The Times 'fresh calls for a public inquiry'

The Times front page . Whenever I feel like giving up, I remember why I'm not going to shut up and stop asking for an independent inquiry into 7/7.

''US 'issued alert' on 7/7 bomber in 2003''
By Daniel McGrory
Fresh calls for public inquiry into London bombings after publication of American book claiming terrorist was known
MI5 has always denied knowing that Mohammad Sidique Khan was a danger (GUZELIAN)
THE leader of the July 7 suicide bombers was considered such a dangerous threat that he was banned from flying to America two years before the attack in London, according to a book written by a US intelligence specialist.

Although MI5 has always denied knowing that Mohammad Sidique Khan was a potential danger, the CIA is alleged to have discovered in 2003 that he was planning attacks on American cities...The claims contradict evidence from Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director-General of MI5, to the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee that Khan had never been listed as a terror threat before the attack that killed 52 innocent people.
A senior British security source has told The Times that they were aware of the allegations but said that they were “untrue and one of the many myths that have grown up around Khan”.
However, the disclosures will add to demands for Tony Blair to agree to a full public inquiry into intelligence lapses before the attack on July 7. Families of the victims, preparing to mark the first anniversary, are among those calling for an independent investigation to uncover all that British Intelligence was told about the suicide bombers by international security agencies...

This year, a leading US Senator, Charles E. Schumer, commenting on newspaper reports in New York that US authorities had tipped off British Intelligence, said: “This is the British version of pre-9/11, where a country receives a generalised warning and ignores it with terrible consequences.”
Suskind told The Times: “British intelligence was certainly told about Khan in March and April 2003.
“This was a significant set of contacts that Khan had, and ones of much less importance were exchanged on a daily basis between the CIA and MI5. British authorities were sent a very detailed file.
“This demonstrates a catastrophic breakdown in communication across the Atlantic.”

The Times leader stops short of calling for a full public inquiry, noting ruefully

''Fostering public trust is the answer to conspiracy theories
There is a growing, and regrettable, tendency to reject all official explanations of horrific, headline-making events and see instead plots, conspiracies and cover-ups...
The wish to believe the worst has sometimes been fuelled by unreliable official information put out too soon, as well as by the culture of spin that attempts to deflect well-deserved blame. But conspiracy theories have also been nurtured by disaffected insiders who have seen a chance to embarrass their superiors and are all too willing to spread unprovable allegations.

The bombings in London last July are fertile ground for such conspiracies. Despite the swift and admirably forthright report last month by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) into 7/7, there have been persistent rumours and speculation that not all the facts were uncovered and that crucial evidence was suppressed to spare the blushes of MI5.
...

There is room, nevertheless, for a swift, independent assessment of 7/7 and formal recommendations, prefer-ably by a respected public figure, of how security can be improved. This should not divert resources away from the job of making this country safer, but raise the issue of how MI5 and the police can better foster public co-operation, particularly after the Forest Gate episode. It should also look at national priorities. Were the failings of last July the result of a lack of resour-ces?
Is sufficient now being spent in relevant areas, and have enough counter-terrorism experts, especially from ethnic minorities, been recruited? And are relations with US and other intelligence services in good working order? Already the security services have established a confidential hotline, which has yielded useful information. Preventing terrorism must be seen as the responsible and ethical choice of all citizens, and not as snooping on neighbours or acting as stooges.

Inevitably, however, there is much that will remain confidential and that we have to take on trust. We are paying people to be secretive, and so secretive they inevitably will be. The security services must recognise that criticism is not a personal attack, but an inevitable quality of a questioning democracy.''

Well, quite. I am happy with an independent inquiry, with as much of it as possible being publicly available, and the bits that are not, involving rigorous interrogation of the facts with full powers of disclosure by someone with teeth. I'll start by saying'' full public inquiry'', as a negotiation opener, but I can be engaged with, and I am not alone.

The lunatic fringe will continue to speculate and spread offensive nonsense such as '' the Leeds bombers were innocent, '', bothering survivors and whipping up hatred and suspicion with talk of Mason/Zionist/M15 plots. The bereaved will grieve, and survivors puzzle, their questions unanswered, their hopes for lessons learned and information shared which could prevent suffering left to wither. The disconnect between those in power and those who feel powerless will continue to grow. And the suspicion, the cynicism will flourish.

You can sign the petition for an inquiry here. ( Click).

And you'll hear a lot more from people calling for a public inquiry over the next few weeks...

Cheers to The Times and Daniel McGrory.

The 7/7 Inquiry battle continues

Well I was right about the Government response, except it was even more disappointing than I predicted.

Despite Mr Brown admitting in June this year that the ISC ( Intelligence & Security Committee) needs to be reformed, it is still apparently ''more than sufficient'' to deal with investigating the matter of the failure to stop the bombers, which it is apparently already tasked with doing.

This despite the fact that it apparently missed key pieces of evidence . See this Panorama report

''In their investigation into the background to the 7 July London bombings, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) gave MI5 a clean bill of health.
It confirmed that Khan and Tanweer had appeared on the radar of an earlier investigation - meaning Operation Crevice. But it concluded: "the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".

But the ISC was either never given the full details of the 2 February surveillance operation or was informed but chose to omit key facts - details which might have fuelled demands for the public or independent inquiry the government has resisted. ''

The ISC doesn't even have an independent investigator any more since John Morrison was sacked by Blair for speaking out about misuse of intelligence for political purposes!

Here you can listen to Paul Lever, former Chair of the Joint Intelligence Commitee describe the ISC on Newsnight, April 3oth.

Paul Lever: 'Well I think what does seem to be the case is that the one body that does exist to provide oversight, the Intelligence and Security Committee, it has many virtues but it hasn't managed to generate the confidence and the repuation that perhaps it needs. It can't carry the weight of this huge problem. Now, how its role, its function, its composition might be changed, whether it needs more staff, I think is something that is worth thinking about...''

Paxman: More staff? It's just got rid of its investigator!

Paul Lever: Well, exactly.

Today's Times has an important interview with Des Thomas, an ex-senior police officer. He says that an independent examination of the apparent intelligence failures that allowed the 7/7 bombers to strike was essential to prevent a repetition of those mistakes.

''A senior detective who worked on the September 11 investigation has joined calls for a public inquiry into the July 2005 suicide bombings in London.
Detective Superintendent Des Thomas told The Times that an independent examination of the apparent intelligence failures that allowed the 7/7 bombers to strike was essential to prevent a repetition of those mistakes.
Mr Thomas, whose 35-year police career also included IRA and Animal Liberation Front cases, is prepared to appear as a witness on behalf of a 7/7 survivors’ group that is taking the Government to court in an attempt to force an inquiry.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, rejected the group’s calls for an inquiry last week and Government lawyers told the group that its court challenge was “premature and misconceived”. Ministers, police and MI5 officials oppose an inquiry, claiming that it would divert resources. ( Times)

[However, the Conservatives say there should be an independent inquiry, and the Liberal Democrats back a full public inquiry. Also backing an independent inquiry is the London Assembly, whose 7 July Review Committee chaired by Richard Barnes, was the first public investigation of some of the facts relating to London's response to the bombings, generating a heap of useful recommendations many of which have already been acted upon]

''But Mr Thomas, now retired from the police, said that the authorities were creating a “smokescreen” and an inquiry could be conducted quickly and efficiently.
The core issue for any inquiry into the 7/7 attacks, in which 52 people died and more than 700 were injured, is why surveillance on the bombers’ leader Mohammad Sidique Khan was apparently dropped in 2004.
Khan, 30, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, came to police and MI5 attention 16 months before the bombings, when he was photographed and bugged in the company of a group of men planning to carry out a bomb attack.
When the plotters were arrested in March 2004, Khan was classified as a “peripheral target” and inquiries into his activities were, apparently, discontinued. It is not known what discussions took place between MI5, Scot-land Yard and West Yorkshire police about further investigation of his extremist activity.
Mr Thomas, who is regarded as an expert on the conduct of criminal investigations, said: “If Khan did drop off the radar then there was a huge flaw in the way these matters were being investigated. If the proper procedures were being followed, all the decisions relating to Khan should have been properly documented. There should be minutes of meetings between MI5 officials and police of chief officer rank. There should be ‘policy books’ recording every decision and the justification for that decision.
“If these matters were documented then the initial work of an inquiry would not take very long at all. It would take me, or someone of my training, just two days to read all the relevant documents and identify the problems.

