Erotic interrogation

It would be interesting to ask torture advocates if they also think it should be OK to rape terror suspects, as long as it is done under strict legal guidelines, no more than X number of times per day, gently, with plenty of lubricant, etc.

If you think about it, it's no worse morally than other forms of torture, should not leave any physical scars, and has an obvious advantage over waterboarding: the prisoner's mouth is left unobstructed should they choose to 'break' and start talking.

After all, it happens to regular prison inmates all the time. Heck, some guys even do it to each other for fun, right? Where's the harm in it if it saves lives? We can even give it a nice name; since "enhanced interrogation" is already taken, how about "erotic interrogation"?

Shameful

...And no, I'm not referring to putting Madonna on the cover.

If you missed this Vanity Fair article earlier in the month, and you care at all about the issue of torturing prisoners, be sure to give it a read. It is a detailed storyline of how the Bush administration's torture regime came to its shameful fruition:

The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.

Nazi lawyers were executed as war criminals following WWII, for exactly the same sort of behaviour. Was it victor's justice? Or do the same standards apply to Americans? War crimes trials are the only just resolution in this case. But as I predicted here, I'll say it again: it'll never happen. Welcome to the new world order.

When we get carried away

Schoolboy guilty of terrorism offences:

A schoolboy who ran away from home to become a Muslim martyr and three students who recruited him are facing jail after a jury found them guilty of terrorism offences.

Mohammed Irfan Raja was supposed to be on his way to school in Essex when he ran away to join a group of radicalised students in Bradford.

During raids on their homes officers found material on their computers which included al-Qa'eda manuals, speeches by Osama bin Laden and justifications for suicide bombings.

The defendants, who had spent much of the trial laughing and giggling together, looked shocked as the verdicts were announced.

So now we're going to start putting away rebellious kids, under the terrorism act. A 17 year old is going to go to jail for adopting 'jihadi' rhetoric and running away from home. And for downloading stuff from the Internet, and "glorifying terrorism". Look at this goofy teenager. He looks about as sharp as a box of rocks. That could easily have been me at 17. Luckily for me, I didn't choose to rebel in the same way as him. I stuck to music my parents didn't like, and staying out past curfew. I exploded all my little 'bombs' harmlessly, in empty fields.

We're scared as hell and we're not going to take it anymore, I guess. We should probably start jailing little hoodlums for repeating gangsta rap stanzas about guns and 'hos', too. And now that I think about it, those kids in hoodies -- stick them in jail too. They look very suspicious if you ask me.

And throw away the key

I was going to write an entry about this:

One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.

But my friend over at Jen's Den of Iniquity has done an admirable job of beating me to it.

Ho hum, another day, another odious assault on democracy and freedom. This is becoming a way of life in Britain. I don't have too much more to add, except to point out that under the UK's Terrorism Act 2006, even "condoning or glorifying terrorism" is an offence. For that, they'd like to be able to lock people up indefinitely without charge.

Not only is there no guarantee of free speech in this country (indeed, various types of speech are illegal), but apparently there won't be the guarantee of a trial either.

Paranoia, paranoia, la la la.

And there you have it

Ask a stupid question...

The politicians now have to DO SOMETHING! What clever thing will they (our intrepid leaders, not the terrorists) think of next? A crackdown on nails and gas canisters? On parking? On Mercedes sedans? (along with a new tax security charge, undoubtedly?)

...and here's the stupid answer:

Background security checks on foreign doctors and other health workers migrating to Britain are to be stepped up after the weekend bomb scares in London and Glasgow.

(throws hands in air, slumps in chair).

Take that Osama

Following on from my last post, in which I described how Canada is being seriously underserved by the international terrorist community:

I've come to the hypothesis that Osama has unfairly bought into the "mostly harmless" stereotype of Canadians. And goodness knows, even in Afghanistan, he still hasn't seen a Canadian with a gun [Canadians with guns are still not as mean as Canadians with Hockey sticks though].

We need to send him a message. Change our image. Here are some ideas:

• Put some big, visible guns on the CN Tower.
• Stop killing seals with clubs, and start using machine guns or bombs instead. Or behead them (It's probably quicker and more humane anyway). Actually, I don't think the Qur'an has any bad things to say about seals, so Osama probably already thinks we're just being cruel.
• Do a better job of publicising just how tough beavers actually are. I've heard about one trying to pick a fight with a bulldozer. No kidding.
  
