Tag: terror suspects

  • London bombs inquest to investigate MI5

    London bombs inquest to investigate MI5

    MI5 and police failures under spotlight in London bomb inquests

    Allegations of flawed intelligence before 7/7 suicide attacks to be investigated by coroner without jury

    Richard Norton-Taylor

    london 7 july bomb
    52 people died when terrorists blew up a bus and three tube trains on 7 July 2005 Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/PA

    Inquests into the deaths of 52 people in the 7 July London suicide bombings will investigate alleged failings of MI5 and the police before the attacks, a coroner decided today in a ruling that received a mixed response from relatives.

    Lady Justice Hallett said the inquests, due to start in October, would include the “alleged intelligence failings and the immediate aftermath of the bombings” and would be heard without a jury. Survivors would have a limited role but the inquests into the deaths of the four bombers would not be held at the same time.

    She said: “It is not too remote to investigate what was known in the year or two before the alleged bombings. Plots of this kind are not developed overnight.” As far as the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) was concerned: “Whatever its good intentions, it could not fulfil the role of independent investigator.”

    She added: “There may be practical difficulties in doing more, it may take sometime, but it is a counsel of defeat to say the difficulties cannot be overcome before one has even embarked upon the task.”

    The coroner, who is also an appeal court judge, argued that because of the sensitivity of the intelligence surrounding the bombers, “my sitting with a lay jury without security clearance would inhibit a full and fearless investigation“.

    MI5’s lawyers argued that if its intelligence was disclosed, al-Qaida would be handed an “invaluable weapon”.

    MI5 told the ISC that though two of the suicide bombers – Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer – had been on its radar, specifically by talking to known terror suspects, their identities were not known at the time. The evidence was they may have been involved in fraud, not planning terror plots.

    MI5 also argued that they did not have enough resources to follow individuals considered less dangerous than others.

    Some of those affected by the attacks said they were disappointed not to be granted a special status to question witnesses. Instead, they or their lawyers could suggest lines of inquiry in what Hallett called a “valuable role”. Their solicitor Clifford Tibber said he would not rule out appealing against the coroner’s decision.

    Jacqui Putnam, who survived the attack at Edgware Road, said: “Our role now will be one of answering questions, which we will do, but our questions are not going to be answered.

    “Once again we have been shunted aside by officialdom and those questions may or may not be answered. They need to be answered because they involve the safety of everyone on public transport.”

    Janine Mitchell, whose husband Paul survived the King’s Cross explosion, said the inquests would be a chance to examine the work of MI5. She said: “We have been campaigning for a very long time now for an inquiry, we are just ordinary people caught up in an atrocity.”

    The bombers – Khan, 30, Tanweer, 22, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19 – met at Luton station and took a train to King’s Cross in London.

    Tanweer detonated his bomb at Aldgate, Khan at Edgware Road. Lindsay blew himself up between King’s Cross and Russell Square and Hussain detonated his device on a bus at Tavistock Square. As well as killing themselves and 52 others, they injured more than 700 people.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/mi5-police-failures-london-bomb, 21 May 2010

  • Torture claims investigation ordered by William Hague

    Torture claims investigation ordered by William Hague

    Judge will investigate allegations that UK was complicit in abuse of detainees

    Patrick Wintour, Nicholas Watt, Ian Cobain

    William Hague arrives at 10 Downing Street
    William Hague arrives at Downing Street for a cabinet meeting. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

    A judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said tonight.

    The move was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners and may put pressure on the Labour leadership candidate and former foreign secretary David Miliband, who was accused by Hague, while in opposition, of having something to hide.

    Miliband has repeatedly rejected the accusation and broadly indicated that he or his officials may have been misled by foreign intelligence agencies about the degree of British complicity.

    Hague’s remarks appear to have caught the Foreign Office by surprise, as no details were yet available on how the inquiry will be conducted, its terms of reference or when it will start work.

    Hague will come under pressure to ensure the inquiry is public and comprehensive. He first called last year for an independent judicial inquiry into claims that British officials had colluded in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo detainee and a UK resident.

    Mohamed claimed that he was tortured by US forces in Pakistan and Morocco, and that MI5 fed the CIA questions that were used by US forces.

    Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said tonight: “To restore trust in government, both here and abroad, and to get to the truth, the inquiry needs to be deep and broad and as open as possible. It should address, in particular, who authorised what and when and why, what the relevant legal advice said, and how it related to any change in US practice in 2002 and 2003.”

    Tayab Ali, a London solicitor who represents a number of men alleging torture, said the inquiry presented “a significant and precious opportunity” for the British public to understand their country’s role in torture.

    He Ali added: “It is essential that the inquiry is credible. It should be as open as possible, led by a judge and those affected should be properly represented. Anything less is likely to mean that the inquiry will fail in providing proper answers and holding those responsible to account for their actions.”

    Hague’s statement redeems a pledge that both he and his then Liberal Democrat opposite number, Ed Davey, made in opposition. Hague told the BBC: “We have said again in the coalition agreement that we want a judge-led inquiry. So will there be an inquiry of some form? Yes, both parties in the coalition said they wanted that. Now what we’re working on is what form that should take.”

    The coalition agreement published today by the government does not explicitly call for a judicial inquiry; it simply states: “We will never condone the use of torture.”

    Hague criticised the Labour government last year for failing to provide straightforward answers after the high court upheld one of Mohamed’s claims. This was that the security services had put questions to him, through the US, even during a two-year period when they did not know where Mohamed was being held, according to Hague.

    “So far ministers have stuck to the mantra that ‘we never condone, authorise or co-operate in torture’,” Hague wrote. “But this does not dispel any of the accusations. If anything, there is now a direct and irreconcilable conflict between such ministerial assurances and the account given by Mr Mohamed. That must be resolved.”

    He added: “We cannot sweep these allegations under the carpet. Until the full facts are known, Britain’s name and reputation will be dragged through the mud – not least by the terrorists and extremists who will exploit these allegations for their own propaganda.’

    “It is vital to remember that torture does not help us defeat terrorists; it helps them to try to justify their hostility to us.”

    The inquiry to which Hague has now committed himself will need to find a way of offering immunity to anyone who comes forward to give evidence. Although immunity deals are rarely granted to those who are complicit in torture, lawyers who advised Tory shadow ministers in the run-up to the election concluded that it is possible. Such a deal would be of clear benefit to the two MI5 and MI6 officers who are currently at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation into their alleged criminal wrongdoing.

    An inquiry may also help to resolve the many civil cases being brought by victims of torture and rendition. Government lawyers are expected to offer out-of-court settlements worth millions of pounds after the court of appeal this month dismissed an attempt by MI5 and MI6 to suppress evidence of alleged complicity.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/may/20/torture-william-hague-terrorism, 20 May 2010