheads, and cameras, and column inches, with time to study and learn from those who have renounced violence and hate, they have a chance. I’m crossing my fingers.

Additional Research – Dave Bones

Labels: ,

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Sunday Times Interview

Reforming the Radicals - originally called 'Looking For Paradise: Musa's Story' (I might put it up for comparison tomorrow) - is now online. The original was much longer and had more of Musa and much less of me in it, but there you go.

Be interested to know your thoughts

UPDATE: Some of the 4 hour interview is on Dave Bone's blog, along with archive footage of Atilla and others from the Abu Hamza/Finsbury Park Mosque days

Labels: ,

Gordon Brown and 42 days

...it's turning into a right mess.

Well, I did say so.

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 03, 2008

New Statesman: why our anti-terror strategy isn't working


Lead article in this week's New Statesman picks up on the Newsnight story I was interviewed about, and makes further points about 42 days. Recommended.

Everything I do, when I write or speak about terrorism all goes back to this one point: how to stop people bombing people.

The Sunday Times interview I've been working on for 2 weeks has been moved to next week's interview to give it more space. I hope it adds to the debate.

Labels:

Monday, March 31, 2008

42 days NO - reminder

It's been bumped down the page a bit so here it is again. No, we don't want to give away our freedoms in the name of fear. No, we don't want 42 days. What can you do about it?

Suggestions on this blog post if you scroll down. NO TO 42 DAYS

Labels: , , , , , , ,

42 days: NO

Today's spit-coffee moment number one: the Guardian reports today that the Government's own human rights watchdog has vowed to mount a legal challenge to this latest frightening attempt to make it legal to hold people and question them repeatedly for 42 days without charge - without even telling them why they are being held . The Equality and Human Rights Commission says it goes against human rights law and may breach the Race Relations Act.

And number two: Geoffrey Dear, former chief constable of West Midlands Police and HM inspector of constabulary says passing the law will be a PR coup for Al Qaeda. Which is more or less what I said in the Sunday Times, and in the Guardian last November, and said again when giving evidence at the Home Affairs Committee, with David Davis and Nick Clegg. (You can watch all three of us getting worked up about the subject on video here, or read the transcripts or full report).

The Home Affairs Commitee agreed with us by the way: they don't support 42 days either.

Meanwhile, yesterday Nobel peace prize-winner Desmond Tutu and top intellectual chap Noam Chomsky also urge people to vote against the bill, amidst mounting international pressure to drop the clause. Shami Chakrabati from Liberty continues to do her inimitable thing in the tearooms of Westminster, helping MPs see the big picture - and I wish her, and Amnesty and everyone else opposed to this nonsense - which will not make us any safer - every success.

Having spent most of last week working on an interview with a Muslim man - a father of five who was detained for a week in Paddington Green police station, then slammed into Belmarsh jail with most of the U.K's terrorists and terror suspects, before being found not guilty of all charges by a jury, I am clearer than ever about the nature of the threat we face - and what it is like to be suspected of being part of that threat. More on that soon.

This next fortnight you will see and hear a lot about terrorism in the news. The trial of the alleged airline plotters is about to start and the trial of four men alleged to have conspired with the 7/7 bombers. You will hear chilling details from the prosecution's case. You will probably feel afraid. Please, try not to be. The chances of you or your loved ones being affected by a man with a bomb is very, very small. You, and I are most likely to die of heart disease, stroke or cancer, in a bed, not in a terrorist atrocity.

There are undoubtedly angry men planning wicked things who walk amongst us. You do not have to explain that to me: I know, I have seen the damage they do.

They are fuelled by a monstrous, paranoid sense of grievance that the 'war on terror' is a war on Islam and that Muslims are oppressed here, and all over the world. They feed off conspiracy theories - which are not mainstream - and they also feed off news headlines, which are mainstream. They seize on reports of the suffering of Muslims at home and abroad to make their case and recruit others to their cause.

