National Security - Case Study Example

On July, 7th ,2005, there were a series of bomb attacks in London in which fifty two people were killed and several hundreds others injured. These were four attacks which occurred in the morning hours in the London Underground system. The first one occurred on the Circle line which is located between Liverpool and Aldgate Street. The second of the attacks occurred at Edgware road station. The third one occurred on the Piccadilly line and the last one of the explosions occurred on the upper decker of a storey bus all in London. (BBC, 2005) The British government has largely blamed the Muslim extremists. But could the security services in the country have done better in preventing these shocking attacks. According to the Guardian (2006), the reports on the cross party intelligence and security committee into the London terrorist's attacks of 7 July 2005 did not find any "evidence of an intelligence failure that could have prevented the bombings." It further says that it only identified "Intelligence gaps." The committee further states that the "comparatively small" capacity of the secret service to conduct conclusive investigations, had also to blame for the attacks. There have been attempts to protect the security forces from any blame or taking of responsibility of a possible failure on their part to prevent the bombings. However, serious questions arise. The first question is could have the security services known about any planned attacks on the British soil. The MI5, which is Britain's domestic spy service, the agency responsible for gathering intelligence on any internal attacks, insists that it did not have any information about the intended bombings. This is supported by the Intelligence and Security Committee Report into the London Terrorist Attacks, which claim that the Secret service had no prior information on possible attacks in London. It however notes that, one of the attackers Siddequine Khan was known to the Security Service before the attacks. These claims have drawn world wide criticism from different individuals, groups and media houses claiming that to the contrary, the security services had prior information about the possibility of an attack from as early as in 2004 but did not only act appropriately. According to WSWS 2007, there was also credible warning by the Saudi Arabian Intelligence about a plot to bomb the Britain. This warning was however dismissed by the security forces as irrelevant. The security forces and the government denied this, even though, The Guardian-2006 reports that there was even credible sources form the White House which confirmed the claim. It further claims that the information from the Saudi intelligence was so specific, that it even noted that the plot involved four Islamic extremists and that the target was London. This has since been confirmed by the Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United Kingdom. (WSWS 2007). (WSWS 2007) further reports that the Israelis Secret Intelligence Service had also warned the British security services about possible terror attack in London just a few days before the attacks. The Morning star (2007) also reports that the Saudi and French governments had warned the MI5 about the attacks. It from all these claims, it is probable that the secret service, had information about the possibility of an attack in the United Kingdom (UK) and more specifically on the UK's rail network. It however did not treat these warnings with the proper attention they deserved. According to WSWS(2007) a statement from the then Prime minister, (Tony Blair), which was quoted in the parliamentary report, revealed that the services had been alerted on a possible attack by terrorists who were British Citizens. It also reports that in May 2005, in the same parliamentary report, it is noted that there was security information that attacks similar to the Madrid bombings would be carried out in the United Kingdom. The Secret service has been criticized for having under surveillance two of the bombers and taking no serious actions to prevent the attack. The Service however claims that, they had more important issues at that time which needed more attention hence could not prioritize on the tracking of the two. It also says that it had limited resources and manpower; hence it could not go on with further investigation. However according to Jason Bennetto and Kim Sengupta of the London Independent, MI5 had the resources and the capability to investigate the two terrorists, even though it saw no need of carrying out further investigation on the two because they were British residents. The reports on the cross party intelligence and security committee on the 7/7 elections, has also drawn criticism from individuals, groups of people and the media as an attempt to protect the secret service. Most investigations indicate that the secret service could have done better. According to the Socialist Equality party in Britain, these reports did not "reflect the true finding of the Committee but were just a creation to protect the secret service so that they were not held accountable for failing to prevent the bombings. It insists that since two of the bombers were known to the security forces and the MI5, they could have possibly been identified before the attack. MI 5 insists that it had known the suspect but had limited resources to "priorities" on them. The second argument is that since the two were under investigation and surveillance by the Secret Service, and that MI5 had the telephone contact of Khan, who was the supposed ringleader of the group. It is also claimed that Khan had visited Pakistan on several occasions where he had purportedly undergone training with a Muslim extremist group. These visits also had been known to the Secret service. Had Britain's internal security agency done better investigations on these people, then the attack could have been averted. According to BBC NEWS 2007, Khan and Tanweer had been repeatedly identified alongside key terror