Back last Sunday, I wrote that the best response to terrorism is based primarily on solid, international investigative and police work, not on militarism. The British government has been showing us all how to do this (despite the terrible over-reaction of the shooting death of Jean Charles de Menezes, for which Tony Blair was very fast to apologize.)
Today, the British and Italian police arrested three of the men accused of involvement in the abortive mass bombing attacks on July 21, meaning that now all four of the prime suspects from that day have now been arrested.
The success of this arrest operation– and the intel bonanza that will quite likely flow from the police having taken all four of these men alive– is great news for the British people and for opponents of terrorism everywhere. It also underlines the importance of something I have argued ever since 9/11/2001: namely the importance of focusing, in both the police and the political responses to acts of terrorism, on those who might have reason to condone those acts, as much as on the shadowy (but necessarily small) terror networks themselves.
In the current case, vital clues regarding the whereabouts of the first of the suspects arrested were reportedly supplied by the man’s own father. And I have no doubt that in the other cases, too, vital clues that helped locate those suspects were provided by people who knew them fairly well, even if not they weren’t blood kin.
Think about it. If you were a Somali immigrant to Britain, or indeed any kind of a British citizen, would you turn your son in to the authorities if he were accused of involvement in something like the July 7 bombings?
It’s a tough question. I’m thinking about my own kids. If any of them was accused of involvement with a heinous crime, in the States or in Britain, would I turn them in to the authorities? (This is not a purely hypothetical question. Remember that in the US, the police only ever got their hands on the Unabomber back in 1996 because his own brother turned him in.)
As a parent, I think I’d say that if there was a strong chance a child of mine would be tortured or otherwise badly abused after being arrested, I would probably be very reluctant indeed to turn her or him in. (Ted Kaczynski’s brother reportedly only turned him in after receiving assurances from the police that he would not be given the death penalty.)
So that’s a first point. If you want to get family or close friends of suspects to cooperate with the police– and very often, they would be people with some of the best clues as to how and where to find him– then they have to have some assurance that their cooperation will not lead to their relative or friend being abused. There has, therefore, to be a basic degree of trust in the fairness of the justice system to which this person is being given up.
At a broader political level, too, though, the judgments being made about the general fairness and political legitimacy of the political system by people in the suspect’s broader community are equally important.
This is where we come to the issue of the importance of focusing on the community of potential condoners of the terrorist network. Not the (presumably smaller) community of people who actual logistic, ideological, or financial supporters of the terrorist network… But the broader ethnic or religious circles in which people might know something about what the terrorist networks are planning– in more or less specific terms– and they are in a position to choose whether to share such information as they have with the police authorities, or not…
In Britain, it seems that the events of July 7 shocked many people in the Muslim communities there who might previously, for a number of different reasons, been prepared to condone or turn a blind eye to the activities of Islamic-extremist organizers. But after July 7, I’m sure that a large proportion of previous condoners of the militant networks suddenly thought, “Oh my gosh, this business is extremely dangerous to many, many things I hold dear… What can I do to help the police to root this violence out of here?”
Note that since July 7, the British leadership has been very calm, resolute, and systematic in its pursuit of the police investigations. Tony Blair did not immediately “declare war”, or take extravagant actions to put the country on a war footing. The British police did not launch any campaigns of mass arrests of Muslims. Blair’s public stance was notably not anti-Muslim.
(Actually, in some regards, Bush’s reactions immediately after 9/11 were similarly wise and measured… With these two huge exceptions: After 9/11 some 700 suspects, mainly Muslims, were hauled off the streets of various US cities and put into fairly abusive and lengthy detention situations of very dubious legality; and then, within just a couple of weeks of 9/11, Bush started to get into the rhetoric– and associated militaristic actions– of the Global “War” on Terrorism.)
So anyway, this evening I want to say hats off to the British and their focus on massive and (with that one notable mistake) successful police work. And hats off to their ability to build new relations of apparently greater trust and mutual respect with people who formerly– and for various reasons, not all of them crazy– might have turned the condoner’s blind eye to the activities of the men of violence in their midst.
Calm, de-escalation, building relationships, and sticking to decent values of respect for everyone’s human rights… That, it seems to me, is the best way to contain and then end the scourge of terrorism. Globally, as well as within nations.
And no, it needn’t take decades to do this. Not if we start out, from the get-go, with a solid, values-based approach.
30 thoughts on “Police work making a difference in London”
Comments are closed.