• Put some knuckles on either side of the CN Tower, so that it becomes the world's largest free-standing middle finger.

I know I keep coming back to the CN Tower but it seems like the best tool in our arsenal.

Wallowing in the fear

Of the many overhyped, fear-mongering terrorism headlines I've seen in the past few days -- though not strictly related to the London "car bombs" -- this one takes the cake. Ready?!:

Dirty bombs missing in Canada
Numerous have been lost or stolen since 9-11

That's right folks, Canada is positively awash in missing dirty bombs!:

At least 76 radioactive devices - several of which could be used in a terrorist attack - have gone missing in Canada over the last five years, newly compiled figures show.

Now wait just a cotton-pickin'. "Radioactive devices" doesn't sound quite like a dirty bomb. They couldn't be trying to stir us up with that breathless headline, could they? What are these dirty bombs?

Turns out, they're pretty much anything that's radioactive. You have to keep reading for quite a while before you get good idea of the actual, less-than-sensational devices in question: "nuclear gauges", "radioactive tools" (used in oil and gas discovery), "nuclear medicine markers", and a "vial of sodium iodide":

the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said it's "quite surprising" terrorists have not already set off a crude radioactive bomb.

"We are positively overdue" for such an attack, CSIS said.

Nothing much exciting happens in Canada. Sometimes I think we Canadians feel a little left out of this whole war on terror thing. Subconsciously, it seems we're gagging for some big news to call our own -- after 9/11 I had friends who were convinced Calgary or Edmonton was the next big terrorist target, you know, 'cause there's oil there. Why don't the terrorists pay us any attention?! We're totally a real country!! Look, we have the CN Tower ("Canada's wonder of the world!" -- see photo); it would make a great target! Of course, we did have those teenage terror masterminds with the frighteningly plausible plan to cut off the Prime Minister's head and blow up the CN Tower, but those hosers didn't even get a chance to try anything, eh? To be fair, though, Australia has totally done more to deserve their own terror attack, but they're still waiting.

JIM BRONSKILL AND SUE BAILEY, stand up and collect your razzie for irresponsible journalism.

Al Qaeda sure makes crappy bombs

Apparently my skepticism of last week's attempted car bombings has some justification. The Reg has a pair of smackdowns (they're good for that sort of thing):

Beavis and Butthead in London jihad. Good quote:

Today we have news from London, where a "big [explosive] device" was discovered inside a parked car near Piccadilly Circus. The device consisted of petrol, propane gas cylinders, and nails. The car containing it had been abandoned after its driver was observed piloting it erratically, crashing it, then running off, like a true professional.

And another:

"It is obvious that if the device had detonated there could have been serious injury or loss of life", Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke intoned gravely.

Ah, if it had detonated. Yes, it could have been a real horror. Only, the device could not have detonated. Not under any circumstances. You see, the terrorist wannabe clown who built it left out a crucial element: an oxidiser. The device was pure pre-teen boy fantasy.

"We'll heat up these propane cylinders with burning petrol, and they'll go off like bombs", boys the world over have remarked with glee. They don't realise that air is a poor oxidiser, and the only "explosion" they will get is when gas pressure inside the cylinders is great enough to burst them. Then the propane will ignite, and a nice fireball will blossom. A fireball, not an explosion.

Here's the other razzie (from a former bomb squaddie no less): 'al-Qaeda' puts on big shoes, red nose, takes custard pie. Good quote:

If these guys at the weekend really were anything to do with al-Qaeda, all one can really say is that it looks as though the War on Terror is won. This whole hoo-ha kicked off, remember, with 9/11: an extremely effective attack. Then we had the Bali and Madrid bombings, not by any measure as shocking and bloody but still nasty stuff. Then we had London 7/7, a further significant drop in bodycount but still competently planned and executed (Not too many groups would have been able to mix up that much peroxide-based explosive first try without an own goal).

Now we have this; one terror-clown badly burnt and nobody else hurt at all.

So if these guys are obviously amateur 'terror-clowns', why are the police and politicians trying to spook us again with talk of Al Qaeda and international terrorism?