suspects, but the MI5 judged them as unimportant. Furthermore, it claims that a lot was known to the Security forces about the two bombers' plans but northing happened. According to reports by the BBC (2006) Pakistan had known Khan as a possible threat and that it had even identified him as a past detainee of Guant'anamo Bay. It also reports that all these information had been given to the British secret service. This is a major question as to why the Secret service did not take the threats seriously. The security forces has further been blamed for poor security operations since, the bombings took place a week to the G8 summit in Scotland. The service therefore had the responsibility of being more alert to the possibility of a terrorist attack due to the nature of the summit. Historically, since the most powerful world leaders gather during the summit, intense security operation is always undertaken. According to a report by CNN in 2006, had the secret service been more resourceful in their investigation at the time, the bombings would have been prevented. The secret service majorly blamed lack of enough personnel and resources. There were attacks in New York City in 2001 and Britain entered the war in Iraq. The Secret service should have increased its personnel due to these reasons if it was truly serious about fighting terrorism. It is also argued that, if they had inadequate personnel why then did they not alert the police to continue with these investigations. The capability of the security service in carrying out proper investigations has also been blamed. The security service took too long to make any arrest in connection with the bombings. According to sky news, it took more than one and a half years before three men were arrested in connection with the bombings. These arrests are not even as a result of credible evidence collected by the security services but were largely as a result of suspicion. Their warrants were issued on the basis of the investigations of act, under the Terrorism Act of 2000. The secret service resourcefulness is also under scrutiny since it still has no information on whether those attacks were carried out independently or in connection with other terror groups such as Al Queda. There are only shadowy reports that the suspected ring leader had been in contact with some extremist militants in Pakistan. According to Mr. Crispin Black, a retired government intelligence analyst, the investigations carried out by the security services after the bombings leave a lot to be desired. The claim by the government that the terrorist attack was probably planned solely by the bombers is not credible. Mr. Black is quoted as saying, "It may be that they carried out the bombing independently of al Qaeda. It may be that they're not connected to anybody. It may be they made the bombs themselves and delivered them, but the idea that they did it with no other support is not one I think is credible," (CNN 2006) The secret service has also been accused in undermining the threat posed by British Citizens who have undergone radicalization thereby becoming fanatics. The secret service takes more seriously, information about possible attacks by terror groups not in Britain. According to Alan Cowel's article, titled "Panel Say Britain Underrated Threat Before July Attack" New York Times(2006), the findings of the Parliamentary report showed that the British counterterrorism agency undermined the real danger posed by the terrorists who are British Citizens or those who live in Britain. This explains the laxity by which the secret service handled the case of two bombers who participated in the attacks. There has also been blames on the security system for lowering the terrorist alert system. One claim says it was a serious error in judgment as it occurred only two months before the attack Another school of though claims that the alert had been, neither to protect the British civilians nor was it as a result of perceived terrorist alert, but it was created to ensure that the Terrorism bill went through. According to CNN (2006) the national terror alert system was downgraded in may 2005. This had been maintained in the "severe general" level for almost two years. This should have not however been the case since following the Madrid train Bombings; there had been a possibility of there being an attack in UK's rail system which was on the counterterrorist's list of possible targets by the terrorists. "Why was the national terror alert system lowered from "severe general" to "substantial" just before the attacks"2006. According to the BBC 2005, the secret service was just pretending by heightening the national terror alert system yet it had no real intentions of protecting the British civilians. This it, reports, was so that the controversial Prevention of Terror Bill could be passed. True to the argument, after the Bill was passed in March 2005, it took only two months to downgrade the terror attack from "severe general" to "ordinary substantial". Then soon afterwards, the security forces demonstrated that they could not even prevent the bombings. The service has also been criticized for harassing innocent civilians but having no capacity to deal with a terrorist threat to the country. In 2001, new laws were enacted which gave the secret service absolute powers to arrest and detain suspects, place people under surveillance and even tap other people's phones. It has been accused of holding innocent persons without trial for long periods. (Guardian, 2006). "Instead of focusing on protecting the civilians against terrorist attacks, these people have resulted in intimidation and use of threats of prosecution to innocent people," Says a Mr. Jim Berkley, a Human rights lawyer in Britain. (Guardian 2006). Mr. Jim further says that, these human rights violations as well as the so called war on terror have northing to do with protection of the British civilians but are just political policies which use the secret service as a shadow to harass Muslims. He claims that