The arrest of the four alleged bombers raises an interesting question. Given that they were all allegedly suicide bombers, why did none of them commit suicide when they were located by the police?
From accounts on local television, one of those arrested was very concerned that if he did surrender to the police, he would be shot in the process. Eventually, he did surrender after the police had reassured him while insisting that he should come in his underpants and with his hands open. What is going on here?
One of the alleged bombers who was arrested in Birmingham was disabled with a Taser. Sir Ian Blair (Metropolitan Police Commisioner) complained that this was inappropriate and that the West Midlands Police (who cover Birminham)should have used lethal force. The West Midlands Police basically told Sir Ian to piss off and mind his own business. In the UK, the regional police forces have always be less gung ho and arrogant than the Metropolitan Police. I think Sir Ian was not happy that a major failure by his force (the death of the Brazilian) should be shown up by the Birmingham plods.
“…why did none of them commit suicide when they were located by the police?”
For one thing, this was the “B” team. For another thing, the purpose of suicide bombing is not to commit suicide, or to avoid being taken alive. It is to attack the bomber’s perceived enemy with maximum effectiveness that can only be achieved through self sacrifice. I’m not condoning or glorifying, just trying to answer your question.
I was just looking over your Just World News blog and I felt a little balance is in order here. I was particularly dismayed by your infatuation with legitimatizing groups like Hizbullah in a democratic process and government. While you may be right that the U.S. and other governments may eventually have to accept organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah as legitimate political parties, they should not be accepted as such until they formally and publicly renounce terrorism and violence as political tools, and demonstrate that they mean it. There is simply no place in the democratic process for political parties that embrace violence and suicide to further their causes. Do you not see that cooperating with known terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas only legitimizes terrorism as an effective tool for a group to get what it wants out of someone else? I thought you Quakers were supposed to be anti-violence and war.
Something else you do not consider in your discussion of why the US should embrace Islamist parties is the reality of what these parties often become when elected. Look at Iran
Good, now take a deep breath!
Can I just ask, after the first few comments to Helena’s articles, my Comments section just goes blank – you scroll down endlessly but find nothing, not even the entry field. Is anyone else experiencing this, or is it just me.
I am neither an Islamist nor a terrorist.
John,
No, right now things work well for me. But Gary’s comment is repeated three times (which indicates that the server may be slow).
I write now, because sometimes all I get is a blank error page. Sometimes there is an error diagnostic telling to come back later because the server is too busy. Sometimes it’s just an error.
Well, just a sidebar comment on Helena
I just deleted two iterations of Gary’s comments. Gary, thanks for expressing yourself, but in future could you read the guidelines for commenters, stick to the topic of the main post, and keep your comments shorter.
Please note that I have never advocated that the US or anyone else “embrace” militant Islamist parties, merely that we should be open to talking to them. That is not a trivial difference.
Also, I’m against the use of violence by all parties, the strong as well as the weak. When we see which kind of a power has the greatest ability to kill, maim, and inflict other forms of longterm human suffering it is evident that it is the powers with the big armies, lethal stand-off weapons, advanced power projection platforms, etc. (Look at the comparitive casualty tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.)
That is why I say that people in secure, relatively democratic countries should work to resolve all our differences with other groups of people (and among ourselves) through reasoned, mutually respectful, nonviolent deliberation which quite eschews the application of physical or administrative violence…
More on this in upcoming posts, no doubt.
All readers and commenters: I’m sorry the server is so slow and sometimes a little balky these days. My technical adviser (and son) is returning from vacation soon and I hope he can get the service here back in good shape soon after that…
Thanks for your pateience.
“you may be right that the U.S. and other governments may eventually have to accept organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah as legitimate political parties, they should not be accepted as such until they formally and publicly renounce terrorism and violence as political tools, and demonstrate that they mean it.”
If the U.S., Israel, the U.K. (and other governments) would formally and publicly renounce violence as a political tool and demonstrate that they mean it that would eliminate nearly all of the impetus toward the use of terrorism and violence by organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Shirin – Our violence is for GOOD. Their violence is for BAD. What don’t you understand?*
*irony alert
John C.,
Please forgive me. It seems my primitive Middle Eastern mind is incapable of grasping advanced western concepts.
@ blowback
I imagine the British police were worried that the bombers would attempt to do what the Madrid bombers did – blow themselves up when the police came.
It was the Iraq War!
The bomber captured in Italy has be making some extraordinary statements to his Italian interrogators according to the UK Independent newpaper.
‘A suspected member of the 21 July bomb cell has told investigators he was motivated by the Iraq war, not religion.’
