The decade is ending in much the same way that it began, dominated by the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. In the fight against this menace, the most important weapon in any country's armoury is its intelligence system; and given the security measures that individual air passengers are required to endure, such as intrusive searches, body scanning and the advance provision of personal data, the public is entitled to expect this apparatus to function effectively. There is little point in imposing draconian travel restrictions on millions of people who are not terrorists if an individual who has already come to the notice of the authorities is allowed to board a plane carrying explosives.
It is, then, understandable that Barack Obama should denounce what he called a "systemic failure" in American intelligence for failing to intercept the Detroit plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Of course, it is often easy in hindsight to point to "intelligence failures" when what seems obvious now did not seem quite so obvious then. On this occasion, American agencies had specific intelligence that a Nigerian who had been trained in Yemen was plotting an attack. On its own, that would not have been sufficient to identify Abdulmutallab. But it has also been disclosed that the would-be bomber's father had alerted the CIA to the radicalisation of his son, who had gone to Yemen. President Obama is right to ask how and why so many pieces of the jigsaw failed to produce a picture of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab before he boarded his transatlantic flight on Christmas Day with the intention of killing hundreds of people.
Related Articles Local authorities launched 10,000 snooping operations last year Councils launched 10,000 snooping operations last year MPs' expenses: Ben Chapman blames fees office for phantom mortgage claim Government departments focus more on strategy than delivery, says NAO Top 100 left wingers: 75-51
Part of the reason is that intelligence was not shared among the American agencies. Huge sums have been poured into intelligence both in America and in this country to plug the holes that existed before September 11; and while determined terrorists who have never come to anyone's notice may get through, the least we can expect is that intelligence agencies work together in countering this danger. This should not detract from the successes of the security services, especially in Britain, in thwarting many deadly plots. Intelligence is not an exact science; nor is it like the TV series, Spooks, with conspiracies foiled by a handful of officers in the space of an hour. However, if mistakes are made then the security agencies cannot be immune from criticism and nor would they wish to be. We rely heavily upon their skills and dedication for our safety.
Their job, certainly in this country, is not made any simpler by the ease with which those preaching hatred of the West have been allowed to operate. Yet again we have learnt that a terrorist had connections to a British university. Abdulmutallab is a former president o
By Telegraph View Published: 6:56PM GMT 30 Dec 2009
Comments 8 | Comment on this article
The decade is ending in much the same way that it began, dominated by the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. In the fight against this menace, the most important weapon in any country's armoury is its intelligence system; and given the security measures that individual air passengers are required to endure, such as intrusive searches, body scanning and the advance provision of personal data, the public is entitled to expect this apparatus to function effectively. There is little point in imposing draconian travel restrictions on millions of people who are not terrorists if an individual who has already come to the notice of the authorities is allowed to board a plane carrying explosives.
It is, then, understandable that Barack Obama should denounce what he called a "systemic failure" in American intelligence for failing to intercept the Detroit plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Of course, it is often easy in hindsight to point to "intelligence failures" when what seems obvious now did not seem quite so obvious then. On this occasion, American agencies had specific intelligence that a Nigerian who had been trained in Yemen was plotting an attack. On its own, that would not have been sufficient to identify Abdulmutallab. But it has also been disclosed that the would-be bomber's father had alerted the CIA to the radicalisation of his son, who had gone to Yemen. President Obama is right to ask how and why so many pieces of the jigsaw failed to produce a picture of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab before he boarded his transatlantic flight on Christmas Day with the intention of killing hundreds of people.
Part of the reason is that intelligence was not shared among the American agencies. Huge sums have been poured into intelligence both in America and in this country to plug the holes that existed before September 11; and while determined terrorists who have never come to anyone's notice may get through, the least we can expect is that intelligence agencies work together in countering this danger. This should not detract from the successes of the security services, especially in Britain, in thwarting many deadly plots. Intelligence is not an exact science; nor is it like the TV series, Spooks, with conspiracies foiled by a handful of officers in the space of an hour. However, if mistakes are made then the security agencies cannot be immune from criticism and nor would they wish to be. We rely heavily upon their skills and dedication for our safety.
Their job, certainly in this country, is not made any simpler by the ease with which those preaching hatred of the West have been allowed to operate. Yet again we have learnt that a terrorist had connections to a British university. Abdulmutallab is a former president of the Islamic Society at University College, London, and is the fourth person to hold such a post at one of the capital's academic institutions to be charged with a terrorist offence in the past three years. While freedom of thought is important in universities, this is not extended to other extremist organisations in the way it is to Islamist groups. The dissemination of jihadist propaganda in our academic institutions has been known about for many years and has been allowed to continue for far too long.
In addition, serious consideration must now be given by the Government to focusing more on the people most likely to cause us harm. Blanket checks on everyone simply do not work and merely produce large databases of people who pose no threat at all. The targeted profiling of particular ethnic and religious groups is controversial, but may be necessary – provided it is backed by good intelligence. If we continue to fail to get a grip on these problems in our own country, then other governments whose citizens are placed in jeopardy by our inaction, notably the US, will likely do it for us by imposing severe visa restrictions on travellers from Britain.
Comments: 9
A leading civil servant or Zanuliebour government politician should be required to be on every flight to the usa. (cattle class) The problem will be solved immediately.
I know lets scan everybody! and I mean everybody no exceptions! police, MPs, Royals, Presidents, the lot and that means even when we go to the corner shop for a loaf of bread!. Governments should stop this NOW before it gets out of hand, it already has here in England.