“If the documents are not available it would take longer, but in such a scenario the argument for public accountability would be even more powerful than it is now. If the documents do not exist, then either those in charge of the investigation did not know what they were doing or they don’t want people to know what they were doing.”

Mr Thomas, former deputy head of Hampshire CID, said he believed that 7/7 could have been prevented if action had been taken when Khan first came to attention.

He said: “The question which has to be answered is, ‘Was this avoidable?’. Had better management of resources and techniques been in place could it have been stopped? My suspicion is that it was avoidable.” Claims that holding an inquiry could hamper the work of national security were “obfuscation”, Mr Thomas said.
He added: “It is wrong to say you cannot examine terrorist issues because of secrecy - it’s all to do with glamorising the work and people being self-important. Really, terrorism is nothing more than organised crime. Investigations must be managed properly and that all comes down to mind-grinding attention to detail.”

In 2001 Mr Thomas was a senior investigating officer on the 9/11 investigation dealing with the repatriation of the remains of British victims of the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
He has lectured at the Police Staff College and at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Portsmouth and Cardiff Law School. ''

This BBC report written after the Crevice trial asks similar questions

''It is of course possible though that investigating him further - or asking the police in West Yorkshire to do so - might have led to warnings signs of the 7/7 plot.
But one of the critical issues at the time was MI5's workload, say officials.'' ( BBC)

Media coverage from last week
Guardian, BBC, Daily Mail, Islamic Republic News Agency, Mirror, AFP, Politics.co.uk, again, Press Association, World Socialist WebSite News, Telegraph, The Sun,

More soon.

Home Affairs Select Committee announces 'biggest inquiry into 7/7 & terrorists incidents in Britain'

Britain's anti-terrorist police face budget cuts for the first time since the July 7 attacks, Scotland Yard's head of counter terrorism has warned.

John Yates, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, admitted that having to make savings was "inevitable" despite the risks associated with staging the 2012 Olympic Games in London.

His warning came as the most extensive inquiry yet in to the London suicide bombings was announced by MPs, to mark the fourth anniversary of the tragedy.

The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee will call on MI5 and MI6 chiefs, as well as terrorism experts and politicians, to give evidence and explain what the security services knew before the attacks and what should have been done.

Mr Yates, who became Scotland Yard's head of specialist operations three months ago, said there had been a significant growth in funding to combat the extremist threat since 2005.

However, he added that it would be "naive" to think counter terrorism policing would escape the recession.

Police forces nationwide have been asked to make efficiency savings of seven per cent over the next two years, and they are preparing for a cut in public sector funding thereafter.

At a conference of police chiefs in Manchester yesterday, Mr Yates said: "For the first time in counter terrorism we are going to have to robustly look at where we can make savings.

"Like any part of policing you are always looking at stripping out the back office before you look at the frontline. It would be naive of me to say that is not going to be the case."

In a comprehensive spending review in 2007 of national security and counter-terrorism, the Government pledged £3.5bn until 2010-11 - covering the police, security services, Home Office and other relevant government work.

Mr Yates said: "Up to 2011 we are fine but thereafter there is a challenge.

"We have got the Olympics as well, there will be a challenge. We will want to grow against a backdrop of falling budgets."

The pressures on money will leave counter terrorism police units fighting for funding with other police departments, such as serious and organised crime.

It is also set against the backdrop of Scotland Yard asking the Home Office for more cash for the unit which protects the Royal family and VIPs.

Mr Yates said that the official terrorist threat level may soon be reduced from "severe", meaning an attack was highly likely, to "substantial", meaning an attack was a strong possibility.

But he warned against the public being "complacent" about the terrorism threat, which he said continues to "move every week".

Meanwhile, MPs announced a formal inquiry into the London suicide bombings, which killed 52 innocent people, four years after the atrocity.

It will look for any common links between the bombers and those involved in other failed plots, both past and present in the UK, and will examine the Government emergency response system - the so-called COBRA meetings.

Graham Foulkes, from Oldham, Greater Manchester, whose 22-year-old son David was killed in the Edgware Road bombing, welcomed the move.

"I see that as really positive and I think it's good news," he said. "I would like an independent inquiry, but this is a very good second."

The parliamentary Intelligence and Security Service Committee (ISC) carried out its own inquiry in to the bombings but its report in May sparked outrage when it said there was nothing MI5 could have done to stop the attacks.

The Home Affairs committee could begin its hearings as early as September but a witness list is still to be drawn up. It remains to be seen how forthcoming the security services will be in giving evidence or whether it will be held in private.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory member of the committee, said: "This will be the biggest inquiry in July 7 and terrorist incidents in Britain.

"What we are going to try is to look at the links between failed attacks before 7/7 and right the way through to the latest successful and unsuccessful attacks that have been plaguing our security services."

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, added: "The Committee will be inviting MI5, MI6 and terrorism experts to give evidence with the aim of gaining a detailed picture of what the security services knew before 7/7, what, if anything, could have been done to prevent the attacks and the Government's response to the attacks."

So. The campaigning is working. Another major breakthrough.

See Telegraph, Press Association, Mirror, Evening Standard, Daily Mail

It is to be an investigation by one of the most powerful parliamentary committees, who hear evidence in public, and who publish evidence sessions (unless evidence is taken in camera) It is not, of course, an independent public inquiry, as the Mirror point out today, and as I and others have said. But I really welcome all official efforts - especially public-facing ones - to understand more, learn lessons, improve communication, save lives and spare suffering in future, and importantly, see the atrocities of 7/7 in context, see their links to other plots, look at the bigger picture.

This inquiry is therefore greatly welcomed by me, and by the colleagues I have managed to speak to so far. I think its findings will greatly aid an independent public inquiry into 7/7 when one is held.

More soon.

New calls for a 7/7 inquiry

M15 Chief told MPs on 6/7/05: no imminent terror threat
Today's Guardian:

The director-general of the security service MI5 told senior MPs there was no imminent terrorist threat to London or the rest of the country less than 24 hours before the July 7 suicide bombings.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller gave the assurance at a private meeting of Labour whips at the Commons on the morning of July 6 2005, the Guardian has learned from a number of those present.
The whips are said to have been confident, on leaving the meeting, that they could brief fellow MPs that the security situation was under control, and are said to have been deeply alarmed by the following day's events.
Last month Dame Eliza announced that she is to retire in April. That announcement came weeks before details are expected to be made public of an MI5 operation which saw two of the July 7 bombers kept under surveillance, but not arrested.
It is now known that officers had trailed the bombers' leader, Mohammed Siddique Khan, more than a year before the attacks, and had listened as he spoke of his plans for waging jihad. They had also photographed him, yet had not been able to identify him.

We know. And more will come out once the Operation Crevice trial at the Old Bailey ends and the reporting restrictions are off...