Another bogus terror plot? This is getting ridiculous -- add it to the long, long list. Ask yourself: Do the British police and government have any credibility left, at all?

Close the barn door (them horses done ran away)

Seems we in Britain are on high terror alert after this week's failed car-bombing attempts.

Can I just say, how much more impressed I'd be if they'd alerted us before the events?

Are we on alert because the government knows there are more attacks coming? Can I be excused for being skeptical about that? With all their eavesdropping and surveillance, why didn't they warn us in advance? These attempted bombers were clearly amateurs. Of course we're being told it's the work of the usual bogeymen (Al Qaida) but colour me unconvinced; Al Qaida's bombs don't usually fail to explode, do they? And another thing: terrorists don't usually attack us when we're expecting it -- for example on obvious symbolic anniversaries, or holidays, or when we're on high terror alert. They usually wait until we're not expecting it. When we're nice and relaxed. They're clever that way. So what's the point, really?

Now, this isn't just macho talk. I am afraid of terror attacks. But not for the obvious reason. They worry me because of high terror alerts, hair-trigger police, and itchy politicians. The most dangerous thing to be in Britain right now is the proverbial innocent bystander. Terror attacks worry me because I wonder about how the government is going to punish the rest of us.

The politicians now have to DO SOMETHING! What clever thing will they (our intrepid leaders, not the terrorists) think of next? A crackdown on nails and gas canisters? On parking? On Mercedes sedans? (along with a new tax security charge, undoubtedly?)

I'm not being totally facetious. We're still carrying our lipstick and toothpaste in clear plastic bags when we board airplanes, aren't we? Because of a bogus plot.

You can't beat terrorism with oppressive laws and security restrictions (not to mention with fighter jets, M16s, or daisy-cutter bombs). Terrorism isn't a group of people, or a religion, or even an ideology; it's a tactic. The object is to make us afraid, and to make us change our behaviour. So is it working? Every time we react badly, we show our enemies that it is.

Wave of rumination

British Press Fears Wave Of Terrorism!

Alternative view:

British Press Looks Forward To Lots Of Big Headlines About Fears Of Terrorism!

If you've spent much time with the British press, you'll know how often we are regaled with headlines about FEARS and STORMS (controversies) and PANICS and those sorts of things. Sells lots of newspapers I guess. Last year the newspapers were all in a tizzy about an alleged wave of youth knife violence, for a couple of weeks. Every mugging became front page news. Then it was quickly forgotten in the wake of some celebrity news or something -- but not before the politicians could respond with some draconian new knife laws (they had to DO SOMETHING!).

Cynical? Moi?

Pesky terrorists Pt. 5

So most people are probably aware that 2 supposed car bombs were found and disabled today here in London. Good for the police. Something keeps bothering me about this though; the reports persist in referring to the bombs as "potentially viable". That suggests to me that the bombs were not viable. As in, a stunt, or carried off by amateurs. Given the UK's history of hyped-up, bogus terrorism busts (think: big airline terror story from last summer), surely we've learned our lesson by now. This couldn't be yet another example, could it? I don't have any inside information. I'm just saying.

Meanwhile, I went out to lunch today with about a dozen workmates. I don't recall last night's attempted bombing coming up in conversation.

It would seem that we "ain't bothered".

Actual pesky terrorists!

I've written lots of posts about all the bogus terrorism busts here in the UK, which usually result in nothing more than sensational headlines. It seems that after the headline hoopla and speeches, most times people forget to notice when no actual trials result.

More usually, the only result is some new law, loss of privacy, or regulation. Remember the big airline plot from last summer? No convictions, but you still have to board the airplane with your toothpaste in a clear plastic bag.

Anyway, today it seems they actually convicted some pesky terrorists. Strangely though, I don't even remember any sensational headlines about this one:

Five men have been jailed for life for a UK bomb plot linked to al-Qaeda that could have killed hundreds of people.

Well blow me down. We're really are overrun with terrorists, and the police finally caught some.

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?

What happened to these pesky terrorists?

