Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 32
and others, can see exactly what
happened.........But I really believe that at
the present time, if we ended up having a
full scale public inquiry when actually we do
essentially know what happened on July 7,
we would end up diverting a massive
amount of police and security service time
and I don't think it would be sensible.”
Although Tony Blair thought a legal inquiry into the mass
murder of 52 people was a waste of time, many were deeply
unhappy with his incomprehensible suggestion. They
expected to see some investigation of the evidence, but were
rather asked to simply accept whatever the government 'told'
them.
Saba Mozakka, whose mother Behnaz died in the attacks,
said it was 'unacceptable' not to hold a public inquiry:
261
A Dangerous Ideology
“The families will be campaigning for there
to be a full public inquiry. A narrative of
events will not satisfy anybody. This is not
something we will go away on.”
The eventual 'narrative' came in the form of the 2006 'Report
of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on July
7th 2005'.[17] It was a travesty.
It made it clear the investigation was ongoing and offered a
“snapshot of where the 7 July investigation has reached.” It
revealed very little new information, with much of its content
already reported by the mainstream media. Supporting
evidence was scant, and it was published anonymously. No
government representative or official were apparently willing
to put their name to it.
Wholly unconvinced, it was the continued investigation of
independent researchers like 'the July 7th Truth
Campaign'[55] which highlighted the problem with the train
times. Though the Police claimed they had alerted the
government, they certainly didn't alert the public. Despite
the fact that this error had been highlighted prior to
publication, it was still included in the report. The UK
Government denied the mistake for more than a year until
the Home Secretary's eventual admission and correction.
Ultimately the calls for an independent inquiry were
unsuccessful. The British government repeatedly batted the
requests away, claiming that an inquiry would, for some
unfathomable reason, hamper efforts to protect people
against future attacks and the prosecution of the 'war on
terror.'
It was hard to see how trying to fully understand what
happened on 7/7 could harm the cause of public protection.
Surely it was a crucial step towards increasing, rather than
reducing, the chances of detecting the next terrorist plot?
Many truth campaigners were already aware of the futility of
a public inquiry in any event. The 2005 Inquiries Act
rendered them a blunt instrument, incapable of questioning
authority or discovering intelligence 'failures.' The July 7th
Truth Campaign stated:[74]
262
A Dangerous Ideology
“The July 7th Truth Campaign is the only
grass-roots organisation to echo the
sentiments of the Law Society of England &
Wales, Amnesty International and Geraldine
Finucane in calling on the judiciary to
boycott any inquiry proposed under the
terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. If the
Inquiries Act 2005 is not fit for the purpose
of investigating the killing of a Human
Rights lawyer almost 20 years ago, it is
most certainly not an acceptable piece of
legislation under which to conduct an
inquiry into the deaths of 56 people.”
British law requires that a coroner's inquest takes place
whenever a sudden or unexplained death occurs. Whilst able
to avoid an inquiry, it was difficult for the government to
deny the inquests forever, though they tried. Once again,
they were reluctant for the evidence to be examined in any
formal court proceeding. Successive Home and Justice
Secretaries made repeated attempts to withhold evidence
from public scrutiny.
The Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw continued efforts,
previously introduced in the Counter Terrorism Bill, to
establish 'secret inquests' via a clause inserted into the 2009
Coroners and Justice Bill. He proposed to allow ministers to
bar the jury, the public, bereaved relatives and all media
coverage from inquests in the interests of 'national
security.'[75]
Straw's legislative attempts failed initially, and he withdrew
the clause. However, he then tabled an amendment back
into the Coroners and Justice Bill which enabled inquests to
be replaced by 'secret inquiries.' In many respects this
amendment was worse than the removed clause. It passed
the house by one vote after some aggressive whipping and
government strong arm tactics.[88]
The inquests were delayed because another case was
considering some of the same evidence, which was therefore
'sub judice.' Three men Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and
Mohammed Shakil were accused of conspiring with the
263
A Dangerous Ideology
alleged 7/7 bombers. They are the only people ever to have
been prosecuted in connection with the states 7/7
'narrative.' After considering the evidence, the Kingston
Crown Court jury found all three not guilty. However,
Waheed Ali and Mohammed Shakil were found guilty of the
lesser charge of having attended terrorist training camps.