However, the disclosure that MI5 had been so completely taken by surprise on July 7 will fuel calls for a public or independent inquiry into the events leading up to the suicide bomb attacks that claimed 52 lives and injured hundreds.
Grahame Russell, whose son Philip, 29, died in the Tavistock Square bus bombing, said: "Unless we have a public inquiry where witnesses can be called and questioned, we will never get the truthful answers about what happened before, during and after July 7 2005."

Too damn right.

We have had a series of leaks, a series of reports, from different bodies, saying different things, at different times. Some of the information we have even contradicts other information. There seems to me to be a desire to avoid blame for individual agencies and individuals. This is not about blame, it is about the nation knowing how safe it is, and having confidence in its leaders, its security services and those charged to protect and defend us and keep us safe and free from fear. It is about saving lives and sparing suffering and learning and acting on all the lessons of the worst terrorist atrocity and the biggest loss of civilian life on UK soil since the Second World War. It is desperately sad that, apparently for political reasons, we have still not been given the independent inquiry that we deserve. But it will come. In time, it will happen.

I am in touch with other survivors and bereaved through the group of us who are campaigning for an inquiry into 7/7 . I am off to do a pre-record for ITN's London Tonight in five minutes.

This never goes away. Sometimes I wonder why I keep fighting. But I believe in what I am doing; I didn't ask to be on that train, I am just an ordinary person, I could be anyone who travels to work on the tube. When the bomb went off, I couldn't do much to help at the time, all I could do was try and keep calm and help to evacuate as instructed, but I can do what I can to help now. I can write. I can talk. I can mobilise, and I can campaign for justice. And I am not alone: there are others at my side.

And over the next few weeks and months, as we approach the Crevice verdict, then the Coroner's reports into the deaths over the summer, I am sure that the public's calls for an inquiry will get louder and louder, and perhaps the next Prime Minister will heed them.

I will write more later: I am off to Russell Square to say what I have been saying for eighteen months all over again.

You can sign the latest petition to the current PM HERE.

UPDATE: 14/1 Observer: ''7/7 ringleader 'was watched since 2003'' The security services is bracing itself for further disclosures over Tube bombing intelligence failures

M15 'bugged July 7th bombers' leak

David Leppard, Sunday Times news reporter rang me up yesterday saying it was about a story in today's Sunday Times. After some initial confusion when I assumed he was a sub-editor fact-checking the pole-dancing piece that came out today ( I am prone to making an arse of myself like this), he told me that a leak had revealed that M15 had known about, but stopped watching two of the July 7th bombers because they' didn't have the resources'.And would I like to comment?

What David told me I found pretty staggering. We had a conversation which shocked and angered me and today this article appeared in today's Sunday Times ( front page was the poor whale that swam up the Thames on Friday then died)

'BRITAIN’S top spies knew that the ringleader of the London bombers was planning to fight for Al-Qaeda more than a year before the July 7 suicide attacks, security sources have revealed.
MI5 bugged Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, a second bomber, for two months as they talked about Khan’s desire to fight in what he saw as the Islamic holy war.

Agents also listened in as the men talked between themselves about Khan’s plans to return to Pakistan where he had attended a camp for British terrorists. They also spoke about engaging in crime to raise money for Islamic extremism.
However, police and MI5 officers ruled that the two men were not an “immediate risk” and did not present a “direct threat” to national security.
The detectives’ assessment was that the men were primarily involved in fraud rather than preparing to mount attacks in the near future. As a result, surveillance on them stopped, allowing the attacks that killed 52 people and injured 700 to go ahead'

It says a lot about how cynical I have become that my immediate suspicions were that M15 had leaked the document to get more funding. Then I wondered if the Government had leaked the document in order to make a nasty point about the Anti Terror Laws and to imply they shouldn't have been outvoted on the attempt to push through the liberties-trashing 90-Days-to-hold-suspects-without charge legislation. But no. It was a real leak ( from where? Which reminds me of an interesting previous story) and it means that Charles Clarke's claims that the bombers were 'clean skins' and the bombings 'came out of the blue' were crap. And the Security officials who said the men 'were not known' to them were talking crap too.

So could the Government have prevented Khan and his associates getting on our public transport and committing mass murder?

The article goes on to explain how Khan trained to make bombs in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan '... set up by Al-Qaeda soon after Tony Blair sent British troops into Iraq'.

Iraq. The 4 letter unmentionable word when you talk about July 7th 2005.

'MI5 has calculated that the entire plot cost less than £10,000 to carry out. It has also employed a team of in-house psychologists to analyse why the four men became terrorists.'

*Cough* I thought the Joint Intelligence Commitee gave us a steer on that in February 2003?

You know, when they explicitly told Mr Blair that that the invasion of Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Britain from al-Qaida? This caused Mr Blair to muse aloud at the time about the 'fear' of the 'possibility' of the 'nexus' 'between 'terrorism and WMD' in 'an event'. Such lawyerly weaseling. (See The Guardian reporting on September 11th 2005)

What an absolute balls-up: never mind WMD, never mind Saddam as a 'threat', the people of Iraq and the people of London and ordinary people everywhere are more at risk from terrorism since Iraq was invaded. What about the 'nexus' between 'terrorism and Governments starting illegal bloody wars and lying about why they are doing so and ignoring what they are warned the consequences might be?'

Oh, but, of course we can all trust in Mr Blair's 'judgement' to protect us all.

"This is where you've just got to make your judgment and it remains my judgment and I suppose time will tell whether it's true or it's not true'' said Mr Blair, when told about the heightened terrorism risk stemming from the decision concerning, and the reality of, the Iraq occupation.

For God's sake, now we know that not only was Blair was given a joint Home Office and Foreign office dossier explicity pointing out the terror threat at home in 2004, now we find out M15 were diligently listening to the conversations of the bombers for months! Judgement? I do not trust Mr Blair's judgement. I do not feel safe whilst he exercises it on my behalf and I do not trust him and this is what I say about his judgement.

It stinks. It stinks of innocent blood and explosions and preventable deaths, here and abroad.

Last month, of course, we all recall Blair refused to hold an independent or public enquiry into the London bombings, saying instead a ''narrative'' about the events would be published in the spring.

If I want to read a bloody narrative I'll nip into Waterstones. What I want is to understand is why July 7th happened. And that includes whether the Government took a knowing, calculated risk with so many lives and whether they did so knowing that this may be one of the prices of a war in Iraq.

The Government listened into the plotting of the 7th July cell, knew that the bombers were NOT 'unknown' as was originally claimed. The Government went into an illegal war to 'defeat terrorism' and because they said terrorism + WOMD = Your Worst Nightmare (TM) - yet knew there were no WMD and Iraq was 'no threat' .

Meanwhile by a hideous yet predictable irony , the terror risk of course increased. In Iraq, and at home, resulting in carnage, carnage and more carnage in Iraq, and finally in my city, on my train to work, last summer. And the wretches in power knew this, they knew the war was based on a lie and that being involved in Iraq increased the risks of terrorism, and they even listened in to Khan and his associates planning murder and mayhem.

Yet they still maintain this facile facade that there is no link between Iraq and 7th July. It beggars belief, it really does. Even the Financial Times, hardly a Galloway mouthpiece, makes the cost of this hubris, or naivete or breathtaking cynicism, or whatever the hell it is that causes this PM of mine to be so wilfully blind.

'The uncomfortable truth is that the ambitions and capabilities of the jihadis cannot be divorced entirely from the bloodshed in Iraq. The toppling of Saddam Hussein did not cause Islamist extremism but the present insurgency serves both as recruiting agent and training ground for al-Qaeda's war against the west.' ( (c) Financial Times)


I have said why we need an independent public enquiry before and the reasons have not gone away. And here is yet another compelling reason: today's leak and the realisation that the Government has been caught out yet again - the bombers, were known, not unknown, the attack did not 'come out of the blue', despite what the Home Secretary said last year.

