Skip to content or view screen version

British terror trial raises question of what MI5 knew about 2005 London bombings

Julie Hyland via sam | 09.05.2007 05:47 | Analysis | Terror War | London | World

In court, Amin’s counsel, Patrick O’Connor QC—who is helping prepare a civil action against the British government—suggested that both sides in the so-called war on terror had come “to share common standards of illegality and immorality.”

Common standards of illegality and immorality
Common standards of illegality and immorality

Following a series of damning revelations during the trial of seven men for their roles in the alleged “fertiliser bomb plot,” the government is continuing to dismiss calls for an independent inquiry into the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

Last week, Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, Salahuddin Amin and Anthony Garcia were jailed for life for conspiring to cause explosions likely to endanger life between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2004. Two other men, Nabeel Hussain and Shujah Mahmood, were found not guilty after one of the longest-running anti-terror trials in the world. Operation Crevice involved 3,644 witness statements and 105 prosecution witnesses. The jury took a record 27 days to deliberate their verdict.

The seven were accused of purchasing 600 kg of ammonium nitrate (used as fertiliser) and storing it in a London unit in preparation for a major bomb attack in Britain. The 13-month hearing heard transcripts of the accused discussing potential targets including the Bluewater Shopping Centre in southern England and nightclubs.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair described the trial and its outcome as a “triumph” for Britain’s intelligence services and denounced those accusing the police of making strategic errors as “nay-sayers.”

His comments were part of a sustained offensive by the police, government and much of the media to quash renewed demands for an independent inquiry into the July 7 bombings, after the trial heard fresh evidence that two of the ringleaders of the explosions on London Underground trains and a bus—Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer—had been known to the intelligence services at least five months before they made their attack.

On May 1, survivors and relatives of those killed on July 7 delivered a letter to the Home Office calling for an “independent and impartial public inquiry” into the attack. Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected their demand and insisted MI5 was doing an “amazing job.” An inquiry would only divert resources from the fight against terrorism, Blair claimed.

In an unprecedented move, MI5 published a reply to criticisms on its website, “Rumours and Reality—the facts behind the myths,” whilst the press rolled into action to defend the intelligence agency. The Guardian editorialised, “An inquiry might rake over old failings, not current ones. It could add to the pressures on those policing terrorism. Carried out in private, it might not even do much to reassure the public....”

Whilst acknowledging that mistakes had been made, the editorial continued, “A one-off inquiry into an investigation that succeeded much more than it failed is not the way to make it better.”

Writing in the Independent, Deborah Orr Deborah complained, “The last thing we need, in the wake of the Operation Crevice verdict, is an elaborate inquiry, which would simply be another way of throwing money away.”

In the same newspaper, Howard Jacobson argued, “I wonder how many of those calling for this inquiry were busy telling us not all that long ago that there was no terrorism for our security services to police. An invention of our respective governments—Blair’s and Bush’s—the lot of it.”

Disparaging the questions raised over the real purpose of Bush and Blair’s “war on terror,” he continued, “is that a ‘sorry’ I hear amid the accusations that we have not been sufficiently vigilant? A sorry from those who thought vigilance was uncalled for and sinister?”

Such a pose of self-serving triumphalism will do nothing to quell the questions raised by the Old Bailey hearing, and their grave implications for democratic rights.

Most damning of all is the revelation that MI5 was well aware of the identities of several of those of went on to carry out the July 7 bombings and their involvement in terror activities, but decided not to follow them up.

The trial heard that, several months before the accused were arrested, police had been tipped off by the storage unit as to the quantity of fertiliser being held on its premises. Having replaced the fertiliser with a harmless substance, a plainclothes police officer was stationed at the reception whilst hidden surveillance cameras recorded everyone attending the facility.