Let's not forget about that big terrorist airline plot that British authorities busted up this summer, as it seems to have largely dropped out of the news (just as the bogus "ricin plot" did). I posted doubts about it here, here, here, and here. Considering that the plot promised "mass murder on an unimaginable scale", I find it odd that some of these guys have been quietly bailed or even released outright. I suspect that when politicians want to scare us with terrorist bogeymen who may or may not be legitimately dangerous, they rely on the fact that the public has a really short memory for news stories -- just in case they turn out to be "semi-harmless losers". If these airline plotters had been the proverbial real deal, I expect that Tony Blair and John Reid would still be crowing about it, and that we would now be seeing sensational terrorism trials.

In fact, I know someone who claims to have been acquainted with one of the arrestees; my friend told me that, far from being an Islamist fanatic, the alleged plotter was a petty drug dealer. I suspect (though I have no further inside information) that in the end, he'll be prosecuted for nothing more than whatever drugs charges they can make stick. [ See also the story of the completely innocent alleged terrorist who was shot in his home by 250 armed policemen, and not properly apologized to, but rather head-spinningly charged for the dodgy porn they subsequently found on his computer. ]

Pesky terrorists Pt. 4

I've been writing and linking to things expressing my doubts (here, here, and here) about the big alleged air-terrorism plot that emerged this week in London. Today Andrew Sullivan links to an item by Craig Murray, who was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan (and helped expose some nasty goings-on there). A couple of little excerpts:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

...In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Pesky terrorists Pt. 3

More doubt.

In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

I can tell you from recent experience, that if you're:

• British
• Planning on boarding a plane next week to blow it up; and
• You haven't got your passport yet

Then I'm afraid your friends are going to have to go to martyr's paradise without you. Maybe they'll save you some virgins, but tell them not to expect you for a month or so.

Pesky terrorists Pt. 2

A couple of entries ago I decided to just "throw it out there" that I had unformed and unsubstantiated doubts about the big counter-terrorism bust yesterday here in London (the one that involved blowing up a bunch of planes). Today on The Register, they're suggesting that some other folks at the US Department of Homeland Security might possibly have some doubts, too. Here's a couple of choice paragraphs, with some very handy links to articles about the previous big British counter-terror operations of the last few years (all of which have turned out to be fairly or entirely bogus):

In favor of option one, we have a recent history of British eagerness to announce breakthroughs in the struggle against the forces of darkness, with nothing to show for it. We have Jean Charles de Menezes shot to bits at point-blank range for behaving oddly just after the 7/7 atrocity. We have the imaginary ricin plot. We have the imaginary chemical bomb plot. And we have the imaginary red-mercury suitcase nuke plot.

There's been a lot of crying wolf in London, so it should surprise no one to find that the Americans have heard enough of it. (Although, to be fair, Washington has trumpeted its share of counterterrorist breakthroughs involving semi-harmless losers, but that's no reason for them to buy into anyone else's.)

Sullivan makes it explicit

A couple of entries ago I hinted that conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who likes to accuse opponents of Israeli militarism of anti-Semitism, might be a bit of an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigot himseld. He says this today:

There is something terribly sick within the Muslim mind at this moment in history. It is Nietzsche's ressentiment, but with God re-attached. We should indeed fear these people for the hideous carnage they can wreak for the sake of their God. But we should never let our fear overwhelm our contempt for them - their sickness, their evil, their petty insecurities, their inability to live meaningful lives and their attempt to assuage this by murdering others in God's name. Yes, they evil. But they are also pathetic, miserable excuses for human beings.

I guess that makes it about as explicit as can be -- he's just denounced the entire religion. He doesn't say that a few fanatical jihadists are sick: To Andew, it's the "Muslim mind" that's sick. And he tosses around accusations of anti-Semitism?

I guess in the same way that a thief always thinks everyone's trying to steal from him, maybe a certain kind of bigot always thinks everyone else is a racist.

Pesky terrorists

...disrupting everyones' Summer holiday plans. Today British police arrested a load of people, claiming they've foiled a massive terrorist plot to explode airliners headed for the USA:

A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.

At the moment, details are sparse. So, we all have to take this news at face value, I guess.

However, given the record of the British police and the politicians that motivate them, let just say that I have a small doubt in my mind. Remember the big 'ricin' terrorist plot involving, as it turned out, the dangerous posession of apple cores? (yes, I mean the fruit).

I don't know why I doubt it, I have no specific hunches, and maybe they really did foil a big plot. But still...

Spinning the cock-ups better

One way to try and avoid recriminations when you screw something up is: Declare repeatedly that you did the right thing, and lecture everyone that you just need to help them understand you better. This is called spinning (see George Bush and Tony Blair on Iraq). Today, the politicians and police declare that they did everything correctly, and will continue to do things the same way, but that they need better P.R. in the future

The arrests in Forest Gate came after a tip from a credible source, the Metropolitan Police Authority was told.

Maybe not so credible? Since the source was apparently wrong and the police raided, shot, and inappropriately detained an innocent man?

Sir Ian defended the decision to raid the property but said police "did not find what we were looking for and it seems we were wrong". He added: "There will be other raids but the lesson of Forest Gate is that we have to find new methods of engaging with the Muslim community in particular to reassure them of the necessity and appropriateness of police actions."

So, even when the police are wrong and harm innocent people, then focus on damage control instead of justice, what's needed isn't more careful vetting of intelligence, more surveillance of suspects before raids, more evidence, more accountability, and better policing generally. What's needed is "engagement with the community". Better P.R.! Carry on boys, you're doing a heckuva job so far.

Cock-up: Blair's behind it 101%

Don't inhibit police, Blair says. Because obviously, they're good at this sort of thing.

Tony Blair has told anti-terror police not to be "inhibited" in the wake of controversy over the Forest Gate raid. Mr Blair told MPs he fully endorsed the apology given by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman for the "hurt" caused in the raid. But he said Mr Hayman's team were doing a superb job and he stood "101%" behind them when they acted on intelligence.

By the way, the apology was phrased as follows:

Mr Hayman said: "I am aware that in mounting this operation we have caused disruption and inconvenience to many residents in Newham and more importantly those that reside at 46 and 48 Lansdowne Road. I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused."

"Hurt we may have caused"? "Disruption and inconvenience"? They shot an innocent man for crying out loud. I've heard that getting shot definitely hurts. Never mind the psychological trauma of having your house stormed by 250 armed, masked policemen in the middle of the night. I'm inconvenienced when my train is late; Do you think this goes a little bit beyond disruption and inconvenience?

Mr. Kahar, the innocent brother who was shot in the botched raid, responded:

Is he 101 per cent behind the bullet which went into my chest? I am the same age as his son. I am as innocent as his son.

Well said, Mr. Kahar. I've never been a victim of overzealous British policing the way you have, or the way David Mery has, but I'm with you 101%. I hope you get all the apology you wish for, and plenty of compensation besides. Sue them blind if you have to, we the taxpayers owe you a lot for the bungling of Blair's anti-terrorism police. Thank goodness they didn't shoot you seven times in the head like Jean-Charles.

By my count, in this armed anti-terrorism campaign, it's shot terrorists: 0, shot innocents: 2. Maybe they should start asking questions first and shooting later.

Cock-up: Resignation calls, politicians involved...

Newspapers are calling (again) for Ian Blair, the Met police chief, to resign:

Senior policing and political figures, including the prime minister, have defended police chief Sir Ian Blair amid growing calls for his resignation.

And politicians including Tony Blair and Red Ken are hopping to his defense:

Tony Blair's spokesman said: "The prime minister continues to give his full support to Ian Blair - full stop."

It's a little scary, even to me, how much of this I predicted (all of it, by my reckoning). However I have to confess that I'm not a clairvoyant; This is just how things happen in Britain. Needless to say I absolutely do not apologize for my cynicism:

• The police are incompetent nincompoops with too many powers.
• The police are a political tool.
• The politicians are incompetent, corrupt nincompoops with wayyy too much power.
• The politicians think we're all fools, but they keep getting away with this stuff so maybe they're right.

Cock-up: Recriminations begin

The fallout has begun as it becomes clear the Met police focused their big showy terrorism bust on two innocent men (and shooting one of them during the arrest).

"The men, who had been held under the Terrorism Act 2000 and questioned on suspicion of terrorism involvement, were released shortly before 2030 BST on Friday. Through the week outcry at the arrest of the men developed into a protest about the tactics and the way information was leaked out which may have been misleading. ...Of particular concern, he said was "how we find ourselves with one of the brothers shot and quite a lot of the slander, quite honestly, which has been out in the press""

And the police say that the investigation continues -- that they're still looking for the chemical weapon -- implying that the men aren't really innocent. That's unfair too. Just apologize.