if the war in terror was to protect the British population, then the government and the secret service would have been more alert concerning the scale of terrorist threat on Britain just before the 2005 attacks. But the admission by the secret service that they lacked resources clearly shows that the war on terror is aimed at showing up the military power of Britain to other states as well as squashing the liberties of the civilians by the secret service, but has northing to do with protecting the innocent civilians. According to Prison planet 2005 is clear that the reports given by the security forces oversimplified the thereat to the UK prior to the attack and the Committee only protected the security services from the blame so that they would not take responsibility. Its report is therefore not entirely credible and that there are substantial claims and questions on whether the security forces could have done more to prevent the attacks. Even though most of these are speculations, they however cannot be ignored. There is certainly a lapse in the operation and the ability of the security forces in Britain to prevent any future attacks. The standards for fighting terrorism should therefore be improved. This can be done by improving the cooperation between the intelligence services that is the MI5, the MI6, the counterterrorism unit and the police, provision of more resources to the secret service, recruitment of more agents to the secret service so as to build up the personnel, It is therefore advisable for the government to come up with an independent commission of inquiry into the possible failures of the security forces in stopping the London Bombings. References: 1. BBC NEWS (2005).Key Findings:7 July report. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4760919.stm 2. BBC NEWS (2005). London Attacked. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4760919.stm 3. BBC NEWS (2005). London bombs response 'too slow' . Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4835566.stm 4. BBC NEWS (2005) At-a-glance: London Report on 7/7. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5048806.stm 5. BBC NEWS (2005). Special Reports- London explosions. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london_explosions/default.stm 6. BBC NEWS(2005).Resourcing blamed over July bomb. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757915.stm 7. BLOGSPOT( 2007). London 7/7 Attacks: The findings. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/10/London -7/7-attacks-the-findings..html 7. BLOGSPOT(2007). Cynical Distortion around 7/7 and Operation Crevice. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/10/cynical-distortion-around-77- 8. CNN (2006). 7/7 Report findings. Who is to blame Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/11/london.bombings/index.html 9. CNN (2006). 7/7 report faults terror planning. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/11/london.bombings/index.html 10. CNN(2005). London attacked. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/11/london.bombings/index.html 11. CNN (2005). The mind of a terrorist. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/11/london.bombings/index.html 12. Domestic Intelligence Agencies(2003) Mixed Record of the UK's MI5. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from.http://209.85.173.104/searchq=cache:Q2K5bCgxLoEJ:www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/030127mi5.pdf+Failure+of+the+security+services+in+preventing+the+London+bomb+attacks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=opera 13. Homeland Security (2006) Reasons for Terrorism success and failure. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/reasons_for_terrorist_success_failure.pdf 14. Homeland Security. (2007) The 7/7 report. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/the 7/7 report.pdf 15. Homeland security. (2007) Recent patterns of Terorism prevention in the United Kingdom. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.hsaj.org/fullarticle=4.1.4 16. MSNBC (2006) Who Let The Terrorists Succeed. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067203/ 17. New York Times (2006) Panels say Britain Underrated Treat Before July Attacks. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/world/europe/12britain.htmlpagewanted=all 18. Prison Planet. (2006). Could MI5 have stopped the London Bombings Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/100506MI5.htm 19. Prison Planet. (2006).7/7 Attacks: The committee evasive Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/100506MI5.htm 20. Sky News (2006) Three Arrests Over July Bombings. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257166,00.html 21. Save The Males. (2006). London is World Terror Headquarters. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.savethemales.ca/001024.html 22. Sound Politics.(2005). Sound Politics: London Terrorist Attack.. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004721.html 22. Spiegel Online.(2007). Cool Britannia-International. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,364572,00.html 24. The Guardian (2006) July 7 reports-main findings. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/11/july7.immigrationpolicy1 25. The Guardian. (2008). 7/7 attacks: Facts or fictions. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/February/11/july7.immigrationpolicy1 26. The Times. (2005) The London Attacks. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1717571.ece 27. The Times (2005). The Madrid Bombings: Who will save us from the terrorists. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1253645.ece 28. The Times (2004). Europe attacks. The Terrorist trend. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1253645.ece 29. The Observer (2007). Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from http://www.theobserver.com/ 30. 23.WSWS (2006). More Official Lies and evasions on London Bombings. Last retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th April, 2008 from www.wsws.co.uk Read More