“Operation Crevice” was therefore intended as a massive information-gathering exercise. The court heard how the probe uncovered 55 individuals known to have associated with the plotters, of whom 15 were considered “essential” targets. Yet, Khan and Tanweer were “parked up” with the remainder—i.e. treated as non-urgent cases. This is despite MI5 recording meetings between Khan and Tanweer on four occasions in 2004 with Omar Khyam, described at the Old Bailey as the ringleader of the fertiliser plot.

The court also heard how Khan was amongst several of the accused that had attended a terrorist camp in the Afghan border region in July 2003, and that anti-terror police had investigated two cars linked to him, five months before the July 7 bombings. Yet, despite having his name and address, no follow-up was made.

MI5 claims that this was because the two had not been heard discussing terrorist acts and “appeared as petty fraudsters.” But in transcripts of bugged conversations played in court, Khan is heard discussing attending a terror training camp and conducting financial scams in preparation for what his co-conspirator describes as “a one-way ticket.”

Neither has MI5 been able to explain why it omitted sending surveillance pictures of Khan to the FBI during its interrogation of the so-called Al Qaeda “supergrass” (informer) Mohammed Junaid Babar, who gave evidence for the prosecution.

MI5’s claims regarding Khan and Tanweer are, moreover, contradicted by a 37-page document compiled for the Crown Prosecution Service, which was revealed by the Sunday Times on May 6.

According to the newspaper, the CPS document states that “MI5 surveillance showed the pair [Khan and Tanweer] ‘were concerned with intended terrorist activity’ when they met with a gang planning a bombing at the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.”

It also states that Kahn was “identified” six months before he carried out the July 7 bombings.

It is proof that Khan and Tanweer had been identified by the intelligence services months before July 7 that has particularly angered survivors of the London explosions. At the time, then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke had claimed those involved were “clean skins”—i.e., unknown to the police and intelligence services—whilst Blair told parliament, “I know of no intelligence specific enough” to have prevented the attacks.

The Times notes that only last week, current Home Secretary John Reid had told MPs that that “neither Khan nor Tanweer were ‘known’ to the security services until after July 7. He later said police and security services had ‘no records on them.’ “

The Times added that the CPS document “argues that meetings between the two men and the fertiliser plotters in 2004 were so significant they should have been brought to the jury’s attention.”

Evidence that MI5 had been able to identify Khan and Tanweer has also led to accusations that it withheld information from parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee.

The ISC report issued in May 2006 stated that none of the July 7 bombers had been “named and listed” as potential terror threats. It stated that although MI5 had come across Khan and Tanweer “on the peripheries” of other investigative operations, their identities were unknown.

The ISC was also not shown surveillance photographs of the meetings between Khan, Tanweer and Omar Khyam. Security officials have said this was not necessary, as members of the ISC were aware of the links. “The reason they were not shown them is because it didn’t add to the facts. If they had felt the need to ask to see them, they would have asked,” one source was reported as stating.

The ISC is a toothless body, appointed by the prime minister and responsible directly to him. It is for this reason, and to divert demands for a more far-ranging independent inquiry, that Blair established his 2005 investigation. It is for the same reason that the ISC has meekly said it will “look again” at information revealed during the trial.

In addition to the damning evidence of MI5’s foreknowledge of Khan and Tanweer’s involvement in terror plots, the fertiliser trial has raised many other fundamental questions.

In the same leader cited above, the Guardian revealed that “restrictive limits on reporting” over the last 13 months meant that the “story of Operation Crevice...will come as a surprise to almost everyone outside the narrow circle of politicians and security professionals who—together with those present in court—were aware that one of the most remarkable trials in British criminal history had been underway.”

On what grounds were such restrictions imposed, and for whose purposes? The Guardian does not say. In a separate article, the newspaper also noted that the ISC’s 2006 findings were “written under restrictions to avoid prejudicing the trial of the fertiliser bomb plotters.” In other words, the findings of the only “investigation” into July 7 were themselves subject to even further restrictions.

Then there are the allegations made during the trial that Britain’s security services had sanctioned the torture in Pakistan of one of the accused, Salahuddin Amin.