Once the trial was concluded, the inquests could feasibly go
ahead. Yet, largely due to the ongoing political wrangling and
a mysterious injunction stopping the release of the evidence
from the trial, it still didn't convene for another year.
It appears the inquest was stymied until the government
could get their plans for 'secret inquests' in place. While
such limited inquests were illegal, the government blocked
all progress. As soon as the possibility of a more tightly
controlled process became lawful, plans for the 7/7 inquest
were set in motion.[89]
Lady Justice Hallett subsequently excluded the public and
the media from the inquests, for reasons of 'national
security.' She only allowed access via video link to the
proceedings. This was switched off when 'secret evidence'
was heard. She permitted the bereaved family members to
attend, but decided that a jury would not be necessary. The
summary of her decisions stated:[80]
“Sensitive intelligence material will be more
effectively examined without a jury.”
Hallett also ruled that inquests into the deaths of the alleged
bombers would not form part of the hearings. She offered
any who wanted an inquest into the deaths of the suspected
terrorists an opportunity to make representation for her
consideration. However, then Lord Chancellor Jack Straw
had already denied legal aid to the families of the bombers
who did wish to question how their family members died.
They appealed the decision twice and were eventually
informed that no further appeal would be heard. Therefore,
they couldn't 'make representation,' irrespective of Lady
Hallett's offer.[81]
As we have discussed, the evidence supporting Lady Hallett's
opinion, that the four men were guilty, was doubtful.
264
A Dangerous Ideology
However, she wasn't the first to categorically pronounce their
guilt absent any reason. Having wholeheartedly accepted the
government’s narrative without question, the MSM had
already informed the public the four were responsible long
before the inquests began.
For example, the British broadsheet newspaper, and bastion
of independent journalism, The Telegraph wrote:[82]
“Suicide bombers Khan, Hussain, Shehzad
Tanweer, 22, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19,
met at Luton station on the morning of July
7 2005. They took a train to King's Cross in
London, then hugged and separated to carry
out their deadly missions. Within three
minutes of 8.50am, Tanweer detonated his
bomb at Aldgate, Khan set his device off at
Edgware Road and Lindsay blew himself up
between King's Cross and Russell Square.
Hussain detonated his device on board the
number 30 bus at Tavistock Square at
9.47am. As well as killing themselves and
52 others, the bombers injured over 700
people.”
Similarly, the independent journalists at the aptly named
broadsheet The Independent stated:[83]
“Suicide bombers Khan, Hussain, Shehzad
Tanweer, 22, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19,
met at Luton station on the morning of July
7 2005. They took a train to King's Cross in
London, then hugged and separated to carry
out their deadly missions. Within three
minutes of 8.50am, Tanweer detonated his
bomb at Aldgate, Khan set his device off at
Edgware Road and Lindsay blew himself up
between King's Cross and Russell Square.
Hussain detonated his device on board the
number 30 bus at Tavistock Square at
9.47am. As well as killing themselves and
52 others, the bombers injured over 700
people.”
265
A Dangerous Ideology
And intrepid reporters at The Guardian added:[84]
“Suicide bombers Khan, Hussain, Shehzad
Tanweer, 22, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19,
met at Luton station on the morning of July
7 2005. They took a train to King's Cross in
London, then hugged and separated to carry
out their deadly missions. Within three
minutes of 8.50am, Tanweer detonated his
bomb at Aldgate, Khan set his device off at
Edgware Road and Lindsay blew himself up
between King's Cross and Russell Square.
Hussain detonated his device on board the
number 30 bus at Tavistock Square at
9.47am. As well as killing themselves and
52 others, the bombers injured over 700
people.”
Regardless of these copied and pasted news agency
statements, masquerading as journalism, it was not proven,
beyond reasonable doubt, that they were guilty.
7/7 remains an unsolved crime to this day. The concept of
'innocent until proven guilty,' which supposedly underpins
the entire British legal system, was abandoned completely.
Without the possibility of a trial, some felt it didn't matter.
Yet without objectively examining evidence, what chance did
the survivors and relatives have of finding the truth? How
would lessons be learned that could prevent further attacks?
The concept of investigating the 'failure' of the security
services, rather than examining the attacks themselves, had
emerged in the immediate aftermath of the murders. When
the Leader of Her Majesties Opposition, Michael Howard,
asked Tony Blair about establishing an inquiry, on the 10th
of July 2005, he said:[71]
“The inquiry we have asked for is an inquiry
into what happened, what went
wrong......Clearly in an ideal world we
would have been able to prevent this
dreadful attack and we were not able to do
that.......It is not to say that was anybody's
266
A Dangerous Ideology
fault. We cannot achieve a guarantee of total
immunity from these attacks in today's
world.”
Calls for an examination of intelligence and security 'failures'
increased after 7/7. It soon became clear the British
Government's claim that none of the alleged terrorist were
known to the security services, was false.
'Operation Crevice' exposed a plot by members of the banned
Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, led by the well-known radical
cleric Omar Bakri Mohammad. Five men, including their
ringleader Omar Khyam, were subsequently convicted of
preparing a bomb made from ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
They hadn't built a bomb, planned any attacks or specified
any targets, and had only got as far as buying fertiliser
(which the authorities swapped for an inert substance
anyway.)
The men were eventually sentenced in April 2007 for
planning terrorist activities.[79] Both Mohammad Sidique
Khan and Shehzad Tanweer had been investigated as part of
'Operation Crevice.' The case revealed information which the
MSM couldn't avoid.
Initial media reports suggested that Khan had contacted one
of the main suspects during the surveillance operation.[78]
This prompted endless MSM speculation about 'what had
gone wrong.' That the only possible concern was the
apparent failure to stop the attacks was consistently
reiterated.
Certainly, given all the preparation the state had made for
the eventuality, it seemed plausible they could have been
'stopped.' This reported concern about 'failings' led the
government to appoint two special Intelligence & Security
Committees (ISC's).
The first ISC report in 2006[85] concluded that Mohammad
Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer had appeared on a list
of hundreds of surveillance subjects. They were considered
to be peripheral to the main investigations and their full
identities remained unconfirmed until after 7/7. Essentially,
everyone was told they had slipped through the net. This
267
A Dangerous Ideology
was blamed squarely upon a lack of resources, leading to
demands for increased funding of the security and
intelligences services.
During the 'fertiliser bomb plot' trial it emerged that both
Khan and Tanweer were placed under surveillance as part of
Operation Crevice, at least a year before 7/7. This included
tailing them for more than 200 miles, establishing their
address and recording their phone calls. The claim in the
2006 ISC report, that they were barely on the security
services radar, wasn't correct.[86]
This further provoked demands for a full independent
inquiry. In response, a second ISC report was commissioned
in 2009.[40] This one offered the public a timeline of MI5 and
Police intelligence gathering. However, police and security
service testimony at the inquests, a year later, thoroughly
repudiated most of it.
The inquest revealed that MI5 knew far more than they had
told either the 2006 or 2009 ISC panels. They also had
information about the alleged bombers well in advance of the
dates they had given the commissions.
Lady Justice Hallett made a statement about her intention to
focus upon 'preventability' shortly before the inquests began:
[90]
“The scope of the inquest into the 52 deaths
will include the alleged intelligence failings
and the immediate aftermath of the
bombings.”
Not only were the inquests based upon a presumption of the
alleged bombers' guilt, they would also only look at 'failings'
of the security services.
The 2003 Stevens Inquiry Report[20] demonstrated that
intelligence agencies had used the tactic of infiltration to
manipulate terrorist groups and were even complicit in some
attacks. A string of wrongful convictions of alleged terrorists
in British courts, such as those of the 'Birmingham Six'[121]
and the 'Guildford Four,'[122] revealed how often the police
and security services were willing to fabricate evidence. Yet
268
A Dangerous Ideology
exploring such possibilities were further avenues of inquiry
'ruled out' by Hallett. Objectivity was discarded from the
outset.
It wasn't just the bereaved families and survivors who felt it
was premature to discount a wider investigation into the
activities of the security services.
The Stevenson Inquiry had confirmed the Security Services
had, on occasion, used covert methods to commission
terrorist acts. These techniques included the use of 'secret
informants.' They are members of a terrorist group who are
either compromised, then exploited in some way, or freely
volunteer to provide information on the group’s activities.
'Infiltrators' are agents who build trust with a group and
then act as anything from informants to plot ringleaders.
'Assets' are usually well-placed individuals within a group
who the security services have access to. They may or may
not know they are being used. Finally, 'patsies' are
individuals who are set up by the security services to take
the blame for an act they either haven't committed or whose