One time or another you will probably find that most terrorist have been in this country,but then you would have to accept ,at the end of the day,it is the crap we have as representing the country.the conclusion IF you want to find all the poltical crap on the planet ,visit england,and digest what this crap talk,and the latest ignorance deciding if these new body scanners are necessary,which even a moron will say it is necessary.
Not putting security measures such as whole body scanners into place at airports is an example of this governments lax attitude. For what they cost it must be a bargain. A pound to a penny it's because there are people that are of the opinion they could be against human rights! Scanners will not cure the problem but equipment such as this will help. We are all fully aware of what happens when a small explosion takes place in an aircraft so why are those charged with the reponsibility for air travel not on the ball? Ah well, they are civil servants after all so enough said.
Once again you fail to distinguish between "intelligence" and "information". INFORMATION about the potential bomber appears to have been available to a wide variety of security agencies in several countries; none of them had the INTELLIGENCE to use the information in competent fashion. It's time we looked at the difference between information and intelligence in a more critical fashion. The term "intelligence" has become current because various agencies of government and police forces want to sound more important and competent than they really are - and the media encourages them in their conceit.
None of these failures are intelligence failures, they are failures of the imagination. Patriot Acts I and II were designed to streamline the process of targeting suspects through eliminating firewalls between competing agencies and intel "turfs" while preserving the friction and competition between agencies which are the cornerstone of administrative quality assurance and functional improvement. Takes a while to work the bugs out, as these were the first actual open-eyed reforms since 1976's housecleaning of the USA's amazingly corrupt intelligence structure by the Ford Administration and establishment of civilian oversight of same. The UK's overhaul after the Brighton bombing did much the same thing to address similar problems (thanks once again, Baroness Thatcher). Everyone overspent and have new toys sitting in the corner no one has figured out how to use yet. We have critters called IRC's nationwide here where they hire military veterans from G-2 on a "temp" basis, if you can believe that. Please see http://www.clearancejobs.com/ and for HUMINT openings (my old CO would spin in his grave to see this) please see http://www.intelligencecareers.com/jobs_agent_ww/js_dd_out.cfm Don't think we've been penetrated, do you? LOL In the meantime, what's been working out best is a nifty intellectual construct called NCO or network-centric operations, which is a combined epistemological and semantic tool that serves a Delphic oracle type function (never underestimate the worth of philosophy majors, Bertie Russell and Whitehead as well as Wittgenstein did time at Bletchley Park, and damned good thing they did) which is counter-intel proof. It's used even on an infantry company-level basis in the field now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it works a charm. No intel organization is fatigue-proof, either. People are people. We've beaten our intel folks to death to achieve almost completely impossible aims, and the goods have been delivered and will continue to be so. What's needed is to "Bletchley Park" the entire Isaac Newton Institute's and the New Vienna Circle's best minds from outside the intel field and have them come up with new paradigms which they can prototype, field test then deploy. I would also kidnap Christopher Howse as resident consultant and advisor; he's the type person who troubleshoots this type of recurring f***up. We are not deploying our best brains because most of the best brains find intelligence work repulsive and nasty, politically, socially and culturally. For that I blame our respective educational systems, never mind our respective foreign policies, whatever the hell those are. We don't really KNOW what they are, do we? The important deals are all classified. I have to catch some sleep so I can get ready for tomorrow's glatt kosher corned beef and cabbage and a non-kosher pint or two at Kitty Hoyne's pub and restaurant, so it's off to bed, but give a thought to the other folks who are on the receiving end of doubtful intelligence who have to act on it, like LCPL Amy Thomas of the Royal Marines MP detachment in Afghanistan. I lift my glass to you, youngun. Make it home safe, okay? Best to all of you for a prosperous, fearless and love-filled New Year.
The purpose of "airport security" is not airport security: it is the provision of jobs for jobsworths and their smug, politically correct bosses. Anyone ever flown on El Al? Their security systems are a right pain, just like everyone else's. Difference is that they are effective. If no one's head rolls after the Farouk nonsense (and no one's head will roll) then we may justly assume that the huge hassles ordinary passengers must endure are simply a job-creation scheme which add not one whit to security. It's one thing to confiscate a pair of nail tweezers from grandma; another to let an obvious lunatic (think also Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber") get on board. I despair.
Targeting supported by good intelligence is not an option but an absolute necessity. Otherwise expect the grim consequences of sloppiness, poor data/preparation and no effective protections. Even if targeting goes into active use it has its problems, flaws and holes. Don't expect perfect just better... and a chance at saving a reasonable way of life. NuLabour has made every wrong decision at every opportunity, and this is one of them. It's like watching a rather pitiful tragicomedy from afar... political correctness and all.
A very identifiable , tiny minority have an exclusive track record for bombing - or trying to bomb - aeroplanes. Which is a euphamism for mass murder. So why is the entire world treated like worthless cattle and now we hear we are to have our genitals viewed (unless we are Muslims of course) by airport 'security' when clearly it doesn't stop terrorists ? Why are 90 year old ladies in wheelchairs and entire families being treated as potential terrorists ? When will this insanity end and someone have the courage to target the offending group(s)?
The government, regional councils, police and judiciary pursue the innocent and law abiding with relentless enthusiasm as saviours and protectors on high. Be it the environment, child abuse, terrorism, drinking, smoking etcetera, there is plethora of intrusive, expensive and oppressive laws and regulations being used to cajole and tax us to oblivion. Yet, with disturbing fanaticism, these same officious zealots protect, in the name of human rights, the very people who most likely to engage in wicked and criminal activity. Time for the worm to turn.
Post a comment
By submitting any material to us you confirm that you have read, and agree to, our terms and conditions
Your name *
Your email address *
Your Comment *
* = Required information
MORE
Comment Most Viewed
Read Full Article »