……
‘The suspected would-be bomber is reported to have denied links to the cell that killed 52 people two weeks earlier. But that outrage acted as a “signal” for the second gang to launch its own attack.’
……
‘According to another report, from the Ansa Italian news agency, Hussain said: “We had to do something. We had to react to the climate of hatred and hostility that was created after the 7 July bombs. We were not supposed to kill anyone. That bomb would not have been able to cause victims.”‘
Like I said, I know nothing I say is going to change your minds and wake you up to reality. But still I try…
To Shirin: I don’t believe I once said you or any other Middle Easterner was “primitive.” Sounds like you have a personal problem. I will say that if you are willing to defend a government like the Taliban or Saddam’s in Iraq, you must have some sort of mental issue.
And to your comment that the U.S., Israel, and the U.K. formally and publicly renounce violence as a political tool, the fact is the U.S. military wouldn’t be in Afghanistan right now if it weren’t for Osama bin Laden. There’s no getting around that, no matter how hard you twist logic. The U.S. military is first and foremost a defensive tool, and I disagreed with Bush when he used it to invade Iraq (frankly, we should have dispatched Saddam in the first war to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi military). But for bin Laden’s al Qaida and other groups like them, terrorism is their first and often only choice. I never heard of al Qaida asking to negotiate or initiate talks with the U.S., or England, or Spain, or Turkey before dispatching suicide bombers to murder the civilians of these countries.
And finally, the U.S. military does not intentionally target civilians, as the Jihadists do. When using force the intentions behind that force do matter, Shirin. In the case of Iraq, the intention was to start a domino effect of democratic reform in the Middle East (and I doubt you will argue it does not need such reform), but it was bad policy and it won’t work.
And for John:
You say,
And finally Helena: Well, we just differ here and cannot do much about that. To my mind, when it comes to the Islamist parties, if you want to “talk with them” then you want to include them in a democratic process. Thus you embrace them. To me there is no difference between talking with them and embracing them. I doubt they would make such a distinction with Israel or the U.S. too.
And Helena, if the U.S. is so awful and oppresive and imperialist, why do you continue to live here and benefit from all that awful oppression and imperialism? Why don’t you just move to Lebanon and open a dialogue with Hamas yourself?
I’m done with ya. Peace out, ya’ll!
Gary,
Perhaps you should read more carefylly and think more carefully about what you have read before mindlessly firing off the standard ad hominems. It should be obvious that I was responding to John C.’s remarks to me, not to anything you said.
On the other topic, if you are as unaware as you appear to be of the U.S. and other government’s habits of using violence as a political (and economic) tool then you are not paying attention. The United States is overwhemingly the primary perpetrator of political violence and has been for many decades. In fact, it is difficult to think of a single instance of the U.S.’s use of violence since WW II that had anything at all to do with defence and was not in fact undertaken for political/economic reasons.
“the U.S. military does not intentionally target civilians”
Rubish. When you drop two one ton bombs on a building surrounded by family homes, destroying homes and businesses, and killing tens of men, women babies, children, and elderly, you are targetting civilians just as surely as when you detonate a car bomb in a crowded market. When you lay siege to a city filled with hundreds of thousands of people, cutting off water, electricity, food, access to medical care, and massively bombing a good portion of the city and its infrastructure to rubble, and killing hundreds or thousands, you are targetting civilians as surely as if you detonated a car bomb. Actions are what speak, Gary, actions.
And in any case the overwhelming majority of the attacks by so-called “insurgents” in Iraq do not target civilians.
Shirin, what specific incident are you referring to in your first sentence? What was the reason why those bombs were dropped? Are you asserting that the reason was just to kill civilians? As for Fallujah insurgents were using that city as a base. It’s absurd to berate the U.S. forces for engaging them there.
There have been several instances of U.S. military actions where the military can be shown as showing willful disregard of the lives of civilians caught in the crossfire. This incompetant strategy should be denounced. But “intentional” means that there was an intent to kill civilians, and that word does not apply to your examples.
Gary wrote :
“The U.S. military is first and foremost a defensive tool”
???????? what are you doing then in all these bases all around the world ? More than half your soldiers are outside of the US and many are waging wars against people who weren’t threatening the US. Terrorism is no excuse. It has to be fighted by intelligence and police. I can’t understand how people can pretend things are exactly the opposite they are in reality.
(PS : I live in Switzerland where we have a defensive army. But they aren’t scattered all around the world. They stay inside of our borders; from what I know, there are no other way to maintain a defensive army).