Their unelected spokesmen oblige the cameras with blood-curdling soundbites - which make excellent copy and are duly publicised by the media. This in turn hardens the attitudes of the public, which makes politicians think draconian laws are what will play well with the electorate. It also infuriates Muslims, who see the excessive coverage being given to the extremist fringe, and who wonder why.

And so anger hardens and polarisation begins and we all lose our freedoms, we all become less safe, and nobody wins. Nobody at all.

We can win against this tiny minority of people who wish us evil. We have already made some great strides into discrediting and disrupting them. They are extremely vulnerable to good intelligence operations. They can be infiltrated, tracked and arrested and stopped. They know this, and it makes them even more paranoid. They know that were they to stand for election, they would never win any votes. They know they are weak; that one of their best weapons, indeed, their only real weapon is FEAR - and the knee-jerk anger that divides and splits us neighbour from neighbour, colleague from colleague, family from family, along racial and religious lines. They need PR and horrifying headlines to sustain them and give them cover and legitimacy.

This latest law will help them and it will not help us. We must not let this law through, we must not allow our fear to enfeeble us and drive our responses - that's setting the debate on their terms, the terms of making us afraid. That's what terror is - the art of making us terrified.

We need to cut off their oxygen, we need people to speak out against them and name them for what they are: murderous death-fetishists who shame their religion and their communities. This law, this unnecessary, unfair and dangerous law will not help people do that.

What you can do:

1. Write to your MP. It has never been easier to do this - this website sorts it all out for you.
2. Visit LIBERTY and AMNESTY for ideas and suggestions
3. Sign the 'Not a Day Longer' petition and pass it around.
4. Write to your newspaper
5. Write about it on your blog and I will link you ( let me know if you do)

Say no to terrorism, no to terror and no to fear. We need to act like winners, not like losers. There is no need for this law, it is shameful, it is harmful, and it is not needed . It's time to speak out, if you love freedom and want justice and if you want to feel proud.

BLOGGERS FROM ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM SPREAK OUT
Tom Paine's The Last Ditch
Looking for a Voice
Chicken Yogurt
Ten Percent
UK Liberty
Pixelisation
SKY NEWS blog
Letters from a Tory
Coming up for air
Chicken Yogurt again
Heresy Corner

News media comment and coverage
Rachel Sylvester in the Telegraph
The Independent
Guardian Leader

The rebels, Lib Dems and Tories won't show their hand yet: the bill will go into a Committee hearing, and the real fight will kick off in May.

Worth making a fuss early though - before the cavalry charge and full-on assault at vote stage.
Let your MP know the score NOW so they can be in no doubt what you, who elects them, wants.

UPDATE: David Mery adds '42 days is only one of the several unjust proposals of the Counter Terrorism Bill 2008. You may want to add a link to CAMPACC as it has published good background on the CT Bill and material to help write to one's MP. See www.campacc.org.uk/CTB08_260208.html. I've republished the summary in html at Creating a climate of fear: counter-terrorism and punishment without trial.

Justice has also recently published a briefing on the Counter Terrorism Bill.
(More slightly older links in Oppose any extension to the pre-charge detention period - lobby your MP)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

7/7/ inquests may be held in secret

From today's Telegraph

Families fear they may never find out the truth about the July 7 suicide bombings under Government plans that could mean that the inquests into the victims' deaths are heard in secret.

July 7 attack inquests may be held in secret
A date for the inquests of the July 7 victims has still to be set, almost three years after the attacks

The Counter Terrorism Bill contains proposals to allow the Government to appoint special coroners to inquests where national security is deemed to be an issue, such as instances in which people have been killed in terrorist attacks or in wars. These inquests could sit behind closed doors and without a jury.

It comes just days after Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, went to the High Court in an attempt to prevent coroners criticising the Ministry of Defence at military inquests, which provoked a furious reaction from families of troops killed on the front line.

