Opinion - News Analysis   

How they slipped through the net

Hasan Suroor

There are allegations that a year before the July 7 attacks, MI5 had at least two of the prospective bombers in its sights but did not follow through as it did not think they posed a serious threat.

— PHOTO: AFP

A handout picture given by London Metropolitan Police shows a grab image taken from a CCTV footage dated June 28, 2005 showing Shahzad Tanweer (left), Germaine Lindsay, and Mohammed Sidique Khan, three of the four 7/7 suicide bombers entering Luton Train Station during an apparent dummy run.

BRITAIN'S SECURITY agencies, still struggling to recover from the Iraq intelligence fiasco, find themselves at the centre of a new controversy — this time over allegations that they effectively allowed the London bombings of July 7, 2005 to happen by sheer incompetence. It is alleged that but for a series of blunders they made in the months before the 7/7 attacks, the tragedy — dubbed Britain's 9/11 — could have been averted. The attacks claimed 52 lives and left hundreds injured and traumatised.

The Government is under growing pressure from the families of the victims and political parties to order an independent public inquiry into MI5's handling of intelligence prior to the 7/7 suicide bombings after new facts came to light during the recent fertilizer bomb trial. The year-long trial, one of the most widely publicised terror cases, resulted in the conviction of five men, including four of Pakistani origin, for planning a terror attack using explosives made from fertilizers.

From the account presented at the trial, MI5 detectives behaved more like bumbling cops than the world-class sleuths they are supposed to be. Tell-tale photographs taken by security services were produced to show that one full year before the July 7 carnage, MI5 had at least two of the prospective bombers — Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer — in its sights but let them slip through the net as it did not think they posed a serious threat.

At the time, they were described as "clean skin" — meaning that they had no previous criminal record and were harmless. MI5 regarded them as of such little significance that it did not even bother to alert the local police about their activities.

It has been called a tale of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities, and bizarre demonstration of flat-footedness by the world's most famous intelligence agency. Indeed, it could be termed a comedy of errors had it not ended so tragically.

To get a flavour of what has been dubbed MI5's moment of shame, we need to go back to the summer of 2004. For weeks, media headlines in Britain were dominated by reports that security agencies had uncovered an Al-Qaeda-inspired plot to attack Britain using explosives made from fertilizers. More hype followed when five men were arrested after what was claimed to be the most extensive terror investigation reaching back to Pakistan and Afghanistan where the suspects were allegedly trained. What we were not told was that in the course of these investigations MI5 stumbled upon Khan and Tanweer whose activities were considered suspicious enough for it to put them under surveillance.

They were even photographed holding a meeting with two of the "fertilizer bomb" suspects.

But, given its priority at the time — which was to foil the "fertilizer bomb" plot — MI5 took its eyes off Khan and Tanweer dismissing them as "peripheral" figures, not worth spending its scarce resources. In the event, they went on to commit Britain's worst terror attack.

Allegations of cover-up

The story of MI5's inconclusive surveillance of Khan and Tanweer as they planned the London bombings is not new. It came to light soon after the bombings and was also commented upon by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which investigated the events surrounding the 7/7 attacks. But the extent to which MI5 knew about the two and their links with the "fertilizer bomb" suspects emerged only during the latter's trial. The revelations sparked allegations of a cover-up and fresh demands for a public inquiry after it emerged that ISC was not shown photographs that pointed to Khan and Tanweer's links with suspected terrorists. The committee gave intelligence agencies a clean chit, merely emphasising the need for better coordination between security agencies.

The question being asked is: would the ISC still have given them a clean chit if it had then known what it knows now? Survivors of the 7/7 attacks and families of the victims are livid and have written to Home Secretary John Reid calling for an "impartial" probe, which unlike the ISC inquiry should be held in public.

"I am left wondering what else MI5 failed to tell the ISC," said Jacqui Putnam, who had a close shave as bombs exploded around her. Echoing her, Janine Mitchell, whose husband was seriously injured, said: "We have already had an ISC inquiry and it produced a report containing inaccurate and misleading information, based on evidence which was incomplete and as a consequence both the inquiry and its report were fundamentally flawed."

There has been criticism that the Government is protecting the intelligence agencies as a payback for the way it used them for its own political ends over Iraq. Mr Blair's defiant refusal to concede the demand for a public inquiry on grounds that it would "simply have the security service and the police and others diverted from the task of fighting terrorism" has not impressed even his own party MPs.

Critics are contrasting his attitude with that of his "buddy," the U.S. President George W. Bush, who had similar allegations against American intelligence agencies probed by an independent 9/11 commission.

"If Americans can hold their intelligence services to account why can't we," asked one intelligence analyst as families of 7/7 victims threatened to take the government to court if it continues to ignore their demand.

Britain's Prime Minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown is reported to be planning a series of policy shifts, when he takes over, to distinguish his government from the Blair era. Will this be one of the issues on which he will take a different line?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Murderous attack on media freedom
Recalling the legacy of the 1857 Revolt
How they slipped through the net
If it's Saturday, it must be Karachi
Food shortage likely in global rush for biofuel: U.N.
Corrections and Clarifications
Press freedom
Life term
U.P. elections
Fake encounters
Appalling apathy

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu