News Commentary – May 19, 2010
In April last year British police launched sweeping anti-terror raids arresting 12 Pakistanis on suspicion of involvement in an alleged “bomb plot”.
Following the arrests, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: 'We are dealing with a very big terrorist plot. We have been following it for some time. There were a number of people who are suspected of it who have been arrested. That police operation was successful. We know that there are links between terrorists in Britain and terrorists in Pakistan.'
Despite Gordon Brown’s assurance ten of the men were later released without charge. While two others remained in custody, allegedly for breaching immigration laws.
Notably, neither was charged with any terror offense.
Nonetheless, a court yesterday ruled that the men could not be deported to Pakistan as would normally be the case, as this would infringe their “human rights”. Meaning that they would stay in the U.K. but under strict control orders that would curtail their movement and activities.
The men's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, condemned the decision as "the worst of all possible worlds", saying they had been branded terrorists on the basis of material they could not see or challenge.
Central to the case were emails intercepted by British intelligence, one of which read: "Hi Buddy, my mates are well and yes my affair with Nadia is soon turning in to family life. I met with Nadia family [sic] and we both parties have agreed to conduct the Nikkah after 15th and before 20th of this month."
The court ruled, from evidence heard in secret
, that the recipient of this email was an al-Qaida terrorist.
According to one security source quoted by the Guardian after the ruling: "There is a long term continuing threat [to Britain] and this is part of the narrative of that threat."
Of course we can only take his word for it because we cannot see the evidence ourselves. We just have to trust our “security” and intelligence services – the very people who warned about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and who were allegedly involved in the assassination of Princess Diana
The inverted logic and double standards behind the ruling also suggest a Masonic hand at work.
Moreover, the operation itself had begun as a fiasco when the officer in charge had inadvertently revealed details of the investigation to photographers. His lapse, during a visit to Downing Street to brief the prime minister, forced police to launch the “anti-terror” raids before investigations were complete.
Or so they claim.
It might just as easily have been because there was so little evidence against the men that they were not deported and placed under strict control orders to prevent this becoming apparent.
After the arrests, Lord Carlile, the terrorism legislation watchdog, said that none of the arrests had been made "on a full evidential foundation", and that "the authorities had no specific information as to where the suspected terrorist event was to occur, nor any precise knowledge as to its nature".
In other words the authorities didn’t know what was being planned and because the evidence is secret, what little they know cannot be revealed. Making the western world’s much vaunted freedom of information and human rights as hollow as the repeated warning about impending "terror threats".
Two Pakistani students pose 'serious threat' but can stay in UK
A Familiar routine
Brown says terror plot is ‘very big’
Last updated 21/05/2010