A British citizen, Amin was arrested and interrogated in Pakistan for 10 months, during which he alleges he was beaten and flogged, threatened with an electric drill, and forced to listen to the screams of others being abused before confessing to his involvement in a bomb-making conspiracy.

He has accused MI5 of directing his abuse—alleging that he was visited on at least 10 occasions during his detention by MI5 officers, and that one of his interrogations may have been filmed for Britain’s security forces who were simultaneously questioning his co-accused in London. Amin was eventually freed in Pakistan, having been told that he had been “cleared in England” and could leave the country. He was arrested as soon as his plane landed at Heathrow.

In court, Amin’s counsel, Patrick O’Connor QC—who is helping prepare a civil action against the British government—suggested that both sides in the so-called war on terror had come “to share common standards of illegality and immorality.”

What of the role of “supergrass” Babar, who was given immunity from prosecution in Britain after pleading guilty to terrorism offences in a New York court?

Babar said that he faced the death penalty for his role in a conspiracy to kill Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf if he had not collaborated with the FBI. In the US, he also confessed to obtaining ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder for use by the fertiliser plotters, and in court, he testified that he had attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003 where he met Khyam, Mahmood, Garcia and Amin.

The BBC reported how Babar had been “well trained” for his role in the trial and had “memorised his statement to the British police, given to counter-terrorism officers while he was in custody in the US, and knew every date and location in the long story of the conspiracy.” Under questioning, however, “cracks began to appear in his carefully prepared account,” and at the end of his evidence, “the jury themselves sent a note” asking for him to explain again key details of his testimony.

For their part, defence lawyers have accused Babar of being a double agent.

See Also:
Britain: Blair seeks to deepen military alliance with Washington
[1 March 2007]
On eve of London bombings: MPs told Britain faced no imminent threat
[10 January 2007]

In Other Developments:

A Call for July 7th Truth & Justice
No-one has yet accounted for the many contradictions and outright lies from the Bliar Regime, nor accounted for the many suspicious facts which point to a military covert op, instead of a "terrorist" act. Meanwhile, Bliar remains in possession of the powers, which the courts had denied him for four years, that he was able to seize through this "useful crisis".

Blair Rejects 7/7 Inquiry Calls
Afraid the truth will come out? Remember in the week following these still-unexplained attacks, while the Bliar Regime was caught in several blatant LIES about its version of events, Bliar called such an investigation "a ludicrous distraction". Just like Bush and 911 ...


Terror Storm”
Watch For Free, Spread The Word Please help us get Terror Storm to as many people as possible!

New, Stunning 9/11 documentary
Reopen 9/11Now Available From Voice in the Wilderness Productions: A Beit
Shalom Ministries Presentation

9/11: The Birth of Treason
This stunning new documentary provides the most comprehensive view of the evidence which proves 9/11 was an inside job. Also contained are the most recent and most in depth interviews with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Dr. Jones covers his recent exchanges with NIST, freefall speed of the towers, and his research into Thermite/Thermate explosives. Kevin Ryan goes in depth about being fired by Underwriters Laboratories for blowing the whistle on data falsification. Also Interviewed:

Watchdog tells British police to apologise over anti-terror raids
At least two of the 11 occupants were hit, one over the head, while the IPCC also received complaints about swearing, weapons being pointed and neglect of the arrested men while in custody.

"From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq": Craig Unger on How the Neoconservatives Are Pushing For An Attack on Iran
“Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D.," Unger writes. "Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom."

Bush knocked down the towers - 9/11 Truth
Bin Laden didnt Blow Up the projects, BUSH Knocked the towers.. Mos Def, Immortal Technique and Eminem.