On July 10th last year, before the identitity of the bombers was known, the Sunday Times was already reporting how young British men were being recruited into terror and hate. How much have the actions of my Government created the conditions and fanned the flames of the murderous terror they claimed they went to war to avoid?

I have had enough of these lies and evasions.

You can sign the petition for an independent public enquiry into the events of July 7th by clicking here .

On torture and terror

The real question is: How much truth can I stand?
- Friedrich Nietzsche

What madness seized our leaders, after the carnage and horror of the September 11th attacks? The 'rules of the game' changed, the 'gloves came off' - but at what terrible, bloody cost?

'MI5 is not like Spooks. In Spooks everything is solved by half a dozen people who break laws to achieve results. I think that given that we actually work strictly within the law, it is potentially quite damaging for the suggestion to prevail that we are totally above the law' - Eliza Manningham Buller, 18 November 2007

I suppose it depends who is drafting the laws and who is passing them.

Do the British public even care if our intelligence services torture suspected terrorists by proxy? They damn well should care, for pragmatic and self-interested reasons, if not for moral ones. Torture does not lead to good intelligence. Torture does not save lives. Torture does not stop terrorists. In fact, it recruits them.

Those who think torture works should urgently read this: the account of Matthew Alexander, a US interrogator, published on November 30th in the Washington Post

'I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans...'

read the rest.

It is worth reminding yourself of the background to what has been brought into sharp focus this week. In the week that marks the fourth anniversary of the 7th July 2005 London bombings, the Guardian has published a lengthy and damning article by investigative journalist Ian Cobain. In it he covered how the UK has outsourced torture, been complicit in torture and how the authorisation of torture seems to go right to the top, writing that

'...there is mounting evidence that torture is still regarded by some agents of the British state as a useful and legitimate investigative tool. There is evidence too that in the post-9/11 world, government officials have been prepared to look the other way while British citizens, and others, have been tortured in secret prisons around the world. It is also clear that an official policy, devised to govern British intelligence officers while interrogating people held overseas, resulted in people being tortured.

The Guardian has established that Tony Blair, when prime minister, was aware of the existence of this policy. What he knew of its terrible consequences is less clear: he has repeatedly been asked, in a series of letters from the Guardian, what he believed to have happened to those who were subjected to the policy, but he has repeatedly failed to answer the question. There is a growing suspicion that Blair could not have been alone, and that other very senior figures in government may have been aware of the existence of Britain's secret interrogation policy. What did David Blunkett and Jack Straw, the ministers responsible for MI5 and MI6 at the time, know about the policy and its consequences for people detained in the so-called war on terror? They too have declined to say, stating that it is the British government's policy not to condone torture, but that they cannot comment further because of a number of forthcoming court cases.'

Lat at night on the 7th July, David Davis used parliamentary privilege to make an electrifying speech in which he revealed how the police and M15 sub-contracted the torture of Rangzieb Ahmed to the Pakistani ISI.

It is significant British-born Rangzieb Ahmed, rejected by his family as a teenager and left with his step-mother in Pakistan had been tortured before - by the Indian authorities, when he was picked up in Kashmir - and it is believed to be this early experience that led to his radicalisation. He was convicted of terrorist offences in December 2008.

It is not only wicked, but stupid to think this can continue unchecked. It is intolerable and it cannot be tolerated. It is making things worse. It is playing into the hands of our enemies. It is endangering innocent lives. It is jeopardising national security; that 'national security' is being invoked by those who signed off on torture as policy to try to hide their culpability is repellent, amoral and frankly, deranged.

Once again, well done to David Davis.

Out of the blue?

Some quotes to consider over the next few days/weeks....and keep an eye on the news.

1. ''This was a vicious and cynical attack out of the blue in a way that there was no knowledge of beforehand in any respect whatsoever."

Source: Home Secretary Charles Clarke, 8th July 2005 on the London bombings of 7 July 2005

2. '' We have been told in evidence that none of the individuals involved in the 7 July group had been identified ( that is, named and listed) as potential terrorist threats prior to July''.

Source: Intelligence and Security Committee Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 , published 11 May 2006 ( hereafter referred to as the ''ISC report'')

3. The definition of an ''essential target'' for investigation ( from the ISC report)...

''Essential - a target who is likely to be directly involved in, or have knowledge of, plans for terrorist activity, or an individual who may have knowledge of terrorist activity''
''Targets move between investigative tiers as new information of activities and intentions is received and priorities are regularly reviewed to ensure that resources are appropriately allocated''

( Source: ISC report sec. 23 and 34, page 8)

4. ''It has become clear that Siddeque Khan was the subject of reporting of which the Security Service was aware prior to July 2005. However his true identity was not revealed in this reporting and it was only after the 7 July attacks that the Security Service was able to identify Khan as the subject of the reports.

''Prior to the 7 July attacks, the Security Service had come across Siddeque Khan and Shazad Tanweer on the peripheries of other surveillance and investigative operations. At that time their identities were unknown to the security service and there was no appreciation of their subsequent significance. As there were more pressing priorities at the time, including the need to disrupt known plans to attack the UK (see Dhiren Barot case - RN) it was decided not to investigate them further or seek to identify them. When resources became available, attempts were made to find out more about these two, and other peripheral contacts, but these resources were soon diverted back to what were considered to be higher investigative priorities ''

(Source: Government's Response to the Intelligence and Securities Committee Report into the London Terrorist Attacks of 7 July 2005, published May 2006.) ( PDF)

5. ''Documents recovered from the scenes of the attacks on 7 July gave an indication of the possible identities of the four men involved. Once these were confirmed, the Security Service and other Agencies initiated reviews of their records to establish whether they had come across any of the individuals before 7 July, whether they had any prior intelligence of the attacks or whether the attacks made the meaning of any existing intelligence clearer''

( Source: ISC report sec. 41 page 13 )

6. ''Having reviewed its records once details of the bombers came to light, the Security Service did find, however, that it had come across two members of the 7 July group on the peripheries of other investigations. These were Siddeque Khan and Shazad Tanweer.''

( Source: ISC report sec. 45 page 14)

7. ''The director-general of the security service MI5 told senior MPs there was no imminent terrorist threat to London or the rest of the country less than 24 hours before the July 7 suicide bombings.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller gave the assurance at a private meeting of Labour whips at the Commons on the morning of July 6 2005, the Guardian has learned from a number of those present.
The whips are said to have been confident, on leaving the meeting, that they could brief fellow MPs that the security situation was under control, and are said to have been deeply alarmed by the following day's events''

( Source: Guardian January 9th 2007 'MI5 told MPs on eve of 7/7: no imminent terror threat')


8. ''The fact that there were suicide attacks in the UK on 7 July was clearly unexpected: the Director General of the Security Service said it was a surprise that the first big attack in the UK in ten years was a suicide attack.''

( Source: ISC report sec. 102 page 28)

9. Operation Kratos: is the code word used by theSO13 (Anti Terrorism branch) branch of London's Metropolitan Police Service to refer to policies surrounding and including "shoot-to-kill" tactics to be used in dealing with suspected terrorists and suicide bombers. The tactics were developed shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and are claimed to be based in part on consultation with Israeli and Sri Lankan law enforcement agencies on how to deal with "deadly and determined" attackers

( Source: Wikipedia on Operation Kratos)

More as soon as I can...and for clarity, I'll be blogging all this, not publishing it in a book that isn't out until the summer.

