Incoming *UPDATED*

in

[just a holding post, as this isn't going away any time soon...]

The Operation Crevice Trial is over.

MI5 had previously told the MPs that Khan and Tanweer had been "on the periphery" of an investigation. Neither were known to have terrorist intentions nor had they been identified and listed as terrorist targets, MPs learned. The BBC understands however that MI5 did in fact know Khan's surname in June 2004 after checking ownership of his car.

Speaking in November 2006, the outgoing MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller conceded the security services were under such pressure that they would not "always make the right choices".

Graham Foulkes, whose 22-year-old son David, was among those killed by Khan on the London Underground, called for a public inquiry - saying the security services had to account for what they knew.

"On 7 July and immediately after the attacks, one part of the security services were running around shouting 'clean skins, clean skins', meaning that these were home-grown terrorists and they were unable to identify them," said Mr Foulkes in a BBC interview.

"The security service is clearly disjointed and dysfunctional in that they are not talking to each other or they are not disseminating the information in a coherent way."

So how much did MI5 know about MSK?
MI5 to plead poverty over 7/7 failure.
MI5 knew of bomber’s plan for holy war
The July 7 questions that still haunt victims

"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." - Charles Clarke, July 8th, 2005

Independent Public Inquiry anyone?

UPDATE:

Mrs Rachel North is back:

I have been asking for an inquiry independent of Government and the Security Services since December 2005. It has been frustrating not being able to say exactly why I was so determined to make the point that the 7/7 bombers were not the ''clean skins'' who came ''out of the blue'' as we were told. In fact two of them were part of a criminal network of men bent on destruction that was known about, they were tracked and followed and then let go. We all make mistakes. I do not blame people in the security services for their mistakes and failure to use intelligence. It is failing to admit mistakes and then trying to cover up mistakes which is unforgivable and inexcusable.

It is the public who daily run the risks on the tubes and trains and uses, in the shops and clubs and streets. It is the public that the Government and Security services are sworn to serve and protect. It is the public who deserve truthful answers about what was known before 7 July and what happened on and after that day. It is the public who have been failed, and who continue to be failed by the overt politicisation of intelligence, by the posturings of politicians who pass legislation but who do not tell the whole truth. It is particularly distressing for those who were most affected by 7/7 - the families, the injured and the survivors, to find out that perhaps the ringleaders of the London bombings could have been picked up and might have been facing sentencing today along with their acqaintences - or friends - in the Crevice plot that was stopped. And I prommised many of these people that I would do what I could in my small way as a blogger and writer, to get an inquiry into 7/7 over a year ago.

It's not just survivors and families who are calling for an inquiry. It is many members of the public, including many British Muslims who are adding their voices to the calls. The Lib Dems and the Tories are also calling for one. There is much to learn about July 7, and what could be learned and shared would help us understand, help us prepare, help us deal with the aftermath as a country of many faiths and races who seek to live peaceably and productively together, and undoubtedly spare suffering and save lives in the future.

Meanwhile, the spin on the few Radio Bulletins I have caught this afternoon seems to be split along two lines, depending on whether it is the government, or the security services doing the spinning: 

- That the correct decision was made when it was decided not to follow up the involvement of MSK and ST because, as suspected fraudsters associated with the biggest 'terror investigation in the UK they weren't important.

- Or that the security services really would have quite liked to follow them up, but there weren't sufficient resources.

Which begs the question, if the correct decision was made at the time, then how can it have been a resource issue...?  You don't need resources to NOT follow up on somebody.   Either MI5 wanted to pursue these 2 men's involvement but couldn't, or they didn't feel they needed to. 

The government and establishment are still resisting an Inquiry.  Given their collective duplicity and evasive wriggling over the last 2 years, it appears protecting their own reputations with spin and flannel is still a higher priority than protecting us...

Hindsight is a poor tool for altering history, but a damn fine tool for planning ahead.

*Davide Adds*

Tonight's edition of Newsnight should be interesting. I've just received their e-mail alert:

Tonight on Newsnight we have an exclusive on the links between the bomb plotters found guilty today and the terrorist mastermind behind the 7/7 attacks in London. What were the failings of intelligence and did MI5 mislead MPs?

Home Secretary, John Reid, speaking in the Commons has rejected calls for an inquiry into the 7/7 bombings. He's said MI5 are putting information on their website, and a parliamentary committee will look at the case again.

