The charges leveled by the British,
US and Pakistani regimes that they uncovered a major
bomb plot directed against nine US airlines is based
on the flimsiest of evidence, which would be thrown
out of any court, worthy of its name.
An analysis of the current state of
the investigation raises a series of questions
regarding the governments’ claims of a bomb plot
concocted by 24 Brits of Pakistani origin.
The arrests were followed by the
search for evidence, as the August 12, 2006
Financial Times states: “The police set about the
mammoth task of gathering evidence of the alleged
terrorist bomb plot yesterday.” [1]
In other words, the arrests and charges took place
without sufficient evidence — a peculiar method of
operation — which reverses normal investigatory
procedures in which arrests follow the
“monumental task of gathering evidence.” If the
arrests were made without prior accumulation of
evidence, what were the bases of the arrests?
The government search of financial
records and transfers turned up no money trail
despite the freezing of accounts. The police search
revealed limited amounts of savings, as one would
expect from young workers, students and employees
from low-income immigrant families.
The British government, backed by
Washington, claimed that the Pakistani government’s
arrest of two British-Pakistanis provided
“critical evidence” in uncovering the plot and
identifying the alleged terrorist. No Western
judicial hearing would accept evidence procured by
the Pakistani intelligence services that are
notorious for their use of torture in extracting
‘confessions’. The Pakistani dictatorship’s evidence
is based on a supposed encounter between a relative
of one of the suspects and an Al Qaeda operative on
the Afghan border. According to the Pakistani
police, the Al Qaeda agent provided the relative and
thus the accused with the bomb-making information
and operative instructions. The transmission of
bomb-making information does not require a trip
half-way around the world, least of all to a
frontier under military siege by US led forces on
one side and the Pakistani military on the other.
Moreover it is extremely dubious that Al Qaeda
agents in the mountains of Afghanistan have any
detailed knowledge of specific British airline
security, procedures or conditions of operations in
London.
Lacking substantive evidence, Pakistani intelligence
and their British counterparts touched all the
propaganda buttons: A clandestine meeting with Al
Qaeda, bomb-making information exchanges on the
Pakistani-Afghan border, Pakistani-Brits with
Islamic friends, family and terrorist connections in
England . . .
US intelligence claimed, and London
repeated, that sums of money had been wired from
Pakistan to allow the plotters to buy airline
tickets. Yet air tickets were found in only one
residence (and the airline and itinerary were not
stated by the police). None of the other suspects
possessed plane tickets and some did not even have
passports. In other words, the most preliminary
moves in the so-called bomb plot had not been taken
by the accused. No terrorist plot to bomb airplanes
exists when the alleged conspirators are lacking
travel funds, documents and tickets. It is not
credible to argue that the alleged conspirators
depended on instructions from distant handlers
ignorant of the basic ground level conditions.
The Liquid Bomb story
Initially the British and US
authorities claimed that the explosive device was a
“liquid bomb,” yet no liquid or non-liquid
bomb was discovered on the premises or persons of
any of the accused. Nor has any evidence been
produced as to the capability of any of the suspects
in making, moving or detonating the “liquid bomb” —
a very volatile solution if handled by unskilled
operatives. No evidence has been presented on the
nature of the specific liquid bomb question, or any
spoken discussion or written documents about the
liquid bomb, which would implicate any of the
suspects. No bottle, liquid or chemical formula has
been found among any of the suspects. Nor have any
of the ingredients that go into making the “liquid
bomb” been uncovered. Nor has any evidence been
presented as to where the liquid was supposed to
come from (the source) or whether it was purchased
locally or overseas.
When the liquid bomb story was
ridiculed into obscurity, British Deputy Assistant
Commissioner Peter Clark claimed that, “bomb
making equipment including chemicals and electric
components had been found,” [2]
Once again there is no mention of
what “electronic components” and “chemicals” were
found, in whose home or office and if they might be
related to non-bomb making activities. Were these
so-called new bomb-making items owned by a specific
person or group of persons, and if so were they
known by the parties implicated to be part of a
bombing plot. Moreover, when and why have the
authorities switched from the liquid bombs to
identifying old fashion electronic detonators? Is
there any evidence — documents or taped discussions
— that link these electronic detonators and
chemicals with the specific plot to “blow up 9 US
bound airliners”?
