Pesky terrorist ringleader not a terrorist

As I mentioned in a previous post, the big sensational British Summer terrorism bust (the one about blowing up 10 airliners, and "mass murder on an unimaginable scale") is quietly disappearing. Suspects are being released, bailed, or charged with lesser offenses.

The latest news is that the supposed ringleader has just turned out not to be a terrorist after all:

The arrest of Rashid Rauf in Pakistan triggered arrests in the UK of a number of suspects allegedly plotting to blow up transatlantic flights.

The Pakistani authorities described him as a key figure.

But an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities or that he belonged to a terrorist organisation.

I have previously posted doubts about the whole thing here, here, here, and here.

I don't think the public will notice. Innocent people don't generally make for good headlines. The police and politicians certainly won't be anxious to remind us about the whole affair. All that will remain in the public memory will be some vague, false notion that Tony Blair saved us from terrorists this Summer. All of the UK's big terrorism busts have turned out to be bogus in the end, but the public don't seem to have noticed. We therefore remain as fearful, gullible, and manipulable as ever, and Tony Blair gets to look "tough on terrorists".

Do you spot a pattern? Will you believe them the next time?

I can't believe what you're saying

Excerpt from the article:

The UK's senior counter terrorism police officer has questioned the value of stop-and-search powers.

Andy Hayman, the Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner responsible for anti-terror probes, said few arrests or charges arose from such searches.

"It is very unlikely that a terrorist is going to be carrying bomb-making equipment around... in the street," he told a London police authority hearing.

It was "a big price to pay" given some people feel unfairly targeted, he said.

It's a shame to be so shocked by this rare dose of common sense and respect for liberty and privacy. If only this was the beginning of a trend. If only something like this was likely to actually change the slippery slope we're currently descending. I have a feeling that in the UK, we (OK, they -- I have no intention of sticking around to find out) are going to be saying a lot of if onlys 10+ years from now.

Still, credit to the guy. And a policeman no less.

Spell-checking

Feedback

My Dad writes:

An interesting read, although I haven't been through it all yet. I admire your intelligent analysis of the events that concern you and your single-mindedness in expressing your thoughts and opinions.

Hey, that's the beauty of a blog -- it's a one-sided conversation! Well, I guess people can leave comments if they want to argue a point. It's useful to have an outlet when I get a "bee in my bonnet" about something.

Just so long as you don't allow your natural (and no doubt healthy) skepticism to prejudice - in the actions of politicians, for example - consideration of the possibility both of good intent, and even sometimes justifiable cause.

Good point. I worry sometimes about coming across as a conspiracy nut when I write about some things (particularly the 'British liberty' stuff). I don't think it's all a conspiracy, and I don't think our politicians are specifically out to harm or oppress us. Politics here are very populist -- they pander transparently to the latest headlines in the Sun and the Mirror. Being tough on terrorism and crime (and playing on fears of same) is a big vote-getter, and of course the police really just want to be good at catching bad guys.

The problem is that in Britain, they just don't either understand or care about the "slippery slope" side of privacy, police powers, and the like. Authorities (even benign, well-meaning ones) have a natural tendency to want to increase their power and control over people. One of the beautiful things about the American constitution and mindset is that they recognize this and structure their branches of government accordingly, so that there are "checks and balances" in a somewhat adversarial system. Canadians have the same kind of mindset I think, but not the formal structure to address it. The British have neither and I think they'll come to regret it eventually.

I try to explain to people here that sure, it's not so terrible now because we have an essentially well-meaning government, and the "if you're not doing anything wrong..." argument holds some water at the present time. But we're building the infrastructure of tyranny in Britain. All that needs to happen is, we accidentally elect the tyrant who'll really harness all this power -- this detailed knowledge of our daily lives and movements -- we're going to hand him. I like to point out to people that since there's no formal constitution and no guarantee of free speech here, it is theoretically and practically possible for a majority government to pass laws governing political speech, and make it illegal to criticize the Prime Minister, for example. And with all the surveillance we've got, they'll be able to spot when you're being 'subversive', communicating or meeting with the wrong sorts of people, etc. I'm not saying it will ever happen, but it really could. Brits just aren't concerned by it, but I think they should be.

On the policing side, I think the police here are essentially lazy; they don't much like spending time doing old-fashioned police work -- they much prefer when computers can tell them who was where and who did what. Thus we're on this path of computerized data-gathering of everything we do.

PS: I wonder how thick your file is with the CIA.

I guess we'll find out when we land in New York in a couple of weeks! >8^}

Deferred success

Last year educators in the UK proposed the idea that no child should be allowed to think they'd failed something, but were instead experiencing "deferred success".

Luckily, common sense prevailed over the educators' amateur child psychology, and the "deferred success" initiative [ insert obvious joke here ] failed:

Ian Pringle, from Canvey Island, Essex, said: "We'll be ridiculed. Please do not vote for this motion."

So was Tony was having a little fun at George's expense here, by not stopping him from saying this about Iraq?:

With chief war ally Tony Blair of Britain by his side, Bush declared he's "disappointed by the pace of success"