Five prisoners are released from Guantanamo, following a Pentagon announcement the release would take place two weeks earlier. They are Mamdouh Habib, an Australian, and the four remaining Britons: Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Jamaal Belmar, and Martin Mubanga. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the Britons’ release is the result of his “intensive and complex” discussions with the US. [New York Times, 1/12/2005; New York Times, 1/26/2005] Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock says the Australian government requested Habib’s repatriation to Australia after the US said it did not intend to bring Habib to trial. [ABC News, 1/11/2005]
Two Men’s Passports Confiscated – However, upon their return to England, the passports of Mubanga and Abbasi are confiscated by the British authorities using a little-known Royal Prerogative. Home Secretary Charles Clarke writes to the men saying that they are too dangerous to Britain and its allies to be allowed to travel, and that granting them passports “would be contrary to the public interest,” as there are “strong grounds for believing that, on leaving [Britain], you would take part in activities against [Britain] or allied targets. We therefore decided to withdraw your passport facilities for the time being.” [Evening Standard, 2/15/2005]
Abbasi’s Radical Connections – Abbasi is an associate of radical London imam Abu Hamza al-Masri (see 1999-2000) who had traveled to Afghanistan and been involved in fighting against the US-led invasion (see December 2000-December 2001), and had been slated for a military tribunal (see July 3, 2003).
Deal with Blair – The New York Times will suggest that the release of the four men is politically motivated and designed to bolster British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign to gather support for the Iraq war was damaged by the news of the military prosecution of Britons at Guantanamo. According to the Times, “Mr. Blair’s critics saw his inability to regain custody of a total of nine British detainees at Guantánamo as proof of his subjugation to Washington,” and the announcement of the men’s release apparently shows that Blair can stand up to the US. [New York Times, 10/25/2004]
April 17, 2005: British Home Secretary Calls for ID Cards Following Alleged Ricin Plot
British Home Secretary Charles Clarke apologizes for the government’s failure to deport Kamal Bourgass, alleged ricin plotter and convicted murderer of Detective Constable Stephen Oake (see January 7, 2003), who was wanted for immigration offenses. Clarke claims it proves the need for ID cards, but faces demands to explain why ministers failed to withdraw false claims that ricin was found in Bourgass’s flat. [Independent, 4/17/2005]
July 10-17, 2005: British Officials Falsely Claim 7/7 Bombings Were Unstoppable
On July 10, 2005, three days after the 7/7 London bombings (see July 7, 2005), British Home Secretary Charles Clarke says the 7/7 bombers “simply came out of the blue.” Clarke and other British officials describe the bombers as “clean skins,” which is intelligence lingo for operatives completely unknown to the authorities. [Newsweek, 5/1/2007] As late as July 17, an unnamed British official tells the Telegraph: “There were no specific warnings at all, from any source. There was no information at all that could have prevented these attacks.” [Daily Telegraph, 7/17/2005]
July 21, 2005: Informant Warns London Police about Copycat Bombings, but Bombers Not Stopped and Public Not Warned
One day after the failed 21/7 London bombings that attempted to duplicate the 7/7 bombings two weeks earlier (see July 21, 2005 and July 7, 2005), it is reported that Scotland Yard was tipped off about the bombings, but failed to stop them. An unnamed informant told police that there would be another round of bombings during the week, but could not name exactly where or when. Police chiefs correctly deduced it would probably take place on a Thursday, exactly two weeks after the 7/7 bombings. As a result, starting this morning, the London subway system is flooded with undercover armed police, as well as openly armed police. In some stations, such as Westminster, passengers are asked to take off backpacks and then line them up against walls, where sniffer dogs smell for possible explosives. One eyewitness will say: “I have never seen anything like that in London before, even after the July 7 bombings. There were at least eight officers, including several with machine guns, just at one underground station.” At 9:29 a.m., an armed unit races to Farringdon station and closes in on one suspected bomber, but apparently narrowly misses him. (The bombers will not attempt to detonate their bombs until about noon, and none of them will be at Farringdon station at the time.) Around the same time, about two hours before the bombers strike, Home Secretary Charles Clarke gives a confidential briefing to senior cabinet ministers, saying that another attack, possibly a copycat attack, is likely. However, no public warning is given. [Mirror, 7/22/2005] Although the bombers fail to cause mass death, it will later be determined that this was only because the explosives had not been prepared properly. It will not be explained how the bombers were able to get their bombs past the heightened security to stations in central London.
December 13-14, 2005: British Government Will Not Allow Any Public Inquiry into 7/7 London Bombings
On December 13, 2005, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke says there will not be a public inquiry into the 7/7 London bombings. The next day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair confirms this, saying, “If we ended up having a full scale public inquiry… we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time.” He promises victims will get a full account of what happened and says, “We do essentially know what happened.” Instead of an independent judicial inquiry, a senior civil servant will compile a “narrative” on the bombings. Clarke admits the “narrative” will not be an independent assessment, but says, “Certainly, there is no question of a cover-up of any kind.” Victims’ relatives, opposition MPs, and Muslim leaders protest the decision. [Guardian, 12/14/2005; BBC, 12/14/2005; London Times, 12/14/2005] The conservative Daily Telegraph is critical, saying: “The refusal… to grant a public inquiry into the events surrounding the London bombings on July 7 is but the latest example of the government trying to avoid scrutiny of a particular event in which the state or its servants have a definite interest.… A ‘narrative’ is no substitute, especially for the families of those killed in the bombings, for a robust inquisitorial process aimed at determining the truth. No lessons will be learnt from it for the future protection of our people against such terrorist attacks.” [Daily Telegraph, 12/15/2005]