Instead of providing relevant facts
clearing up basic questions of names, dates,
weapons, and travel dates, Commissioner Clark gives
the press a laundry list of items that could be
found in millions of homes and the large number of
buildings searched (69 so far). If stair climbing
earns promotions, Clark should be nominated for a
knighthood. According to Clark the police discovered
more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones,
8,000 computer media items (items as catastrophic as
memory sticks, CDs and DVDs); police removed 6,000
gigabytes of data from the seized computers (150
from each computer) and a few video recordings. One
presumes, in the absence of any qualitative data
demonstrating that the suspects were in fact
preparing bombs in order to destroy nine US
airliners, that Commissioner Clark is seeking public
sympathy for his minions’ enormous capacity to lift
and remove electronic equipment from one site to
another in up to 69 buildings. This is a notable
achievement if we are talking about a moving company
and not a high-powered police investigation of an
event of “catastrophic
consequences.”
Some of the suspects were arrested
because they have traveled to Pakistan at the
beginning of the school year holidays. British and
US authorities forget to mention that tens of
thousands of Pakistani ex-pats return to visit
family at precisely that time of year.
The wise guys on Wall Street and The
City of London never took the liquid bomb plot
seriously: At no point did the Market respond,
nose-dive, crash or panic. The announced plot to
bomb airlines was ignored by all Big Players on the
US and London stock markets. In fact, petrol prices
dropped slightly. In contrast to 9/11 and the Madrid
and London bombings (to which this plot is compared)
the stock market ‘makers’ were not impressed by the
governments’ claims of a ‘major catastrophe.’ George
Bush or Tony Blair, who were informed and discussed
the “liquid bomb plot” several days
beforehand, didn’t even skip a day of their
vacations, in response to the catastrophic threat.
The "Martyrs messages"
And each and every claim and piece of
‘evidence’ put forth by the police and the Blair and
Bush security authorities runs a cropper. Some of
the alleged suspects are released, and new equally
paltry ‘evidence’ is breathlessly presented: two
tape recordings of “martyr messages” were found in
the computer of one suspect, which, we are told,
foretold a planned terrorist attack. The Clark team
claimed with great aplomb that they found one or a
few martyr videotapes, without clarifying the fact
that the videos were not made by the suspects but
viewed by them. Many people the world over pay
homage to suicide martyrs to a great variety of
political causes. Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan
visits a shrine dedicated to World War II military
dead — including kamikaze suicide pilots, defying
Chinese and Korean protests. Millions of US citizens
and politicians pay homage to the war heroes in
Arlington cemetery each year, some of whom
deliberately sacrificed their lives in order to
defend their comrades, their flag and the justice of
their cause. It should be of no surprise that
Asians, Muslims and others should collect videos of
anti-Israeli or anti-occupation martyrs. In none of
the above cases where people honor martyrs is there
any police attempt to link the reverent observer
with future suicide bomb plots — except if they are
Muslims. Hero worship of fallen fighters is a normal
everyday phenomenon — and is certainly no evidence
that the idolaters are engaged in murderous
activity.
A “martyr message” is neither a plot,
conspiracy nor action, it is only an expression of
free speech — one might add, ‘internal speech’
(between the speaker and his computer) which might
at some future time become public speech. Are we to
make private dialogue a terrorist offense?
As the legal time limit expires on
the holding of suspects without charges, the British
authorities released two suspects, charged eleven,
and eleven others continue to be held without
charges, probably because there is no basis for
proceeding further. As the number of accused
plotters thin out in England, Clark and company have
deflected attention to a world-wide plot with links
to Spain, Italy, the Middle East and elsewhere.
Apparently the logic here is that a wider net
compensates for the large holes. In the case at
hand, of the eleven who have been remanded to trial,
only eight have been charged with conspiracy to
prepare acts of terrorism; the other three are
accused of “not disclosing information” (or
being informers . . . of what?) and “possessing
articles useful to a person preparing acts of
terrorism.” [3]
Since no bombs have been found and no plans of
action have been revealed, we are left with the
vague charge of ‘conspiracy’, which can mean a
hostile private discussion directed against US and
British subjects by several like-thinking
individuals. The reason that it appears that ideas
and not actions are in question is because the
police have not turned up any weapons or specific
measures to enter into the locus of attack (air
tickets to board planes, passports and so on). How
can suspects be charged with failing to disclose
information, when the police lack any concrete
information pertaining to the alleged bomb plot. The
fact that the police are further diluting their
charges against three more plotters is indicative of
the flimsy basis of their original arrests and
public claims. To charge a 17 year-old-boy with
“possessing articles useful to a person preparing
acts of terrorism” is so open-ended as to be
laughable: Did the article have other uses for the
boy or for his family (like a box cutter). Did he
‘possess’ written articles because they were
informative or fascinating to a young person? Since
he still possessed the article, he had not passed
these articles to any person making bombs. Did he
know of any specific plans to make bombs or any
bomb-makers? The charges could implicate anyone
possessing and reading a good spy novel or science
fiction thriller in which bomb making is discussed.