Robert Webb, whose sister Laura was killed in the Edgware Road bomb on July 7, 2005, said that the new proposals were "very worrying".

"The most important thing from the point of view of the brother of a victim of a terrorist attack is that we have a need to know what happened and if any lessons can be learned from the attacks," he said. "Clearly if parts of any inquest are going to be held in secret not only do we not get the answers but the wider public don't.

"It's my belief that society as a whole needs to be as well informed as possible about these attacks so we can all play our part in preventing them."

He added that it was important that a coroner independent of the Government be appointed to look impartially at each case.

More

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Meeting the ISC

See Mirror today
and today's Evening Standard

Back in October last year, the '7/7 Inquiry Group' - a group of survivors and families campaigning for an independent inquiry into the London Bombings of July 7th 2005, helped pro-bono by Oury Clark Solicitors - had a breakthrough in terms of the process of trying to get more answers to the many questions which still remain about the 7th July bombings.

Following a meeting with Jacqui Smith last autumn, we made contact with the Intelligence and Security Committee (the security services 'watchdog') and attended one of their meetings. The ISC have been sitting every month since May 2007 to re-examine the 7th July events - in particular, what was known about the bombers and whether they could have been stopped from unleashing their deadly attacks which killed 52 innocent passengers and injured nearly 800 more.

Tony Blair asked the ISC - a cross-party committee of Parliamentarians appointed by the PM - to re-investigate following a huge outcry and masses of media coverage in the wake of the 'Crevice' fertiliser-bombers trial - after it came out in court that two of the 7/7 bombers had been associating with the group of 'fertiliser bomb' terrorists when under surveillance by M15. The would-be fertiliser-bombers were thankfully prevented from carrying out their attacks after an enormous police and security services operation. The 7/7 bombers, tragically, succeeded.

Some background might be helpful. The initial ISC report published by the ISC back in May 2006 completely exonerated the security services of any blame in failing to stop the bombers, even though it later found out that two of the bombers had been bugged and photographed and followed by the security services - and so were definitely known, named and on the radar - rather than being 'clean skins', who attacked 'out of the blue,' as initially claimed by the then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

It was in 2005 that I first found out that this 'clean skins' business was nonsense: at a survivor meeting I attended in the Home Office, a senior police officer was asked how they managed to identify the bombers so quickly. He blurted out that credit cards and other ID in the name of Mohammed Siddique Khan had been found at three of the crime scenes 'and when we ran the name through the police computer it came up that he had links to international terrorism'.

Hardly a 'clean skin' then.

So that was when we started getting annoyed and wanting more truthful answers - back in 2005.

In May 2006, two reports were published- the original ISC report about the security services and 7/7, and a Home Office Narrative, written by an anonymous civil servant. The narrative appears to contain worrying inaccuracies, including placing the bombers on a *train into London that never ran. The lack of clarity soon led to various conspiracy theories being bandied about, (*John Reid later corrected the train time in Parliament.) The conspiracy theories include unhelpful and inaccurate speculation that the bombers were never in London, or were part of a 'fake terror exercise' and frequently assert that the bombers were innocent of murdering 52 people.

Our conspiracy-theory-free campaign for an independent inquiry into 7/7 carried on, supported by the media, notably the Mirror, and by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and by the Greater London Assembly, who had held their own inquiry into communication failures and the city of London's resilience to the attack.

Numerous meetings occurred with the John Reid, Home Office, Tessa Jowell and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (which is responsible for victims of disasters), but still no inquiry.

In November 2006 we were we grateful to be offered pro-bono representation by Oury Clark Solicitors, a firm with a strong human rights reputation, and in May 2007, we went to the Home Office the day after the news had broken of the fertiliser's plotters' guilty convictions - and their association with the 7/7 bombers.

See this BBC news video report

John Reid, the Home Secretary of the moment said no to our request, reiterating Blair's old argument that the inquiry would be a' diversion of resources' .