Gary said :
“it is in fact a GOOD thing that the U.S., Israel, and Europe have superior conventional military forces over these ideologs of Jihad …”
Please, don’t add Europe to the side of US and Israel, as if all countries in Europe were supporting the aggressive behaviour of US and Israel. They aren’t. France and Germany who are the “leading couple” in the EU didn’t side with the US. And when conservative governments sided with you, the majority of their population didn’t. So don’t make as if all the western world were suppporting the imperialist attitude of the US.
Christiane, “didn’t side” regarding Iraq, but France and Germany has sided elsewhere. And I assume you don’t really think Europe is on the side of the Jihadists…
Gary – I don’t understand what point you are trying to make in your post addressed to me above. You seem to basically agree with what I said about the reason for using suicide bombers (“more terrifying, more destructive”). It seems rather obvious that suicide bombing involves self-sacrifice. Are you disputing that?
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING ATTEMPT AT POSTING A COMMENT IS DONE BY SOMEONE FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE ‘SHIRIN’… WHY BOTHER? I DON’T KNOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT I’VE JUST BANNEED THIS I.P. ADDRESS. ~HC
Actually, I have to fess up. Of course I don’t have a primitive Middle Eastern mind because I’m not middle eastern. And my name is not “Shirin,” it’s “Sherry.” I’m a middle aged white woman from California who, a lot like Helena, married a middle eastern man, lived in the middle east briefly (in my case, Iraq) and then after my brief oriental fantasy, divorced and moved back West. My husband was a member of the Baath party, and I was really proud of that…
In reading the British press a question still lingers: were the July 17 bombers attempting a suicide bombing? Were they wearing the rucksacks when the denotators went off? Does anybody know?
I read that one of them has acid burns, but you expect more burns from wearing detonators. This is crucial to gauge if they were trying to kill scores of people or not, and why they did not kill themselves after the mission.
In the only other precedent, one of the Britons whose belt failed to explode in Tel Aviv’s Mike Cafe, run 100 meters to the beach and committed suicide by drowning.
I do not see the big contrast between the 9/11 US reaction and the UK. The US had the names of the hijackers as fast as the UK had theirs, they traced their training to Florida, Bush went out of his way to exonerate Islam from collective responsibility, and even facilitated the quick repatriation of hundreds of Saudis that self incriminated their country by requesting to leave ASAP before any finding were pubvlished.
Blair was crisp clear in denying a link to Iraq, and asserting the role of the evil ideology as the driving factor.
Quest
If Leeds were in Iraq rather than in Britain, then fighter bombers would have dropped bombs on terrorist “meeting places” and “safe houses” reducing them to rubble and eliminating many terrorist “masterminds”.
If Leeds were in occupied Palestine, then fighter bombers or helicopter gunships would have dropped bombs on terrorist “safe houses” and “bomb making factories” and fired missiles into moving cars eliminating many terrorist “masterminds”. Bulldozers, supported by tanks and helicopters, would then move into the suburbs of Leeds and demolish the houses of the bombers’ parents, an act of collective punishment designed to deter future terrorists.
Which begs the question, if you know where the terrorist meeting places, safe houses and bomb making factories are, why not surround them, evacuate the surrounding areas, arrest (or kill if they fight back) those inside, charge them and interrogate them?
The only way to combat terrorism is through law enforcement. The citizens of Leeds should be grateful they are not in the Middle East.
Very well put, John M. Thanks!
If Iraq was in England the population would help the police identify the terrorists as the first step in law enforcement.
An Iraq populated by Britons would combine their generous natural resources with the diligency and hard work of their people into an impressive level of GDP, and prosperity.
But sadly it is not.
Quest
Blair may have reacted in a measured way in the sense of knowing that police work was a more useful response to terrorism than bombing someone for revenge. BUT
A cursory follow up through Skynews tells me that there is no such distinction as Helena suggest in the British response. First, the police is stretched to the point that common crime is unattended, Second the commissioner just said that the police expenses are unsustainable, Third there is no evidence that the massive police deployment does help in preventing a third attack beyond the psychological factor, Fourth tube ridership is 30% down that is including a huge number of people that have no choice but to take the risk, Fifth the religious attacks are up 600% in England since the attacks.
So what is exactly the difference that this Police work is making? That four thankless African British products of the refugee and mosque system were caught through sloppy use of cell phones? Biiigggg Deal.
Quest
Very nice blog. It is very helpful. http://www.bignews.com