The eleven have already pleaded innocent; the trial
will begin in due time. The government and mass
media have already convicted the accused in the
electronic and print media. Panic has been sown.
Fear and hysterical anger is present in the long
security lines at airports and train stations . . .
Asian men quietly saying prayers are being pulled
off of airplanes and planes diverted or airports
evacuated.
The economic consequences of the
propaganda operation
The bomb plot hoax has caused
enormous losses
(in
the hundreds of millions of dollars) to the
airlines, business people, oil companies, duty free
shops, tourist agencies, resorts and hotels, not to
speak of the tremendous inconvenience and health
related problems of millions of stranded and
stressed travelers. The restrictions on laptop
computers, travel bags, accessories, special foods
and liquid medicines have added to the ‘costs’ of
traveling.
Clearly the decision to cook up the
phony bomb plot was not motivated by economic
interests, but domestic political reasons. The Blair
administration, already highly unpopular for
supporting Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was
under attack for his unconditional support for
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, his refusal to call
for an immediate ceasefire and his unstinting
support for Bush’s servility to US Zionist lobbies.
Even within the Labor party over a hundred
backbenchers were speaking out against his policies,
while even junior cabinet ministers such as Prescott
stated that Boss Bush’s foreign policy smelled of
the barnyard. Bush was not yet cornered by his
colleagues in the same way as Blair, but
unpopularity was threatening to lead his Republican
party to congressional defeat and possible loss of a
majority of seats.
According to top security officials
in England, Bush and Blair were “knowledgeable”
about the investigation into a possible “liquid
bomb” plot. We know that Blair gave the go-ahead
for the arrests, even as the authorities must have
told him they lacked the evidence and at best it was
premature. Some reports from British police insiders
claim that the Bush Administration pushed Blair for
early arrests and the announcement of the ‘liquid
bomb’ plot. Security officials then launched a
massive, all-out ‘terror propaganda’ campaign
designed to capture the attention and support of the
public with the total support of the mass media. The
security-mass media campaign served its objective —
Bush’s popularity increased, Blair avoided censure
and both continued on their vacations.
The bomb plot political ploy fits the
previous political pattern of sacrificing capitalist
economic interests to serve domestic political and
ideological positions. Foreign policy failures lead
to domestic political crimes, just as domestic
policy crises lead to aggressive military expansion.
The criminal frame-up of young
Muslim-South Asian British citizens by the British
security officials was specifically designed to
cover up for the failed Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq and the Anglo-American backing for Israel’s
destructive but failed invasion of Lebanon. Blair’s
“liquid bombers” plot sacrificed a
multiplicity of British capitalist interests in
order to retain political offices and stave off an
unceremonious early exit from power. The costs of
failed militarism are borne by citizens and
businesses.
In an analogous fashion, Bush, his
Zioncon and other militarists exploited the events
of 9/11 to pursue a militarist multi-war strategy in
Southwest Asia and the Middle East. With time and
scientific research, the official version of the
events of 9/11 have come under serious questioning —
both regarding the collapse of one of the towers in
New York, as well as the explosions in the Pentagon.
The events of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq sacrificed major US economic interests: Losses
in New York, tourism, airline industry and massive
physical destruction; losses in terms of a major
increase in oil prices and instability, increasing
the costs to US, European and Asian consumers and
industries.
Likewise the Israeli military
invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, backed by the US and
Great Britain, were economically costly destroying
property, investments and markets, while raising the
level of mass anti-imperial opposition.
In other words, the politics of US,
British and Israeli (and by extension World Zionist)
militarism has been at the expense of strategic
sectors of the civilian economy. These losses to key
economic sectors require the civilian-militarists to
resort to domestic political crimes (phony bomb
plots and frame-up trials) to distract the public
from their costly and failed policies and to tighten
political control. On both counts, the civilian
militarists and the Zioncons are losing ground. The
“liquid bomb” plot is unraveling, Israel is
in turmoil, the Zioncons are preaching to the
converted, and the US is, as always, the United
States: The Democratic civilian militarists are
capitalizing on the failures of their incumbent
colleagues.
|
James Petras
James Petras is a highly skilled professor
of sociology at the Binghamton university of
New York.He is the author of many works, and
a member of the "anti-imperialist"
conference |
Sent by
"Voltaire"
|