Ask yourself

These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001
Crimes of the State

3. Faking the 'War on Terror'
The 'War on Terror' is spurious because there is strong evidence that the events to which it is purportedly a response-the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001-were orchestrated not by Osama bin Laden (whose partisans or minions served, however, as useful patsies), but rather by high-placed elements within the United States government. There are several converging lines of evidence: taken separately, they cry out for investigation; taken together, they appear seriously incriminating.7

The Power of Nightmares 1 of 3
Great documentary about the illusion of terror and politics

Some suggested listening and reading for you...
Have you come across by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed?
I suggest you listen to the talk he gave a few months ago:

9/11 need to be considered in context, near the end of the talk Nafeez makes some valid critisisms of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but remember that he is actually a part of it. His big book on this is:

The War on Truth
9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism

Yes of course the likes of Shalyer are bonkers, but to dismiss all the independent research that has been done on this and to accept and believe the neocons "war on terror" and "clash of civilizations" is a VERY big mistake.
This mistake is well documented in this interview:
The “War against Terror” is a War against the People
Silvia Cattori interviewing Youssef Aschkar

This is an extract:
"I should point out here that the ideology of the neocons, such as we see it played out on the ground, is the first and only ideology in history that seeks to produce opponents rather than adherents, leaving to its opponents the job of supplying it with its adherents." "Let me explain. This ideology works to produce opponents by pushing them towards fanaticism in such a way as to stir up and nourish every fanaticism on earth, including Muslim and Arab fanaticism, and this enables Muslims to be given a very negative image, so that in the end – and this is the goal – hostile reactions are produced towards Muslims. Even staunchly secular people, on both sides, will imperceptibly find themselves led to question their own secularity, and to see in “the Other” someone who cannot be lived with. That is what is going on now, and what is in the process of destabilizing Europe, of causing a cleavage between the two shores of the Mediterranean basin, and of sabotaging and wrecking the Barcelona projects for a Mediterranean partnership." "If this cleavage worsens, voices will be heard – even in Europe – calling for people to sign on to the neocons’ doctrines of “war against terrorism” and “Muslim fanaticism”. Only at that point will the neocon ideology have accomplished its mission: having helped to provoke the growth of fanaticism among Muslims, it will also have stirred up in the West, in return, adherents to its thesis of a “clash of civilizations”. And Europe, stubborn up to that point, will finally align itself with the ideology of the neocons. Progressives and politicians in general are unaware of these manoeuvres."

Yes the 9/11 Truth Movment seems obsessive from the outside, yes there are cult likes aspects to parts of it, (as there are for socialist and anarchist groups as well) but to throw it all out and swallow the BBC pro-war spin is a bigger mistake than the mistakes that some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have made / are making.

There's Something About Omar:
The Summer 2002 Marketing Plan: Khalid and Binalshibh In The Spotlight
By June of 2002, the contents of the Moussaoui indictment could indeed be viewed as the clear signpost pointing the way to the manner in which the final loose ends of the Official 9/11 Legend would be tied up for posterity. With Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi already tied together as unindicted co-conspirators in the Moussaoui case, FBI Director Robert Mueller would, by this time, explicitly weave in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, pairing him up with Mustafa Ahmed and thereby inserting this newly-christened 9/11 mastermind into the Money Trail Story. The Associated Press' John Lumpkin would reference all three in his key June 2002 article. It is as if the powers-that-be were putting this trio of nefarious characters on notice - from here on, their fates were to be indelibly entwined.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: “Confession” or Bush administration propaganda?
Rather than put to rest all doubts about 9/11, the KSM “confession” refocuses all inquiries back on the Bush administration’s role behind the 9/11-Al-Qaeda-“terrorism” military-intelligence propaganda operation, and the manufacturing of the KSM legend.

Taking Aim: The Fake Confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
One hour radio show from Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone titled: A Study in Disinformation: The Fake Confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
This show was recorded on 20th March 2007.

The Madrid bombing trial: what has been revealed so far
The picture that emerges is of a handful of petty criminals, mostly involved in drug deals, with a sideline in acting as police informants, willing to peddle any stories about each other. At least three of them have claimed that police officers warned them that they would be implicated in the bombings, and offered them some kind of deal. In testimony, a police source denied knowing anything about the house in Chinchon until after the explosions. In return for this information, Trashorras claims, officers offered to put him on a witness protection programme. He says officers told him they would arrange for him to be kept out of jail if he helped implicate some Arab suspects.

