The Liquid Bomb Hoax: The Larger Implications
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.
By James Petras
Posted by Bulatlat
The charges leveled
by the British, U.S. and Pakistani regimes that they uncovered a major
bomb plot directed against nine U.S. 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." (FT, August 12/, 2006) 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 U.S. 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 . . .
U.S. 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.
Initially the British
and U.S. 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." (BBC News, 8/21/2006)
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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S.
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.
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 U.S. 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." (BBC News, 8/21/06) 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
U.S. 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 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 U.S. 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 and 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 U.S. 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
U.S., European and Asian consumers and industries.
Likewise the Israeli
military invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, backed by the U.S. 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 U.S., 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 U.S. is, as always, the United States: The
Democratic civilian militarists are capitalizing on the failures of their
incumbent colleagues. Posted by Bulatlat
James Petras, a
former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a
50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless
and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization
Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest book is, The Power of Israel in the
United States (Clarity Press, 2006). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu.
Posted by
Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.