Cock-up confirmed

See my previous predictions. Step 1 in cock-up recovery: release the innocent suspects late on a Friday to minimize news coverage.

"Two men arrested after a raid on a house in east London have been released without charge, Scotland Yard said."

If these innocent men spent more time in jail than necessary, to try to minimize embarrassment to politicians, the politicians should be the ones in jail. But of course that's never going to happen.

Anatomy of a cock-up

So this week 250 Met policemen stormed a house in north London in a massive counter-terrorism operation (you probably saw a headline about it somewhere). One of the two brothers arrested was shot, non-fatally, in the shoulder. Various other people in the adjoining house were also arrested and then released.

I, in my innate cynicism, am convinced we are in the midst of seeing a "cock-up recovery".

The first sign of trouble, for me, was the more-or-less immediate concession that they hadn't found the chemical weapon they were looking for (yet). Nor any weapons, they said.

The second sign of trouble was the wishy-washy suggestion I saw on the television news, from "police sources" that one of the brothers might have shot the other. I thought they hadn't found any weapons!? It occurred to me that the Met police were feeling a bit sheepish about having shot this fellow. (This proposition has quietly disappeared from the news). The unsavoury George Galloway, in reference to this incident, characterized it thusly: "People are shot down by the police and then they're slandered by the police afterwards in an attempt to confuse people about the blunders that have been made."

The third sign of trouble was the fact that the police kept searching and searching and (interrogating and interrogating), yet failed to announce a big terror-fighting breakthrough. At this point, I started to wonder whether there was something going on here.

The fourth sign was politicians (ahem, Tony Blair) and Scotland Yard spokesmen leaping to the -- preemptive -- defense of the police, saying that the raid was "absolutely necessary", and that "we had no choice" [based on the intelligence]. This should immediately cause any skeptic to question whether the raid was absolutely necessary, and whether they really had no choice. At this point, I became pretty sure there was something going on here.

"To do otherwise we would have been failing in our duty to make London safer and protect all Londoners."

Quite.

The fifth sign was the application to extend the detention of the suspects. Initially the police had been granted permission to hold the suspects until Wednesday for interrogation. The subsequent request to extend the detention was for another week, until next Wednesday, or failing that until this Friday. At this point I became convinced that there's something going on here.

(I've seen no word on the BBC today about the outcome of the request. Hmm.)

I anticipate and predict the following:

• That the men are innocent. That the arrest was a mistake.
• That the police know there's going to be fallout, and that they know they will be embarrassed.
• That the police only want to extend the detention time so that they can postpone the embarrassment (and distance it from the big arrest headlines, so that it's not so much in the public consciousness).
• That when the men are released, it will happen late on a Friday if possible (see legal application, above), because that's politically the best time to announce bad news (fewer people are paying attention).
• That Tony Blair has leapt to the defense of the Met police because there are going to be more calls for the resignation of police commissioner Ian Blair (no relation).

Ian Blair has been a dead man walking for a long time. He is a buffoon, and he's been screwing things up politically for a long time. For some reason Tony Blair doesn't want him to resign in disgrace.

When, in the wake of this splashy (botched?) terror bust, Andy Hayman, Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner is saying, "We must all pull together. This is not the time for conflict and anger", that suggests we're about to hear a big mea culpa following "the most significant anti-terror operation this year".

If these suspects are innocent, and have their detentions extended -- particularly so that their release comes on a Friday afternoon -- then they have been deliberately deprived of their liberty by people who would knowingly stoop to such things to protect their careers (anyone say politicians?). I don't know if that's actually a crime in Britain -- probably not -- but it damn well should be.

All of this remains to be seen; this is just the way it looks right now. Maybe there'll be more to write tomorrow. Maybe the police will announce a big terror breakthrough. Maybe the suspects will be charged with "public nuisance" (a.k.a. annoying the police) or some other misdemeanor, just to imply that they're not really innocent victims. Maybe they'll be released tomorrow afternoon, shortly after we've all left work and headed for the pub to watch the World Cup and start our weekends. That last possibility sounds like a good bet.

I'll apologize for my cynicism if my predictions turn out to be wrong.