Hambali denies Al Qaeda link
Alleged Bali bombings mastermind Hambali another political scapegoat, has told a Guantanamo Bay tribunal hearing that he had no link to worldwide terrorist network Al Qaeda. The denial was included in a transcript of Hambali's April 4 questioning by a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, released by the Pentagon. Asked, "Mister Hambali, did you have any association with Al Qaeda while you were a member of JI?" he replied via a translator "No".

The political origins and outlook of Jemaah Islamiyah
If asked the question: “What is Jemaah Islamiyah?” just 18 months ago, most people would have been unable to reply. But since the Bali bombings in October 2002, “JI” has become a virtual household word, synonymous with Islamic extremism and terrorist violence throughout South East Asia. Despite its notoriety, however, almost nothing of any genuine substance has been written on the organisation.

Indonesian cleric faces trial again over Marriot and Bali bombings
The US Congressional Commission report into of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington released earlier this year cited statements made under US interrogation by alleged JI operations chief Riduan Isamuddin, also known as Hambali, that he acted under the orders of Bashir. Immediately after the dismissal of Bashir’s terrorist charges last year, Australian prime minister Howard declared: “Because many of us here in Australia believe that he was at least spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah and therefore at least knew about the attacks in Bali, we are disappointed he wasn’t convicted on that and didn’t get a longer sentence.” Howard visited Jakarta for Yudhoyono’s inauguration on October 20 and would almost certainly have raised the question again.

Inside Indonesia's War on Terror
Last Wednesday, Dateline aired David O'Shea's video work titled "Inside Indonesia's War on Terror" ... Normally, the Dateline website has a transcript of the work, along with a realvideo file. However, for reasons unknown - the transcript and video clip are unavailable. So, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, we have provided the transcript here for you.

Are you ready for the truth?
My impression of events in the US at this time is that with the Patriot Act One, and Two, The Military Commissions (torture law) Act, and the more than 1000 presidential orders. The American Constitution and Bill of right are now void….The US has been taken over. The people just don’t realize it. It is the same thing they did to Germany.

Aaron Russo’s "America freedom to fascism”

John F Kennedy: With Your Help, Man would be what he was born to be - FREE AND INDEPENDENT
JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press

666 THE DEVIL (GEORGE WARMONGER BUSH) on the Oil For Bombs Program in Iraq
666 THE DEVIL (GEORGE WARMONGER BUSH) : "Sorry to Oil the Azores Summit, the Forged Niger Uranium Document, the Downing Street Memo, the Dodgy Dosiers, the Phoney Saddam Bio Terror Trailer Photos at the UN, the Phoney Saddam 9-11 Links, the Phoney Saddam Al CIAda Links, Gulf Wars Episode II, the Carpet Bombings of Iraqi Civilians, the Iraq Massacures, 'The Salvador Option' in Iraq, the CIA planted Bombs in Iraqi Cars, the Mosque Bombings, the Church Bombings, the Flag Draped Coffins, the Lost Limbs, the Delayed Stress Syndrome, the Troop Surge in Iraq, and the continuing Oil For Bombs Program in Iraq but Oil comes First. HOOK 'EM HORNS ???????????"

EU: The myth of Islamic terrorism
If we look at the people arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences, the figures are rather disproportionate; about half of them arrested were Muslim. In plain English: Muslims are a group causing very little terrorism in Europe, while at the same time much more likely to be arrested on suspicion of it. The constant media coverage of Muslims being arrested creates the false image of a serious threat in order to benefit the imperialist world-view Washington wants us to adopt.

The American Empire and 9/11 (full-length Version with Notes)
David Ray Griffin

A White House Smear
"Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

Julie Hyland via sam


Display the following comment

  1. Four more arrested over 2005 London bombings — Parrot Press