When we asked the question "Is Heathrow really under more terrorist threat than usual ?" we were not convinced by the media spin, leaks and disinformation about the recent arrests of Al Quaeda suspects in Pakistan which lead to the poltically expedient "orange alert" in the financial districts of New York and Washington, and to the arrest of 14 suspects in the UK.
After being held without charge for 2 weeks under the draconian Terrorism Act 2000, there remained only 9 of the original 14 arrested. One of the 14 had been released without charge on the day of arrest, another was released without charge in the first week, and two others had been "de-arrested" and then re-arrested on alleged possesion of false identity documents (of unspecified type and nationality - were these actually forged British documents ?).
According to the BBC,
"A ninth man, Matthew Monks, 32, of Sudbury, London, is charged with possession of a prohibited weapon"
This could be anything from a flick knife to an electric stun gun, but is presumably not a firearm of any kind, so even though he has been held for 2 weeks without charge, is he really a terrorist suspect ?
The remaining 8 should therefore all be hardcore Al Quaeda terrorists, who present an immediate threat to the United Kingdom.
Except, that is, when one reads the PA reports of what they have actually been charged with, then some doubts appear:
"The eight men have been charged as follows:
1. Conspiracy to murder.
Dhiren Barot, Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, Abdul Aziz Jalil, Omar Abdul Rehman, Junade Feroze, Zia Ul Haq, Qaisar Shaffi and Nadeem Tarmohammed, on diverse days between the 1st day of January 2000 and the 4th day of August 2004, conspired together and with other persons unknown to murder other persons contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977."
Are they being charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the United Kingdom or somewhere else ?
"2. Conspiracy to commit public nuisance.
Dhiren Barot, Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, Abdul Aziz Jalil, Omar Abdul Rehman, Junade Feroze, Zia Ul Haq, Qaisar Shaffi and Nadeem Tarmohammed, on diverse days between the 1st day of January 2000 and the 4th day of August 2004, conspired together and with other persons unknown to commit public nuisance by the use of radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
i.e. The police cannot have found any "radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and or explosives" whatsoever, or else the suspects would have been charged with possession, under a variety of laws dealing with dangerous materials, including Section 57 of the Terrorism Act. "Possession for terrorist purposes".
They were not charged with "endangering public health" or "disrupting the economy of the United Kingdom" but a conspiracy to commit a "public nuisance"
3. Possessing a document or record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Dhiren Barot and Nadeem Tarmohammed, on a day or days between 19th day of February 2001 and 4th day of August 2004, had in their possession a document or record, namely a reconnaissance plan concerning the Prudential Building in New Jersey, containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
4. Possessing a document or record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Dhiren Barot, on a day or days between 19th day of February 2001 and 4th day of August 2004 had in his possession documents or records, namely a reconnaissance plan concerning the Stock Exchange in New York, a reconnaissance plan concerning the IMF in Washington DC, a reconnaissance plan concerning Citigroup in New York and two notebooks containing information on explosives, poisons, chemicals and related matters containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
5. Possessing a document or record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Qaisar Shaffi, on a day or days between 19th day of February 2001 and 4th day of August 2004 had in his possession documents or records, namely an extract of the Terrorist?s Handbook containing information on the preparation of chemicals, explosive recipes and other information about explosives, containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000."
The Terrorist's Handbook available on the internet ? Nothing in this document is
sufficient to be a threat to large financial institution buildings in the USA, and it does not cover the more sophisticated techniques already demonstrated by Al Quaeda bomb makers.
There seems to be something very wrong here.
As is usual with anything to do with reports about terrorism in the UK, a few questions which the media have either not bothered to ask, or which have not been answered by the authorities, spring to mind:
- Where is threat to Heathrow Airport or indeed to anybody within the United Kingdom which the government and media hype has been trying to threaten us with over the last couple of weeks ?
- Why were these people arrested at what would seem to be only the "thought crime" stage of their plans, before they had any access to weapons or explosives or biological or chemical toxins or radioactive material ?
- Is it really possible to commit a "public nuisance" in a foreign country yet fall under the jurisdiction of the UK courts ?
- Why are none of them being charged under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Part 6 Weapons of Mass Destruction if they really had access to "radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and/or explosives" ?
- If their targets were those mentioned in the USA, then surely their arrest in the UK was premature ? Could they not have been kept under surveillance and the USA authorities tipped off when they eventually travelled to the USA ?
- If these are really key Al Quaeda terrorists, then it should have been possible to charge at least one of them under the Terrorism Act with "directing terrorism" or "financing terrorism" ?
- Why are none of these people being charged with "membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation" under the Terrorism Act ?
- Which one of those charged is the alleged "Bilal"/"Abu Musa al-Hindi," the supposedly Hindu born key Al Quaeda operative in contact with the allegedly compromised double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan in Pakistan ? Is it meant to be Dhiren Barot ?
- If this really is the gang of Al Quaeda terrorists who were plotting to attack the financial buildings in the USA, then why is the "orange alert" still in effect, when the "reconnaissance plan" documents have been in the possesion of the authorities for two weeks ?
- Or are even these "reconnaissance plan" documents also over 3 years old, pre-dating the September 11th 2001 attacks, just like the ones allegedly found on laptop/notebook computers in Pakistan ?
- Are these "reconnaissance plan" documents and "notebooks" paper ones or are they actually portable computer ones ?
So there have only been 3 people charged under the Terrorism Act 2000, despite it being used to arrest 14 people.
However, these charges only use the controversial "catch all" Section 58, the "collection of information" clause, which was originally brought in after the ABC "animal rights" case.
Section 58 is controversial because it "reverses the burden of proof" i.e. the accused is put in the position of having to justify his or her possession of any thing at all, even public domain documents or books or of photos or plans which are available on a public website. Under Section 58 the accused has to prove his or her innocence, rather than the prosecution having to prove malicious intent, which is the normal, centuries old , tried and tested procedure of British justice.
Given the lack of charges under the Terrorism Act or even the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, pertaining to actual imminent threats to the UK or even to the USA, then it would appear that these suspects have been arrested far too soon, and that no fully formed or concrete terrorist plan has actually been disrupted by these arrests.
We do not feel any safer from terrorism as a result of these high profile arrests, where the authorities seem to be grasping at straws of evidence.
Perhaps some more details will emerge when the accused go before a judge today.
Recent Comments