Richard Watson reveals in astonishing detail how the 7/7 ringleader was being watched by MI5 and knew the bomb plotters. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis reminded the Commons today that the government said the bombings had come out of the blue. We hope to be getting answers tonight to the key questions following this trial.

We're hoping to speak to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee that took evidence from MI5. We should also be joined by opposition politicians, an intelligence chief, a 7/7 victim and a Muslim community leader. And in the second part of his investigation for the programme tonight Richard Watson goes on the trail of the terror network in the UK and Pakistan, confronting the men suspected of organising it.

See you at 10.30pm on BBC2.

For anyone who missed the show, it can be seen from here (briefly).

It is very interesting that

It is very interesting that this case had the longest period of jury deliberations in English Legal History, then a legal mechanism (that was started on Day 1 of Jury deliberations & enacted just prior to the delivery of the Jury verdict) allowed the first ever use of phone-tap evidence in English courts.

Unfortunately we may never

Unfortunately we may never get to know exactly what happened even with an Inquiry. Mr Blair sneaked through a nasty piece of legislation, The Inquiries Act 2005

'Amnesty International has asked members of the British judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act, as they contend that "any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005

Kagemusha --- excellent

Kagemusha --- excellent reminder.

The Inquiries Act 2005 should be the object of far more scrutiny.  And condemnation.

A truly disgraceful bit of work.  

I'm sure BW covered it at the time, and it needs more widespread propagation. 

Rachel !

 

"Trained in Pakistan" Will

"Trained in Pakistan"

Will someone tell me what the fuck we are doing in Iraq?

 

I apologise in advance for

I apologise in advance for writing at length.

For month's before the bombings there'd been huge coverage about the G8 summit in Edinburgh where the G8, police and protest organisers were getting apprehensive at the prospect of over 1.5 million people coming to protest there and at Gleneagles itself. Opposition and protests had grown since the early 90's and especially since 2001 when a protester was shot and killed by the Genoan 'police', who use more force against protesters year by year. 2005 was going to be particularly controversial and explosive due to the state or Afghanistan, Africa, and particularly Iraq. And so I think the timing of the bombings were exactly as Blair said at the time; 'timed to co-incide with the start of the G8 summit'. While I don't think the bombings were organised by the Secret Services, I do think they were aware of the situation, and even made the prospective perpetrators aware that, 'all the security is up in Scotland for the G8 summit'. So come July 7th:

All eyes were on the G8 summit.
Bombs go off in London.
All eyes then on London. (Not on the G8 summit which is never referred to again for months).
The bombers got their advertisement.
Government got their propaganda boost.
1.5 million protests were never seen or heard.
The powers that be, nip in the bud another attempt at starting to unbalance the status quo.

I think that's why the government didn't want a public enquiry, not because it would make them look incompetent, or, that it will counter their claims that it had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't even think that they didn't want one because it would reveal they knew about the bombings in the first place. What's more important is that people don't start to question whether their government would purposely put them in danger to tighten the grip on controlling them. Thinking about it and laughing it off through satirical papers and programmes is alright. But to seriously quesiton it is very dangerous and that can't be allowed to happen.

(I eagerly and apprehensively await a barrage of abuse) :-)

I apologise in advance for

I apologise in advance for writing at length.

For month's before the bombings there'd been huge coverage about the G8 summit in Edinburgh where the G8, police and protest organisers were getting apprehensive at the prospect of over 1.5 million people coming to protest there and at Gleneagles itself. Opposition and protests had grown since the early 90's and especially since 2001 when a protester was shot and killed by the Genoan 'police', who use more force against protesters year by year. 2005 was going to be particularly controversial and explosive due to the state or Afghanistan, Africa, and particularly Iraq. And so I think the timing of the bombings were exactly as Blair said at the time; 'timed to co-incide with the start of the G8 summit'. While I don't think the bombings were organised by the Secret Services, I do think they were aware of the situation, and even made the prospective perpetrators aware that, 'all the security is up in Scotland for the G8 summit'. So come July 7th:

All eyes were on the G8 summit.
Bombs go off in London.
All eyes then on London. (Not on the G8 summit which is never referred to again for months).
The bombers got their advertisement.
Government got their propaganda boost.
1.5 million protests were never seen or heard.
The powers that be, nip in the bud another attempt at starting to unbalance the status quo.

I think that's why the government didn't want a public enquiry, not because it would make them look incompetent, or, that it will counter their claims that it had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't even think that they didn't want one because it would reveal they knew about the bombings in the first place. What's more important is that people don't start to question whether their government would purposely put them in danger to tighten the grip on controlling them. Thinking about it and laughing it off through satirical papers and programmes is alright. But to seriously quesiton it is very dangerous and that can't be allowed to happen.

(I eagerly and apprehensively await a barrage of abuse) :-)

Scan eagerly awaiting

Scan eagerly awaiting barrage of abuse.

Good post - no abuse here. I half watched the Panorama special on the Operation Crevice trial. Any cynic (and who can't be cynical after ten years of Bliar) could easily conclude several things.

* Perhaps we do not know the full story
* As the  two star witnesses spent 9 and 10 months respectively in the care of the ISI in Pakistan and the the FBI can we belive any of the 'evidence'
* The decision not to follow up MSK could easily have been taken in order to strengthen the hand of the security services and Bliar
* And what of the two found not guilty? Was there really any evidence to justify them being on trial in the first place?

Finally, is there any point in a public enquiry? It will be headed by one of the 'old boys', any inconvenient evidence will be given in secret or not given at all and then we can be told to shut up.

 

No abuse here either. From

No abuse here either. From where I sit Scan's view is the nearest thing I've seen or heard to reality, I may not agree with all the points, but overall I think its a valuable contribution.

Here's a transcript of Imran

Here's a transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 (of 7) men convicted in the Crevice trial:
QUOTE
I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:

QUOTE
In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad.  One stoked by this  government throughout the course of this case. 

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward.  Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad.  Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth.  All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict.  Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country. 

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."


And that's the end of the statement. Thank you.

An audio link to the statement is available here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/media/Imran_Khan_statement-30-04-07.mp3

 

 

On Sept 11th 2001 the US

On Sept 11th 2001 the US emergency services were conducting an exercise with the scenario that hijacked planes were deliberately crashed in Manhatten. - An amazing coincidence.

On 7th July 2005 the UK emergency services were conducting an exercise with the scenario that bombs had gone off on the tube - An amazing coincidence.

When will people pull their heads out of the sand and start contemplating what the evidence is pointing to?

When will people pull their

When will people pull their heads out of the sand and start contemplating what the evidence is pointing to?

indeed!these guys were set up.Patsies.can we say inside job?knew you could.

Some words are used out of

Some words are used out of context so often people have forgotten what the true and original meaning is. Here is a refresher.

de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States Democracy -- C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Point 1. Democracy and elections are not the same thing.

free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous freedom from care> d : EASE, FACILITY freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use freedom of their home>

Point 2. There can be no freedom without choice.

I don’t see what an

I don’t see what an enquiry aims to achieve, particularly when it will be very expensive and the money could instead be spent elsewhere maintaining the public sector or on actually improving security strategies.

We already know the security forces fail us as shown by the consistent rise in violent crime, and when they do act its usually on incorrect information,  as we saw in Forest Gate and with the Police murder of Jean Charles de Menzes.  Although, Rachel North is explicit about the difference between Muslims and Terrorists, she constantly refers to Muslims and therefore the subliminal link between the two opposites gets across.  If she really wanted to make this clear, she would have instead supported her point by highlighting the recent report that points out that of a total 500 terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006, one was attributed to those claiming it was committed in the name of Islam?

The Inquiries Act 2005, means the scope of any inquiry can be limited and must be neither public nor independent.  But if Rachel North continues to request a full inquiry, then she should also be supporting the July 7th Truth Campaign which believes that the complaints and allegations of a conspiracy made by the recent ‘fertiliser plot’ defendants via Imran Khan’s statement be addressed. 

Hence this call for a 7/7 inquiry keeps Muslims in the news and fuels the moral panic about the spread of Islam, the misconceptions about the true extent of ‘Islamist terror’, and the subsequent rise in Islamophobia and racism on our streets, as I said earlier.

I notice in the Beeb today

I notice in the Beeb today the report that relevant and important information was witheld from MPs regarding this matter, sparking more calls for an independent inquiry into the situation. I find this a fascinating development where the public now know more than the politicians given authority to make decisions regarding the intelligence and as a result this is fueling the fire for independent investigation. Mark this day says I, a change has happened that marks the beginning of an inevitable reality, those that should know have been shown that those who should be told what to know are beginning to be beyond their reach, in a sense bigger than the system, more informed. It's getting harder for them to hide.