Khan 'was bugged by Special Branch' pre-7/7

''The official line on 7/7 is that it came out of the blue. But the security services were tipped off about the bombers’ Beeston hang-out long before the attacks...In the days after the London bombings of last July the government declared that the attacks had come without warning... Security sources briefed the media that the four suicide attackers were “clean skins” ... There had been no suspicions, the authorities said, no firm leads that might have prevented the carnage of 7/7...'The committee’s conclusion is that there was not an intelligence failure.'
This weekend the evidence of prior suspicions, warnings and tip-offs was mounting again. As The Sunday Times has reported previously, far from being unknown to the authorities, the bombers and their extremist circle had come to the attention of the police and MI5 on several occasions... ''

Todays Sunday Times, front page: ''Police tracking bug found in 7/7 mastermind’s car
''MI5 has already been criticised by victims’ relatives and opposition MPs for allegedly failing to act on clues about Khan’s activities before the attacks...With the first anniversary of the bombings next week, the claim has reignited calls for a full public inquiry into what the security services and the police knew about the terrorists before the attacks...''
more...
Focus: How much did they know about Khan?

M15 'out of 7/7 leads'

'After the biggest MI5 and police inquiry ever mounted, a secret report for Tony Blair and senior ministers into the July 7 London bombings states: “We know little about what three of the bombers did in Pakistan, when attack planning began, how and when the attackers were recruited, the extent of any external direction or assistance and the extent and role of any wider network.”

The eight-page report, by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), admits that MI5 still does not know whether the attacks of July 7 and July 21 were linked and whether Al-Qaeda chiefs were behind them. '

'The leak of a JTAC report, seen by The Sunday Times, is unprecedented and some within the intelligence services are known to feel that there should be a public inquiry'

David Leppard, Sunday Times 29/01/05

Of course there should be a public enquiry.
I have said this many times, and I will keep saying it

Not just survivors and bereaved families want it, but it is the public who were attacked, the public who run the risks, the public who the politicians claim to represent who pay for the wars, the intelligence services, the police and the Home Office to do their jobs. And on 7th July we paid a heavy cost. We deserve to know what happened, but more than that, more than ever, we need to know why it happened. How else can we help to prevent it happening again?

The M15 leaks seem to indicate that not everyone who works for the Government is comfortable with Blair's insistence that we do not need an independent and transparent public enquiry but instead will be content with a 'narrative', to be published at some unspecified time.

Milan Lai, whose book '7/7 and the Iraq War' is to be published in April puts it well when he says 'Terrorism is the messenger, not the message'. To understand the message, we must look at why the bombings happened and try to understand the whole picture. If over a million people were sufficently angry about the Iraq war to take to the streets, then how angry are those extremists who are already radicalised, and how easy is it to turn that anger into hellish violence, revenge and retaliation, bloodshed and maimings and murder?

At the very least, an enquiry would show we were serious about understanding the problems we now face. You cannot bomb people until they like you. Bomb people, shoot people and you create a spiral of further violence and anger, refuse to listen and you fan the flames of rage.

We are about to send another few thousand soldiers to Afghanistan, where the war was supposed to have been won years ago. They will, says Simon Jenkins today be ''just offering target practice for mujaheddin.''

This is an ultimately hopeless strategy, and I cannot believe that we are in this quagmire, and that those in power seem to have so little idea of what to do and were so unprepared for this, despite the J.I.T's earlier warnings that occupying Iraq would increase the risk of terror attacks, despite the intelligence about the threat from Iraq being completely wrong. You cannot make war on abstract nouns; the 'war on terror' cannot be fought with guns and bombs. It is a war of ideas, and since the anger is fed by the idea that we do not care and we will not listen, doing some thing to show that we do care and we do listen would be a better start than sending more soldiers to die.

M15 admits it doesn't know what to do, this is unfamiliar territory. Even Blair admits this is a ''new'' and ''different enemy'' and says ''the rules have changed''. Well, do something new and different then, change the way you are behaving if the rules have changed. Ask questions, stop and listen, admit mistakes and learn from them. Then we might have a chance.


To: The British Government
We, the British Public, call for a fully comprehensive Public Inquiry into the July 7th 2005 London Bombings. Only this can provide us with the information we need as to what actually happened, how it happened and why it happened so that we will be better prepared to prevent such a tragedy happening again. We, the Public were attacked. We, the Public have questions. We, the Public want our questions answered, independently, transparently and honestly.
Sincerely,

Sign here

Pass it on

http://www.petitiononline.com/July7th/petition.html

Write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/

Thank you.

24 hours of media...

The last 24 hours have been a mad frenzy of media interviews, but I and the other families and survivors are really pleased that we got our point across.

I started with News 24, at 3pm yesterday when I got back from Norwich, then did BBC and ITN, Channel 4 news live (with the fab Jon Snow who gave me a big kiss), various pre-records which I have lost track of because my phone was going bonkers at the time, local news programmes, various radio things and the long day finished with me being invited to do a live panel on Newsnight at 10.30pm, with Jeremy Paxman, ( who liked my shoes and nudged me under the table when he wanted me to challenge one of the panelists). I'd already pre-recorded a long report with Richard Watson a few weeks ago, but it was great to be part of the programme and see Paxo in action. Did lots of newspapers, followed by 5 Live at 11.35pm ( who I did again this morning). Went home, did emails, bed at 1.45am, up again at 5am to do Breakfast. Adrenalin can get you quite far.

Newsnight can be seen here. Channel 4 here. Yesterday's C4 news here. Other survivors and bereaved family members covered Sky, C5, the BBC, CNN, and many, many more international, national and local media interviews - I am still gathering what we have covered and have missed a lot but am pushed for time and still have 57 emails to reply to before I shut down the PC...

Yesterday we were on every single news channel, all day long, (which was amazing as well as bloody scary), and today we reiterated our point by handing in a letter to the Home Secretary's Office, formally asking him to respond in writing to our lawyers to our calls for an inquiry. I kicked this off by doing a live interview on BBC Breakfast at 7.10am and breaking the story officially, though we'd leaked it earlier. Then I did a zillion radio things, checked how everyone else was doing with their stuff, took over 50 calls/texts, wrote a press statement with James Oury our lawyer and then went to the Home Office to face a barrage of cameras and do about ten more interviews, and hand the letter in.

(Pressure grows for a 7/7 inquiry ( BBC)

You can read the text of our letter here in the Guardian and on Sky News here. Other names of survivors and bereaved have now been added to the letter (including Danny Biddle whom I caught up with on BBC Breakfast this morning when we both went on the programme to talk about the need for an inquiry.)

John Reid has released a statement saying he will give our letter 'very careful consideration' and get back to us.

Here is some more of today's coverage: it is the main story in most of the newspapers. Yesterday it was the main TV news story for 18 hours.

Mirror front page: '7/7 meets Bluewater'

Voice of the Mirror 'Five ruthless men found guilty after Operation Crevice in the country's longest terrorism trial are behind bars.
But their convictions have raised questions about the London bombings that can only be answered by an independent inquiry.''

Calls grow for an independent inquiry ( Telegraph)
''If MI5 was diverted from pursuing Khan and Tanweer, but remained suspicious of them, then the logical step would have been to alert Special Branch to keep them under watch. It is not fanciful to suggest that had this simple measure been taken, the victims of 7/7 might still be alive'' ( Today's Telegraph leader)

Mail 'Victims in new call for a 7/7 inquiry'', MPs to review evidence
Evening Standard 'MPs who cleared M15 to review evidence'
Daily Express 'M15 let terrorists slip through net'
Guardian '7/7 victims deliver inquiry demand'

Guardian Comment: 'Less spin, more truth'
''...only if we understand past mistakes can we hope to strengthen their capabilities further. Perfection is impossible in counter-terrorism. Learning from past mistakes is not.
That is why the case for a full, independent inquiry is now irrefutable. A review of the evidence by the Intelligence and Security Committee - a review which the chair of the committee has already declared is unlikely to come up with anything new - is simply not good enough''

Independent: How London bombers slipped through M15's grasp
Sky -'Bomb Survivors push for M15 probe
Times - 'Calls grow for 7/7 inquiry'
Comment :'Tell us the truth about the 7/7 blunders' - David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary writing in today's Times

''John Reid has refused to allow a “public inquiry”. We do not want a public inquiry, we want an independent inquiry, which, far from being a distraction, will be an essential tool in improving our security services. At a time when the head of MI5 has publicly cautioned that we face an unprecedented threat from 30 terrorist plots, 200 terrorist groups and 1,600 suspects, the British public – especially the bereaved and the survivors of 7/7 – deserve no less''

Preventable errors,
Victims join calls for a public inquiry

There is a lot more coverage, but I have to pack for my honeymoon. I am flying off tomorrow and our friend Russell is moving in to look after the cat and the fishes.

I would like to massively thank all of you who have signed the petition so far. Everyone in the survivor/bereaved group is really chuffed by all the support. We are tired but hopeful.

Here are the linking bloggers, a big thank you to you all.

Chicken Yoghurt
Comment is Free Best of the Web
Paul Linford
Radio 5 Pods and Blogs
Daniel Finkelstein in Times Comment Central
Mike Power
Netherworld
D-Notice
Stumbling and Mumbling
Blairwatch
Pickled Politics

We are looking forward to hearing back from John Reid via our lawyers.

Right. Now I am officially stopping work and on honeymoon, and as I'm off early tomorrow morning with J for somewhere hot and gorgeous, I will be offline from tomorrow, (swimming with wild sea turtles!) so I won't be able to put through comments or reply to emails .

See you all in a few weeks.

And thanks once again.

What's going on with the ISC?

One of the things I notice in the wake of Peter Hain's resignation to spend more time being interviewed by the police/clearing his name, is that Paul Murphy has been re-appointed to the Cabinet to Hain's old post of Secretary of State for Wales. After being Secretary of State for Wales from 1999-2002, Mr Murphy was made Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from October 2002 to May 2005, whereupon he left Government to become Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee ( ISC), the security services watch dog.

As far as I am aware, serving members of the Cabinet are not allowed to serve on the ISC.
Incidentally, the ISC's 2007 annual report was submitted to Gordon Brown on December 4 2007* but has not yet been published.
*Hmm. I wonder if it will make a strategic appearance at the height of the debate about the Government's new anti-terror laws that are proving so unpopular?

Paul Murphy re-joining the Cabinet presumably means the ISC will have to find a new Chair.
UPDATE: 29th January - I was right. And the new Chair is Margaret Beckett


Why am I following this closely? Well, last year, you may remember a media storm at the end of a big terrorism trial, 'Operation Crevice'. News finally came out that, far from being 'clean skins' as originally described by then-Home Secretary *Charles Clarke (*who was presumably briefed to say this by M15) , two of the 7/7 bombers had been known to the security services and police.

They had been taped, followed, and generally been under surveillance, as part of a big investigation into another plot. This led to a devastating question being asked: could the 7/7 bombers have been arrested, and thus could 7/7 have been prevented?

When the Crevice trial finished and reporting restrictions finally ended, the 7/7 Inquiry group, consisting of bereaved families and survivors of the 7/7 bombings asked the Home Secretary to have an independent inquiry into the 7/7 bombings. We said we were prepared to go to court to try and get a Judicial Review into the decision not to have one if necessary.

Tony Blair predictably once again refused to have an inquiry, but presumably to quell the headlines - the story ran every day for over a week - the ISC were quickly re-tasked by Blair with going back over the matter and making a second report looking at the 7 July bombings in the light of the new evidence which came out during the Crevice trial about the extent to which the police and security services knew about some of the 7/7 bombers.

It was claimed - in fact, John Reid, the Home Secretary at the time told me personally - that the Committee's work would be ''the same as an independent inquiry'' - despite the fact that the Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister, and was effectively being asked to re-investigate its own omissions from the first report in the light of information that had subsequently come out in a public court and caused a scandal in the newspapers.

This is what Paul Murphy said on Newsnight, when interviewed by Jeremy Paxman ( emphases mine)

...as you know, the Prime Minister has asked the Committee to revisit one or two of the issues to see whether it would have made any difference to our conclusions. Personally, I don't think it will...'

(So not-pre-judging the issue at all, there! - RN)

Paxman: But it's clearly not the case, as was alleged, that the perpetrators were so-called ''clean skins''?

Murphy: Well, what was said was that they [the security services] identified people, um, after they were dead, in the sense that they knew that these two people [7/7 bombers Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shazad Tanweer] have talked to these people who were involved in the Crevice conspiracy, and we knew that, and we were, we reported that in our final report to the, er, Parliament and Prime Minister.

Paxman: But it's not true, is it, I mean, they were known beforehand and identified beforehand a year before the July 7th bombings?

Murphy: No, they weren't identified until after they were dead, they knew that they were two people...

Paxman: Yes, they were, I'm sorry, they were...

Murphy:..who were talking to the Crevice conspirators - but they didn't know their names.

Paxman: It emerged at the trial that Mohammed Siddique Khan's car was traced to him and through that, he was identified.

Murphy: The car was traced after Siddique Khan was killed. It was only then that they [the security services] knew who they were. The issue of course, was whether these people were involved in planning an attack, and they weren't, they were dealing with credit card fraud and relatively less important activity that, they certainly weren't involved in attack planning, but they knew they went to Leeds.

Paxman: Sorry, the evidence that we have is that the car was traced to him [MSK] and that he was therefore identified, over a year before the July 7th bombings.

Murphy: Well, that's not our understanding, but clearly if there is more information that has arisen as a consequence of this trial, the whole purpose of the Prime Minister asking us to have another look at it is to see whether in fact these things are the case or not.

Paxman:Mr Murphy, you've conducted an inquiry. You are the only body to whom these people [the security services] are formally accountable, and you're now being asked by the Prime Minister to carry out another inquiry, because you may have been - what? Misled?

Murphy: No, what he's asked us to do is to have a look at some issues which have arisen from the trial and of course, to which we couldn't refer in our report because it was sub judice, and to see whether we can offer some reassurance to people, that at the end of the day our conclusions remain the same as what they were a year ago.

(*cough* So definitely not massively pre-judging the issue at all then! Good grief - RN)

Paxman: Did M15 not tell you that that they had identified Mohammed Siddique Khan, and his car, over a year before the July 7th bombings?

Murphy: We knew that they had, erm, they knew about two people who were doing these things but not their names, and that the identity of these two people were discovered afterwards, but even if they were known, the issue is that, whether they would have been involved in planning a terrorist attack, and the information that they knew at the time was that they were involved in something that was peripheral, for the actual main body of the Crevice trial itself, for the Crevice case. In other words, the attacks which led, or the proposed attacks which these people were dealing with, which eventually led to them being arrested and today, sentenced, they were dealing with attack-planning. The people we were looking at were dealing with something different, although they did have contact with these Crevice planners. Now, what we've got to do is obviously look and see if there was anything further to that, I'm not convinced that there was, but we have an open mind and we have to look at any evidence that might have come from the trial.

Paxman: Well, our information is that they knew a year before the attacks who this man was, who'd been consorting with these Crevice conspirators - but let us leave that to one side. Do you conclude from your experience of your enquiry that you were misled, or should we conclude that you were somehow complicit, or the agents of M15?

