Intelligence

Britain's first suicide-bombing?

Britain's first suicide-bombing? | Economist.com

Jul 13th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

Police investigating the London terrorist attack have identified the four men suspected of planting the bombs and think they may all have died in the blasts—though this has not been confirmed, it looks like the attack was Britain's first suicide-bombing

LONDONERS, and tourists visiting the British capital, made a point of going about their business and leisure as normal—or as near normal as possible—this week, following the devastating terrorist attacks last Thursday morning that killed at least 52 people and injured around 700. For the first four days after the attacks, there were few signs of progress in the hunt for the bombers. It was feared that they could strike again, as happened in devastating terrorist attacks in Madrid last year and Istanbul in 2003. Meanwhile, with every hour that passed, the trail leading to them seemed to be getting colder.

However, on Tuesday July 12th police called a news conference to announce dramatic developments: they had identified four men—three from the area around Leeds in northern England and one whose home area was not specified—who they suspected had planted the four bombs, three on board London Underground trains and one on a bus. The four were recorded on security cameras arriving together at King's Cross railway station, carrying rucksacks, shortly before the explosions.

The head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch, Peter Clarke, said police were trying to confirm if all four men died in the explosions. Documents bearing the names of three of the four had been found at the scenes of three of the explosions. In one case—that of the blast on an Underground train near Aldgate station—there was strong forensic evidence that one of the men from the Leeds area had died there. Wednesday's British newspapers said the four men were British-born Muslims of Pakistani descent and quoted neighbours’ astonishment that four apparently ordinary young men had suddenly turned mass killers.

So, were the four bombers “lilywhites”, as terrorists not previously known to have militant connections were called in the days of the IRA's terror campaign? On Tuesday night, a friend of one of the suspected bombers told ITV News the man had visited Afghanistan—home to militant Islamists' training grounds—last year. And after a meeting of European Union interior and justice ministers on Wednesday, France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, made the claim—astounding if it were true—that his British counterpart, Charles Clarke, had told the meeting that some of the London bombers had been arrested last year but set free in the hope that they would lead police to a wider terror network. Mr Clarke rushed to deny this categorically, saying he was “staggered” at Mr Sarkozy's claim.

Whether or not any of the bombers were already known to have links to militants, what does now seem almost certain is that the four men carried out the first ever suicide-bombing on British soil. London suffered devastating bombing by German warplanes in the second world war, and many people were killed and injured in the IRA's bombing campaign of the 1970s-1990s. But, if confirmed, an attack by people who have no fears for their own safety represents an unprecedented threat for a British city.

The worry now is that the four bombers were organised by a “master bomber” who is still at large, and that there may be at least one other group of bombers preparing to strike. Mr Clarke said before the ministers' meeting that the four men might have been “foot soldiers” for a larger group with international links. Police searched the homes of three of the suspects and three other houses in the Leeds area on Tuesday, arresting one man. A vehicle suspected of being used in the attacks was cordoned off outside Luton railway station, north of London. Explosives were reportedly found in the car and in one of the homes searched in Leeds.

The attackers are presumed to have been Islamist militants, possibly linked to al-Qaeda, and the bombings are thought to have been timed to coincide with Britain’s hosting of the Group of Eight summit at Gleneagles in Scotland. Though al-Qaeda’s top leadership structure is believed to have been disrupted since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, it is possible that any number of sympathetic groups worldwide are seeking to stage attacks, with or without assistance from the central organisation. Shortly after the London attacks, a group claiming links to al-Qaeda posted an internet statement saying that “mujahideen” (holy warriors) had carried them out in retaliation for Britain's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan—though such statements have sometimes proved unreliable in the past.

As might be expected in the wake of such devastating attacks, a poll for Tuesday's London Times by Populus shows strong support for new anti-terrorism measures: 89% of those polled supported increased security and baggage checks on public transport, while 70% backed extra police powers to stop and search people on the streets. Less predictably, support for such measures seemed stronger outside London than in the capital itself.

However, Tony Blair, the prime minister, must know that public support for such measures might soon dissipate if they caused constant inconvenience and delays for passengers. Worse, relations between ethnic and religious communities in London and elsewhere might quickly be strained if police appeared to be singling out people for “looking Muslim”.

Parliament, which resisted several of the measures in the anti-terrorism law Mr Blair struggled to pass in March, would not necessarily wave through any new proposals. The law passed in March was needed because Britain’s highest court, the Law Lords, had struck down part of an earlier terrorism law, passed in the wake of the September 11th 2001 attacks in America, that had allowed the government to detain foreign terrorism suspects indefinitely. In the new bill, Mr Blair had sought powers for the government to impose “control orders”, including house arrest, on suspects not charged with any offence. But resistance in Parliament forced him to back down and agree to let judges supervise the imposition of such restraints on suspects’ liberties.

At their meeting, the EU interior and justice ministers agreed to speed up the implementation of proposed anti-terrorism measures, including the approval by December of a new “European evidence warrant” to accelerate the cross-border exchange of evidence in terrorism investigations; and agreement by October on measures to require telecommunications providers to keep records of phone and internet usage, perhaps for a year or more, to help trace terrorists' messages. However, a senseless power struggle still looms between a group of countries led by Britain, who want the telecoms-logging measures agreed and then implemented by individual EU member states, and the European Commission and European Parliament, who insist that the measures be passed in the form of EU legislation. Europe's finance ministers also met on Wednesday and agreed new controls on cash transfers, to constrain terrorists' finances.

The London attacks have also prompted America and other allies to reconsider their own anti-terrorism laws. On Monday, President George Bush urged Congress to make permanent those parts of the Patriot Act that are soon to expire. Among other things, the law, which was passed in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, increased the security forces’ powers to track and detain terrorism suspects. However, a number of these provisions will lapse at the end of this year. The chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, Arlen Specter, a Republican, wants some measures only to be extended for a further period, not made permanent.

Italy, which has sent troops to Iraq alongside America’s and Britain’s, fears it could be next in line for a terrorist attack. On Tuesday, its government announced new anti-terrorism legislation, including a proposed increase in the length of time that suspects can be held. Though it seems highly sensible for those countries that risk being attacked to re-assess whether there are any gaps in their armoury of legal and other weapons against terrorism, no one should be under any illusions that protecting such vulnerable targets as public-transport systems will be easy.

July 13, 2005 at 02:37 PM in Al Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home