Official British reports examine causes of London bombings
But critics call for a full-fledged public inquiry.
One of two British government reports released Thursday blames a lack of resources, rather than an 'intelligence failure,' for not being able to stop the bombers on July 7, 2005 in London.
The other concludes that the young British Muslim radicals acted alone.
In the report from a British parliamentary committee,
The Times of London says that British intelligence knew in the months before the bombings that there was a risk that radical British Muslims could stage an attack, but said it
did not have the resources to follow every suspect.
The ISC [British Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee], The Times has learnt, has accepted this argument and includes in its report the criticism that the failure to recognize the significance of [Mohammed Sidique Khan] as a threat was based on a lack of resources.
In fact, MI5 [British intelligence service] had been increasing its surveillance section, but when Khan came to its notice for the first time, two large operations were currently under way, and more than 100 individuals were drawn into the net. Only a relatively small percentage were subjected to full surveillance, including phone-tapping.
The
Daily Mail reports that the committee noted MI5 already had Mr. Khan, the ringleader of the attack, under surveillance, and had secretly recorded him talking to another terror suspect, but the officers assigned to investigate him were
reassigned to another anti-terrorist operation.
The Independent reports that the ISC said, while there was no credible evidence in advance of a plot, the decision last March by British intelligence that suicide bombings in Europe were unlikely to become the norm
could have affected official alertness to the threat. The report also warned that there would be an "inevitable" rise in intrusive surveillence activities by the security services as they dealt with new terror threats, and that Britain should revamp its terror warning system, which was at a low level before the attack.
Bloomberg News reports that security experts feel the report shows that it is
very difficult to anticipate the kind of attack used in the July 7th bombing.
"The security services have been criticized unfairly," Sajjan Gohel, security analyst at the London-based Asia Pacific Foundation, said. "The threat is totally unconventional. It's not something that can be anticipated."
Britain's security services have since thwarted several "potentially mass casualty attacks," Gohel said, without elaborating. "The authorities have to be successful 100 percent of the time. The terrorists just have to be successful once."
The Age of Australia reports that in the second government report released today, a Home Office narrative about the events leading up to the July 7 bombings concludes that the British bombers acted alone, without the support of
any foreign terrorist organization. The report, which was written as an alternative to a full-inquiry (like the 9/11 hearings in the US) also attempts to explain why young British-born Muslims wanted to attack their own country.
The
Associated Press, however, reports that survivors of the attacks are
already questioning the value of both reports.
"We've waited 10 months for these two reports and I don't think they will answer the questions I have or that others have," said Rachel North, a 35-year-old strategy director who survived the bombing of a subway car at Russell Square station, which killed 26 people and suspected bomber Jermaine Lindsay, 19, a Jamaican-born Briton.
"We need a public inquiry, because if we have reached a stage in Britain where young men think their only option is to destroy themselves and others, we have serious problems," North told The Associated Press in an interview.
The
BBC reports that many others involved in the bombings, particularly the
families of those killed in the attack, are also calling for a full public inquiry.
Diana Gorodi, whose sister Michelle died in the Russell Square bombing, said it was impossible to believe the bombers acted alone. "If we can afford a war in Iraq, surely we can afford to get protected in England," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "After all, it is the taxpayers that are paying for all that, so should those resources not be focused on defending us in England?
"It's impossible for me to believe that those four individuals acted on their own and had no links with any terrorist organization or any kind of radicals that were picked up by the intelligence earlier on," she said.
The Home Office report is also expected to acknowledge that foreign policy played a role in the bomber's motivations, but that the war in Iraq was not the main factor. According to the
Guardian,
critics think that's a mistake.
The demand for a public inquiry first came from the Muslim taskforce set up by the Home Office in the wake of the July bombings. They believed it would expose a deep well of resentment at government policy in Iraq and the Middle East.
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said last night: "We think it is very unlikely to satisfy the demand for a public inquiry. A narrative written by a civil servant cannot really command the same respect or confidence as a public inquiry which is able to call witnesses and take testimony. It is unlikely that a Home Office report will criticise the government's own actions."
Also...
•
900 terrorist suspects in Britain leave MI5 and police unable to cope (Scotsman)
•
British hacker set for US extradition (The Daily Telegraph, Australia)
•
Putin lashes out at 'wolf-like' America (Guardian)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed