Easter bomb plot? Not so much

[unixronin]

Remember the “Easter Bomb Plot” announced with such triumphant fanfare by the UK Home Office two weeks ago after a series of SWAT-style raids?  UK police arrested 11 Pakistanis and a twelfth suspect variously identified as a British citizen or possibly Afghan.  Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made an expansive statement to Parliament about this triumph of anti-terrorism, and the world was told how the gallant British police had thwarted a plot to blow up stores, nightclubs, restaurants and a train station.  It was touted as “the largest terror plot since the July 7th attacks in London four years ago”.  A STRATFOR analysis began with the following paragraph:

On April 8, British authorities mounted a series of raids in Merseyside, Manchester and Lancashire that resulted in the arrest of 12 men suspected of being involved in a plot to conduct attacks over the Easter holiday weekend.  In a press conference the following day, Prime Minister Gordon Brown noted that the men arrested were allegedly involved in “a very big terrorist plot.”  British authorities have alleged that those arrested sought to conduct suicide bombing attacks against a list of soft targets that included shopping centers, a train station and a nightclub.

So it’s possibly a little of a surprise that all twelve suspects were just released, with no charges filed, after being held for 13 days.

But perhaps this should have been seen earlier.  That same STRATFOR report goes on to discuss how the suspects were fingered by intelligence “contacts” in Pakistan, and how — despite being supposedly determined terrorists — “the suspects did not appear to possess any surveillance detection capability -- or even much situational awareness -- as they went out into Manchester to conduct pre-operational surveillance of potential targets while under government surveillance themselves.  Furthermore, the suspects’ surveillance techniques appear to have been very rudimentary in that they lacked both cover for action and cover for status while conducting their surveillance operations.”

Indeed, the major first-hand “evidence” that the Home Office and the police had against the twelve is that they were seen videotaping each other in front of several Manchester landmarks and using computers to communicate.  These are things just about every 20-something student in the western world has done.  But because they’d been fingered as “suspicious persons” by a Pakistani “source” of unknown credibility, these acts became evidence.  And that led to Operation Pathway.

Yet in two weeks of searching their homes, their possessions, their personal effects, and their computers, the UK police have found no attack plans.  No Al-Qaeda contacts or communications.  No explosives.  No bomb-making materials.  In fact, they found not one single shred of evidence.  Not even the vague circumstantial evidence that usually suffices to have terrorism suspects locked up indefinitely in places like Guantanamo Bay.

Hence, the release without charges.  Hence, also, the personal investigation of Operation Pathway by Lord Carlile.  (It’s unclear whether this is the same Lord Carlisle who, while Home Secretary himself, laughingly refused every expansion of police powers asked for by UK police, suggesting that if they couldn’t do their job with the powers they had, maybe they weren’t competent to do it in the first place.)

What about the twelve suspects?  Are they receiving compensation?  Are they at least being allowed to go back to their lives with a formal apology?

Oh, of course not.  They’re Pakistanis, and the words “terrorism” and “national security” have been muttered in dark corners, so they’re all being deported.  For the sake of national security, you know.  They’re too innocent to hold any longer, and too innocent to charge with anything, but they must be guilty of something, even if it’s only being an embarrassment to the police and the Home Office.  It’s being called “a police fiasco” and “a mockery of British justice”.  The attorney representing three of the men charges that their human rights have been “very seriously breached”, which of course will only be compounded by deporting them.  But that’s OK, because they won’t be in the UK any more, and won’t be able to do anything much from Pakistan, so that’ll be someone else’s problem.

Until they become real terrorists out of anger at their treatment, of course.

Comments

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Please, please tell me you've read Stratfor's recent essay on the tension between breaking up plots before they happen vs. waiting until the alleged terrorists do something they can be convicted for...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've read it. There's zero evidence thus far that these twelve were even planning anything. All the available evidence says that they're exactly what they appear to be. But there's a line to be crossed between breaking up actual plots that you possess actual tangible evidence of, and between arresting people on suspicion because they might have done things that, if they were suspicious persons, might be suspicious behavior.

In the long term, the cost of missing a plot or two is less than the cost of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If a government oppresses its own people enough in the name of security, terrorists don't even need to do anything to them. Their own government will do it.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

There's zero public evidence they were planning anything.

So, here's the dilemma, purely as a thought experiment: Suppose you have information from a secret source. Suppose revealing that information would put the source in danger, or eliminate its utility as a source. Do you act on the information you can't make public, or do you wait for the subjects of that information to do some thing you can make public?

Then, suppose the information that would allow convictions of those subjects also results in death or disability of the citizens of your country? Could you live with yourself, knowing that citizens died because you valued the civil rights of student visas more?

Now, in principle, I agree with you. Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny, civil rights are the most important, and sometimes citizens need to sacrifice for their country. But, try selling that to the masses screaming for protection.

In this particular case, my stance comes down to the fact that we know secret information exists, but we don't know what it is. Further, we know that the accidental revelation of the existence of that information rushed the investigation. Until or unless that secret information becomes public, I have too much compassion for the people having to make those decisions to judge them. I have to believe they are doing their best as human beings to protect their fellow citizens.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

In this particular case, my stance comes down to the fact that we know secret information exists, but we don't know what it is.

No. You suspect secret information exists. Even, you believe secret information exists. You don't know, or it wouldn't be secret.

I see where you're coming from, but this one really seems to me to be not a case of "They jumped the gun", but "They went on a wild-goose chase." It would be far from the first time the UK police has arrested a group of completely innocent people. Look up the Birmingham Six (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_six) sometime.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Well, I know that a summary sheet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7991136.stm) exists outlining a secret investigation. Since an investigation exists, it must contain some information.

Therefore, I may reasonably know, or at least infer, the information exists, even without knowing what that information is.

Similarly, just from the existence of the agency, I may reasonably know the CIA possesses secret information, without knowing details on what that information is.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Since an investigation exists, it must contain some information.

I don't think that necessarily follows. If an investigation exists, they're hoping to find information. It doesn't mean they have.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

I have too much compassion for the people having to make those decisions to judge them. I have to believe they are doing their best as human beings to protect their fellow citizens.

While I have compassion for the Counter-Terrorism and Law Enforcement communities (I really do, if I had had the eye sight requirements, I probably would have tried to go into CT work myself), the fact is: in any Constitutional Democracy/Democratic Republic/etc. worth it's salt, where that constitution guarantees civil rights and civil liberties ... the burdens of making this all work aren't on the government "just because".

The burdens are placed upon the government because the government is the 2 ton gorilla in the room, just due to their massive resources. In order for _innocent_ citizens to be protected from the malicious OR MISGUIDED/MISTAKEN abuses of the gorilla, the gorilla MUST HAVE ITS HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK. Otherwise, the citizenry has NO chance to defend itself against the gorilla.

The manner in which we tie the gorillas hands are things like dealing with an armed citizenry, having burdens of proof upon the accuser instead of the accused, having heavy burdens to show just cause for searching or seizing private property, having clear checks and balances between different branches of government, etc.. In other words, those things which reduce the ultimate efficiency of the government's ability to wield is power, or bring it's power to bear upon its citizens and residents. This type of "inefficiency" (as opposed to financial spending efficiency) are a necessary burden up on the government in order to protect the citizens.

Those who go into Law Enfocement, Counter Terrorism, "Homeland Security", National Security, Defense work, etc., all know those burdens going in. (In the US at least) they even swear to uphold and defend the fact that they have such a burden (in swearing to defend the Constitution). They knew the deck was stacked against them going in to their calling, and they went anyway. Now they have to "man up" and deal with it.

On that level, I have compassion and sympathy for them. They went into a thankless job that is stacked against them. They are, to varying degrees, sacrificing themselves (in some cases, literally sacrificing their lives; in some cases, more subtly doing so through long term stress and trauma; in some cases, merely through the stress of frustration of dealing with the system). They have my respect, sympathy, and compassion for the burdens placed upon them.

But for those who want to lighten their burdens (whether they're in those communities, in the general public, or in the government at large), I say quite loudly and emphatically: fuck 'em. They knew what they were getting into, if they can't take it, GET THE FUCK OUT. If they can't deal with the burden, then they aren't mentally/emotionally strong enough to be in that line of work. If they don't believe in the need for that burden itself, then they're exactly the people we don't want in law enforcement/defense community. Either way, GET THE FUCK OUT of your current career, and go get a job as a mall nazi.

[masgramondou.livejournal.com]

And the only reason these arrests took place when they did was because a certain Mr Quick who was some kind of super dooper anti-terror policeman was photographed walking into 10 Downing street carrying a stack of paper, the top page of which was visible and legible through a telephoto lens. What was legible on this page was
a) a big "TOP SECRET" sign
b) the names and addresses of (some of) these Pakistanis.

Once this was realized PC Plod & co decided they'd better arrest them immediately just in case...