Murphy: Well, certainly, neither of those things. Our job is to present an impartial, independent assessment and investigation into, in this case, the events of July 7th. We came up with a number of critical points, we came up with a number of recommendations and conclusions including, for example, the need for better co-operation between Special Branch and the security agencies, we looked at that, but in addition to that, um, we now need to look at some of the issues that arose in the trial, which of course we couldn't use during the course of our reporting. I don't think that we were misled, I, um, have no evidence to suggest that we were lied to, but I do understand the feelings of relatives of the victims of July 7th, and if we can give them any reassurance that by revisiting some areas that we now know arose from this trial, then we'll certainly do that.

Paxman: Mr Murphy, thank you

So - despite the Committee's job being to 'to present an impartial, independent assessment and investigation into, in this case, the events of July 7th' the Chairman made it quite clear before he had even started the second investigation, that the Committee was only going to look at stuff that came up during the trial ( and therefore is public domain and cannot be brushed under the carpet) - and that in any event, he didn't think his Committee's conclusions would be any different to before!

This does not sound very impartial at all to me. Nor is it the same as, or even a substitute for a proper independent inquiry.

The excuse we're given that having such an inquiry will ''divert resources'' is also looking daft given that on the one hand we are being told that the ISC are conducting a second investigation, which will presumably, involve people giving evidence and going through documents and reviewing decisions, ie. diverting resources to do so. Unless you have a tacit admission that they are not going to do a proper, thorough job, in which case, why bother at all?

In any case, why did the Committee not get all the information out of M15 the first time around? That a trial was looming was not an excuse for not mentioning all the facts to the ISC -who are the Security Services watchdog, with wide-ranging powers exceeding that of a select Committee to investigate and review whatever the security services do ( in theory. In practice, the ISC no longer has even a single independent investigator, since John Morrison was sacked for speaking out about [the lack of] WMD intelligence).

If M15 knew the two lead bombers' names because they had bugged, snapped them and traced MSK through his following him in his registered car, then why did they put it about at first that the 7/7 bombers were nameless 'clean skins' - and then later, that they were only peripheral unnamed figures at the edges of another plot, who remained unidentified until after the explosions, when it was later to become clear in public court that this was not the case at all?

Even if the ISC couldn't publish the full details of this until after the Crevice trial ended, it still doesn't excuse the fact that M15 did know this information - and should not have concealed it from the ISC, whose Chairman was still claiming the bombers' names were not known, when confronted by Jeremy Paxman explaining to him that they had been identified.

Interestingly, just before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister he announced his anti- terrorism plans which included making the ISC more accountable, and giving MPs and peers greater powers to scrutinise the work of the security and intelligence services, allowing them to cross-examine the heads of MI5 and MI6 in public, and placing the ISC on a similar basis as parliamentary select committees, which are accountable to MPs. Nothing more has been heard of these plans so far, but it looks like a tacit admission that there are problems, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, the ISC are still meant to be still working on the second report into 7/7. Their previous report famously found the security services 'not to blame' for failing to prevent the 7/7 bombings. This now looks increasingly shaky. The bombers, not the security services were to blame for the bombs, that is obvious. It is human nature that mistakes get made. It looks like mistakes were made by a harried, over-stretched security services, compounded by a lack of effective communication with Special Branch. The bombers could have been arrested before they set off their bombs, ( for credit card fraud, if nothing else) - but they weren't. Why not? An appalling tragedy then occurred and 52 people died and hundreds were injured in the worst bomb attack on UK soil since the Blitz . Let's learn from it and let's get confidence in the police and security services as high as possible, because they are our best chance of preventing future attacks. Hence the calls for an inquiry.

What is not excusable is trying to cover up mistakes, particularly when you are in a highly sensitive position involving a great deal of public trust. If M15 misled the Committee, or the ISC didn't find out the truth, then the calls for an inquiry will just carry on and on.

With the departure of the ISC Chairman, Paul Murphy, I wonder whether the second ISC report on 7/7 will be any different to the first? And I wonder whether the new Chair will be asked to preside over a different kind of ISC in future- perhaps one with at least one independent investigator? I wonder whether the new ISC Chair will also find him or herself sure of what the Committee will find before it has started investigating?

I hope not. It is crucial for any organisation to be accountable, even spooks, especially spooks - and if the ISC are pre-judging the results of investigations, and not asking the right questions, and having to go back and go through what they have been told all over again, then how are they to have our confidence in ensuring the security services are doing their job and learning from any mistakes made?

We still have many questions and we are still waiting to see if the ISC's next report will answer them. Otherwise, it'll be back to the courts for an Judicial Review to see if we can get the Government to defend why it has still not had an independent inquiry into 7/7 and why so many questions - particularly questions about what was known about the bombers and whether there was reason to arrest them before the 7 July 2005 - remain unanswered.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have joined our calls for a proper independent inquiry. It's hopeless having things coming out in dribs and drabs like this, it only encourages wild conspiracy theories and adds to the distress of survivors and families. It's not good enough.

The Coroner's inquests into the deaths of July 7th are currently postponed until after the trial of three men on conspiracy charges relating to the planning of the 7th July bombings; their trial is expected to start in April this year.

I don't suppose the ISC will get their report into 7 July out until after the trial, possibly even after the inquests - but you never know. Given the stuff that came out at the Crevice trial, why would they risk looking silly a third time by releasing another bland, incomplete report - and then having a load of potentially embarrassing contradictory stuff come out in court?

Then again, if they are confident of their ability to get the whole truth out of the security services, and fulfil their remit to be independent and investigatory, inquiring AND open-minded, they might well release the report earlier.

After all, as the Government is so fond of telling us, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Another blow to proposed extension of detention without charge

So the ex Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and both Shadow Home Secretaries have all said that they do not support the Government's proposed increase in holding people for more than 28 days without charging them with any crime.

Reports here and here.

And now Jonathan Evans, the Head of M15 has said that he has

''...refused to support the Government's planned extension, telling the MPs it was not a matter for him. One security source said: "This is up to the police and the DPP. We just provide the intelligence – it is up to them what they do with it. There may be some cases where it would be helpful, but no one should think it's a magic wand."

Mr Evans also told the MPs that MI5 backed the principle of using phone-tap evidence from investigations as long as the methods could be protected.

Ms Smith, Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and Lord Carlile of Berriew, the independent regulator of terrorism legislation, are the only witnesses to the committee to have backed the extension. One committee source said: "It's not exactly an overwhelming case."

No, it isn't.

Hurray for Sir Ken and Dame Stella

'We must not degrade our liberties in the name of defending them' writes the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, decrying the giant database plan as the paraphenalia of paranoia. The Telegraph is in full agreement.More reporting from the Times and elsewhere

As the Independent blogger Archie Bland points out

' ... the really startling chorus of opposition to the raft of illiberal policies that has characterised this government is that which has emerged from the security establishment.
It's former MI5 heads Stella Rimington and Eliza Manningham-Buller speaking out against 42 days, and senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers saying the same thing. It's former Prison Service director general (now Barnado’s Chief Executive) Martin Narey decrying the rate at which we incarcerate children, or Prison Governors Association president Paul Tidball on the government's decision to build Titan prisons 'in the face of unanimous opposition from professional and expert groups'. And it's Brian Gladman, a former director of strategic electronic communications at the Ministry of Defence and US government security consultant, saying that ID cards would be a disaster.
The list goes on. These people are not partisans. They're professionals. They're experts. If anyone is going to have sympathy with the impulse to 'go quite a long way' in undermining freedom to stop terrorism (another Hoonism) and crime and benefit fraud, it is surely them. And if even these people think the government has got it wrong, one has to ask: who on earth does the government consult when it formulates this stuff?'

Quite

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'.

Brown on terrorism

'Because we believe in the civil liberties of the individual, we must also strengthen accountability to parliament and independent bodies overseeing the police, not subjecting people to arbitary treatment. The world has changed, so we need tougher security. We must recognise there is a group of people we must isolate who are determined to attack. Our security must be strengthened, but we must also strengthen the accountability of our institutions.''
- Gordon Brown

Well, that sounds quite good - tough, yet caring, firm but fair. But what does it actually mean? Is our new PM-to-be ambidextrous in his approach? Right hand, a clunking great fist on terror, left hand, tenderly smoothing our anxious brows, which frown unhappily with increasing concern over the erosion of ancient liberties, and the whirlwind of legislation passed in the aftermath of 'the war on terror'?
Or is it just more New Labour window dressing whilst further freedoms disappear in the name of security?

Brown's speech is being widely reported as being 'tough on terrorism' in today's headlines; the timing is, of course, politically expedient. It is a thumbed nose to Peter Hain, running for deputy Labour leader, and a display of teeth at the Labour left. It is also pouring salt into the wounds of the Tories, struggling for over a month now with the fallout over grammar schools, and Cameron now being called ''delusional'' and ''an absolute prat'' by Council leaders. A new Sunday Telegraph poll has Mr Brown seen as ''more experienced, strong and competent'', and he is marginally favoured to be prime minister. Making hay of the disarray, Brown is hardly likely to do anything that could be interpreted as being ''soft on terrorism'', but it is interesting that this speech does nod to civil liberties and checks and balances: he has clearly learned from the opprobrium being heaped on his outgoing nemesis, Blair.

The charges against the Blair government vary: that they indulge in ''macho posturing'' with regard to law and order (Hain) and they use the politics of fear to exert control and avoid criticism, particularly of foreign policy, that the current PM's style of Government is unaccountable, authoritarian in tendency, and reliant on spin and media management to cover up its flaws.

There is growing public muttering against 'house arrest' and new police 'stop and question' powers, widespread disbelief at an outgoing PM who says that three suspects escaping control orders are ''a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror.'' Writing in the Sunday Times last week, the prime minister described this as "misguided and wrong" and said prioritising a terror suspect's right to traditional civil liberties was "a dangerous misjudgement", (!) - and there is further concern at the latest antics from out-going tough-guy Reid

(For heaven's sake. Sometimes I wonder if Reid and Blair have swivel-eyed chats that go like this:

''It's okay to treat terrorists differently to normal humans, they have, y'know, different DNA. Like crabs''
''Yeah, terrorists aren't like us. They're vermin. Lock them up without charge, without trial. Torture them. Or get someone else to do it for us. That will show them not to attack our freedoms'')

So Brown's tough on terror speech where he does go on quite a bit about civil liberties is in stark contrast to the chest-thumping rhetoric that has been coming out of the Home Office for the last year, and the martyred 'look, because I said so and I just know I'm right' dramatics coming out of Number 10 for longer. What has Brown got for us then?

Intercept evidence used in trials. This might help those trapped in the no-man's land of house arrest without enough evidence to bring them to trial. The Security Services, however, aren't keen. The police are in favour. I go with the police. Show the evidence.It's a fundemental part of what we do: we don't lock people up or detain people without it. Not for more than 28 days, which is quite long enough and far longer than most places.

Making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, giving judges greater powers to punish terrorism within the framework of the existing criminal law.I don't see the point of this at all: we already have perfectly-solid laws against conspiracy to commit murder and cause explosions/mayhem, etc. (Dhiren Barot got 40 years for plotting acts of terrorism after all.) The point about terrorism is that it is criminal. Why make it special and different? It makes it dangerously glamorous. Murder is murder. Fraud, extortion, kidnapping...we've already got them taped, legally. I do wish Labour would get over this knee-jerk legislation habit. Particularly since the current Anti-terrorism laws have repeatedly been used to harass and threaten peaceful protesters. Have Judges actually requested these powers? Nope, not as far as I can see. So what is the point of it and where are we going with this? Not somewhere I want to end up.

Allow the police to continue to interrogate terror suspects even after they have been charged with a criminal offence. Nooooo. Arrest subject, provide lawyer whilst questioning them. Produce enough evidence to charge, or release. Once charged, provide representation and await fair trial, whilst continuing to treat suspect humanely. This stunt is completely contradictory to the the principle of habeas corpus. (''Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?''). And it sounds like an attempt to get ''90 days'' in via the back door to me...

Oh, hang on, belt and braces. Increase the number of days a terror suspect can be held without charge from 28 days to 90 days. Grrr. I have already banged on about this and I have not seen any evidence to change my mind about why this is dangerous, and insufferable to freedom-loving citizens.

Increasing the security budget, which has already doubled to more than £2bn a year after 11 September 2001, in the forthcoming spending review when a single security budget will be unveiled. Well, as long as we know what it is being used for...but do we?

Give MPs and peers greater powers to scrutinise the work of the security and intelligence services, allowing them to cross-examine the heads of MI5 and MI6 in public. Accountability and transparency, I am in favour of. But I am also worried about whether it is a way of avoiding an inquiry into 7/7, which I and others are campaigning for. Last month, representatives of the survivors and relatives of 7/7 handed in a letter asking for an inquiry into 7/7 to the Home Office. We heard nothing back and so we chased last week. We got a fax back at the end of last week, and it was not exactly greeted with rapture by the group. I will blog more about that after the weekend, when all the group have had a chance to air their thoughts privately, and after we have had further discussions with Oury Clark, our lawyers.

After the Crevice trial revealed M15 had lead 7/7 bomber MSK in their sights, and let him go again, Blair said that the ISC, (the Intelligence and Security Committee) would re-examine the evidence that came to light (after the Crevice trial of terrorists planning to attack targets like Bluewater and the Ministry of Sound). This was his response to calls in the House, and by us, for an independent inquiry into 7/7, which was chaired by someone outside of Government and the Security Services, with the power to compel evidence and cross examine witnesseses and make recommendations.

But the ISC is not independent. It is comprised of hand-picked MPS who answer to the PM. It didn't ask the right questions. It missed out of lots of things and exonerated the Security Services and its report read as if it had been spoon-fed whole paragraphs by M15 itself. It was, and is, a pathetic substitute for a proper inquiry. And everyone saw that after the Crevice trial ended. So...

Brown will now give Parliament a greater role in overseeing the intelligence services. He will place the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, which reports to the Prime Minister, on a similar basis as parliamentary select committees, which are acccountable to MPs.

It's a start. But it's not what we're asking for, is it?

If 21st century terrorism is such a terrible thing, so different to the threat of Nazi invasion or Russian nuclear strikes or IRA terrorism, so terrible that we can shred the constitution over it in a mad rush, and decide it's okay to hold British citizens without charge under house arrest, or in police cells for up to three months, continue to question them after they have been charged, make everyone carry ID cards, and submit to questioning in the streets by police about what they are up to, and strengthen sentencing powers by popping the word 'terrorism' into the charge sheet, then why can't we have an inquiry into 7/7?

I have some high hopes for Mr Brown, but that speech concerns me. It's all very well to go round the country ''listening'', but I hope that he doesn't let me, and others down, by delivering more of the liberty-restricting over-reaction of his predecessors, instead of looking at why we face this threat.

Those who prize security over liberty deserve neither, after all. Nor do they get either for the most part. Fingers crossed.

UPDATE: Obsolete on the subject. Iain Dale on Brown-spin.