We went back with a legal argument via Oury Clark, saying that the government had a duty to protect life and an inquiry was a necessary part of that. The Treasury solicitors responded with further legal arguments rejecting our case. So we were put into a litigation corner, and we had to issue proceedings for a judicial review, within the three month window that we had to respond. Meanwhile, Tony Blair asked the ISC to re-start their investigations.

John Reid left the Home Office later that summer. Tony Blair resigned as PM, and off we went to meet the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in October 2007. We stressed yet again that we didn't want to engage in litigation and were not seeking to blame people, but were just keen to get proper answers about what had happened - especially about what was known about the bombers and whether they could have been stopped.

We also said that the families were still waiting for inquests, and asked why there was such a delay. It was suggested that we asked the Director of Public Prosecutions about the delay, so we did, and he came back and said the inquests were on hold because of the forthcoming criminal trial of men alleged to have helped the bombers plan the attacks ( starting April 2008). It was also suggested that we met the ISC.

The ISC were very nice to us and invited us to attend a meeting with them, stressing that they intended to 'leave no stone unturned 'in their investigation We said we still had many questions, and we asked if we could put them to the committee in writing after the meeting. I think they thought we'd have six or seven key questions, and that they themselves would already have asked them. But we came back with 67 very detailed questions.

We still don't know when the ISC will come back with their report. Nor do we have a date for the inquests yet, though details of how loved ones died were sent in the post before Christmas last year to the families. The 7/7 alleged conspirators trial starts at the beginning of April; this is also when the government will debate and vote on the new terrorism laws, which includes a proposal that inquests in the cases of 'matters of national security' can run without a Coroner, instead having a Judge or person appointed by the Government, and without juries, and where deemed necessary, hear the facts and the evidence in secret.

(See tonight's BBC 6pm news for more on our fears about the proposed inquest legislation.)

But at least, and at last, we have finally managed to put our questions to the security services through the medium of the ISC, who we hope will ask them on our behalf, and then report back with the answers as soon as possible. Probably after the 7/7 alleged conspirators trial, although we still do not have a date for the ISC report.

It's the first time that anything like this has happened with the ISC meeting victims of a terrorism attack - it's unprecedented - and we are very grateful to them for allowing us access and to ask questions. We hope that we will hear back from them soon and that we will be a little closer to knowing more of the truth.

The Judicial Review proceedings are stayed - it hasn't gone away - but in the light of the argument that running an independent inquiry in tandem with ISC inquiry would be a problem, we and the government have agreed to hang fire from going to court whilst the ISC continue their investigations.

One of the best ways to look at the failures of the past is to look at what has changed since. New regional M15 offices, including one in West Yorkshire, the roll out of S019 and new plans for greater communication between the police and security services have all been planned or implemented since 7/7. Which tells you a quite a lot.

But it doesn't tell you the whole story, a story which we would like to be investigated publicly, independently and thoroughly by someone independent of government and the security services who can compel witnesses and review evidence.

Des Thomas, a former police officer has explained that it is possible to hold this sort of inquiry quite easily without diverting resources. When the trial of the alleged 7/7 conspirators begins next month, more information will come out. There has been a constant drip, drip of new information coming out for the last few years and it is largely because of ongoing media interest and legal processes that we have found out what we know so far.

I can't understand why anyone would think this is a good strategy - it means the story just runs and runs and that people just get more and more frustrated and think that the government/police/security services has something to hide, which is hardly helpful or productive. It allows idiotic conspiracy theories to take root, which in turn impacts on levels of public trust, which makes it harder to gather intelligence - our best weapon against extremism and terrorism. And it adds to the distress of people directly affected who understandably want closure.

Well, we shall see where we get. The campaigning continues.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 16, 2008

339 days left and counting

With the cretinous crassness for which he is internationally famed, President Bush this week attempted to justify the use of a method of torture notably used by the Gestapo, the Spanish Inquisition and the Khmer Rouge.

Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage