Liquid Terror Charges Dropped

A Pakistani judge has decided to drop terrorism charges against the man described as a "key figure" in the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London using liquid explosives. Instead of facing charges of terrorism for the plot, which forced many travelers to follow strict guidelines with respect to liquids, Rashid Raud now faces charges such as forgery. From the article: "Several commentators said the threat was deliberately exaggerated to bolster the anti-terror credentials of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and that it helped to demonise British Muslims of Pakistani origin. The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK said the dropping of charges against Mr Rauf in Pakistan would "make no difference" to the case against the men charged in Britain."

Comments

This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane. Google for it, you'll be amazed how vaccuus the allegation from London police is.

Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.

I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[DBett]

Don't confuse people with facts. Let them continue to assume the only risk is from the government(s). That makes them feel better - since at some level they know that the government isn't really 1984 come to life.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Dutch Gun]

I'm sorry you feel inconvenienced with some additional rules regarding liquids when flying. But 1984? Did you and I see the same movie? Ah, I see... "it's just the first step", right?

Here's my explanation for the ban on liquids: the government is just covering it's arse. These guys (the ones making the decisions) are politicians and beauracrats, not scientists or engineers. Yes, it may be stupid and overreactionary. But I don't subscribe some sinister motive to these actions either. In my estimation, this type of rule is meant to make people feel safer, not the opposite ("well, I can't bring liquids on the plane but neither can the terrorists"). And, the government's typical reaction is to, at the very least, "do something", even when there's very little that can practically be done.

It's rather odd to see such outrage over some minor inconveniences, especially after so many honest-to-God actual attacks have occured (I don't call potential terrorist attacks a 'fantasy'). But I've found that some people seem to take great delight in being perpetually outraged, so perhaps I shouldn't discourage their fun.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[guruevi]

a totalitarian state that disappears its own citizens into brutal torture chambers at the merest suspicion of dissident thoughts ==> Check (Gitmo, American & Brittish concentration camps)
apparently launches missiles at its own cities to keep its citizens in check ==> Check (9/11, Cold War)
and is trying to brainwash its entire population into being literally incapable of understanding the very concept of freedom ==> Check (your very comment)

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[CodeBuster]

The practicality of the creation of such a device is irrelevant to the charges at hand. The demonstration of means, even though such means may prove to be flawed, motive and opportunity to commit a terrorist act combined with the creation of martyrdom videos and possession of other terrorism manuals and associated materials is enough by itself to merit charges and, judging from the evidence collected thus far, conviction of conspiracy to commit mass murder.

It is right for us, the civilized members of society, to send a message that this sort of behavior will NOT be tolerated after 9/11 and 7/7. It should be made clear to these terrorists that we will lock them up in supermax for the remainder of their natural lives or hang them for treason when we catch them. The terrorists are the common enemies of all humanity and they should be treated as such.

This does not mean that we give up our freedoms, but rather that we deal with terrorists harshly when we catch them. It is legally no different than the special distinction that is made between ordinary crimes and hate crimes where the penalties are increased due to the ulterior motivations and heinous nature of the offenses.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Das Modell]

Why do people deny reality to prop up their own fantasies? Terrorist strikes are an undeniable fact of life. They occur all the time, and plots and potential plots are discovered constantly.

Remember: Be affraid!

[Scrameustache]

It's not physically possible to do the "mix household liquids" terrorist plot in a plane. It takes hours, releases a lot of fumes, and requires control over the temperature. The officials know this.

The "safety" measures were a show.
They had nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with keeping people affraid.

Re:Remember: Be affraid!

[glesga_kiss]

In any case, if boxcutters can crash 4 planes simultaneously i'm sure you don't need something as complicated as a binary liquid explosive.

If anything like that ever happens again, it won't be for a very long time. People know what happened on 9/11. You are not going to do so well with a melee weapon against a whole airliner worth of people who know they are fighting for their lives.

"Safe"

[DBett]

Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane.

Not sure if 'safety' would be a top priority.

Re:"Safe"

[Volante3192]

It has to be safe up to the point of detonation otherwise if it kills you off from, say, fumes, or is too unstable to even carry on the plane if you could sneak it on before you can blast a hole in the fuselage, what's the point in trying?

Re:"Safe"

[Jherek Carnelian]

Ummm... these are suicide bombers we're talking about. I wouldn't exactly use the word rational to describe these people.

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots.
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.

Re:"Safe"

[KORfan]

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots. When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.
When our guys die, they're wearing uniforms and following (usually, and hopefully) an international code of agreed-upon behavior concerning how soldiers act.
When their guys die, they're dressed as civilians, targeting civilians.

If their guys are attacking an occupying force, they aren't terrorists.

Re:"Safe"

[cold fjord]

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots.
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.

I would say that is pretty much correct, but you left out some things....

When our guys win, we cheer.
When their guys win, they cheer.

When our guys abuse prisoners, we boo and they go to jail.
When their guys cut off heads, or use electric drills to torture prisoners before execution, they cheer, brag, and put a video on the internet.

If our guys keep winning, we get to live in liberal democracies.
If their guys win, you, or someone who will be related to you, will end up living in a Muslim super state, the Caliphate, that unifies church and state, living under a harsh form of Sharia. The Taliban's interpretation might be a taste of it, given that Al Qaeda hung out with them:

Life under Taliban cuts two ways Consider the following list of edicts issued by Taliban religious scholars in Kabul in December 1996:

"To prevent music.... In shops, hotels, vehicles, and rickshaws, cassettes and music are prohibited."

"To prevent beard shaving and its cutting. After one and a half months, if anyone [is] observed who has shaved and or cut his beard, they should be arrested and imprisoned until their beard is bushy."

"To prevent kite-flying."

"To prevent idolatry. In vehicles, shops, hotels, rooms, and any other place, pictures [and] portraits should be abolished."

"To prevent washing cloth by young ladies along the water streams in the city. Violator ladies should be picked up with respectful Islamic manner, taken to their houses, and their husbands severely punished."

The struggle over sharia Is sharia harsh?
Followed literally, it can be medieval. Sharia divides all human actions into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Among the reprehensible and forbidden acts are drinking alcohol, eating pork, theft, slander, highway robbery, murder, adultery, and losing one's faith. Traditional punishments include whipping and the amputation of limbs. For the most severe crimes, the penalty can be decapitation, crucifixion, or death by stoning. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia governs civil society, these harsh penalties are still meted out. Women are shrouded and segregated from men; suggestive Western photographs censored; and criminals punished harshly. In the capital city of Riyadh, beheadings are carried out on a brick-and-marble plaza that some have dubbed "Chop-Chop Square."

And more about Sharia here and here.

Some of us are slaves to fashion.
They want to make us slaves to them, or at the very least, dhimmis.

Our guys and their guys have very different ideas about what to love.

Dealing in Death

Another chapter from early Islamic history -- serving as a lesson for today's Muslims at war against the West -- is the concept of the love of death. This originated at the Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the commander of the Muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander, Khosru. The message stated: "You [Khosru and his people] should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." This account is recited in today's Muslim sermon

Political Knee-Jerk

[twifosp]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but to ignore the political knee-jerk reaction that occurred when these events happened is just ignorant. I seriously doubt the plot was engineered by political entities using fear in an attempt to sway public opinion. Having said that, I also have very little doubt this entire scenario was a knee-jerk reaction from political pressure to law enforcement agencies (both British and American) to find a real plot in the making, ANY plot no matter how far-fetched or improbable to acctually happen, and blow it way out of proportion. This allowed them convince the public that we are always on the verge of a major terrorist attack and we need to give the government more powers in order to protect us.

The fact that the courts are not finding enough evidence to convict only support this theory. Combine that with timing of the event, and the new scare policies implemented in Airports, along with the speeches made by certain political parties (i.e. better not vote for our opponents or next time this would have killed your newborn child, puppy dog, and a baby seal) and you have yourself what appears to be a bonified piece of engineered political propaganda.

Interesting, are the times we live; the methods used to influence public opinion, and therefore events and public control, are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil. We never really learn do we?

Read the FAQ (RTFF)

[Flying pig]

Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

Some people would say that the biggest problem the US faces is that so many of its citizens are so US-centric. It's hard to be the world's policeman and leading superpower when the people who vote aren't interested. When it was the United Kingdom that had the job, it had a large pool of (frequently multilingual) sailors to draw on, and an upper class that learned Latin, Greek and French as a core part of the curriculum to prepare them for languages like Arabic later on.

Nowadays all politics are global. Pakistan is in America's back yard, Britain is a puppet state. Stories like this on Slashdot just reflect reality, not how some anonymous coward from Outer Fencepost, Wyoming would like things to be.

Spectacle vs Results

[why-is-it]

This was a non-story and I am amazed that the sham has held so long. I'd make a point of arguing the banality of it when passing through an airport, but it's just not worth the cavity search. I guess I should just be a nice, compliant citizen and be afraid and keep my mouth shut.

I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.

Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[nido]

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work.

But what if good police work turned up inconvenient facts? Such as, for example, there being no substantial threat from arab/muslim "terrorists", as the fabricated liquid bomb plot seems to substantiate? Or the likelihood of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

Theater is essential to the War Of Terror, because without it the need for perpetual war evaporates.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[Jherek Carnelian]

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.

You presume that there are any results to get.

Given the really low rate of actual attacks over the last 10-20 years, it seems like there are probably less than 10 potential plots of any significance, maybe even less than 5, "out there."

Presumably the people in these government entities like receiving regular paychecks. So it would come as no surprise that if the threat was overblown they would take up the slack with their own exaggerations.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[theLOUDroom]

Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group

Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?

Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?

So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!

I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[cold fjord]

Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?

Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?

Why you clever fellow, that is an interesting solution: just manufacture it all with torture. There is a minor problem in that real torture isn't legal. It also has the disadvantage of getting you absolutely no useful information about real terrorists if you are just picking innocent victims to torture to confession, doesn't it? That could be a problem if there really are terrorists in the world, because they will be making plots, blowing up things, and getting away while you are working over some poor innocent bastard you picked up off the street. If there really is a terrorist problem in the world, you are doing worse than nothing about it.

So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!

Well, until the voters figure out you are a bunch of knobs and put the other party in power. Democracies tend to be rather practical in that way. And when the other party comes into power, your problems are just beginning. If you've been wasting the governments efforts on torturing the innocent, instead of performing real counterterrorist investigations, the terrorists will be likely be worse off as well. See how long you are out of power then.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.

Then what the hell did you write this crap for? "Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?"

How about this for an answer: Because there are real terrorists and screwing around is only going to get people killed!

Well, don't worry your pretty head too much. If we don't win, there are some folks, our would be overlords, so to speak, who will straighten out society. We may not care for it so much, but at least the rules will be clear. Torture will definitely be in the new OK list, along with beheading, stoning, amputations, crucifixion, whipping, and all of that. The underpinnings of it, Sharia, is already getting some traction in Britain: Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes. We'll have to see how the whole Londonisan thing works out.

By the way, for your edification, here are a few incidents from the last couple of weeks from all over the world where the good guys won in some fashion (I know some of you are snickering) (Note that I didn't list the ones in which the bad guys won.). What do you think this means for the question of the existence of terrorists?

11 suspected Islamic radicals arrested in Spanish African enclave
Spain arrests Chechen rebel suspect wanted in Russia
Turkey Arrests Suspected Regional Al Qaeda Leader
Turkey arrests 10 with suspected links to al-Qaeda
Pakistan arrests 47 suspected Taliban
13 foreign nationals

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[TommydCat]

Perhaps to travel with my documents secure (and not searched) and unfettered travel between states? There must be a reason this was spelled out by our forefathers...

Re:Awesome

[jazman_777]

Sorry folks, Stalag 17 is a terrorist movie, because it shows you how to make a time bomb. Still works, too.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[TheRaven64]

The IRA received most of their funding from the USA, and the 'Real IRA' probably still has weapons left over from that. The big benefit of the WTC attacks from a British perspective was that the USA suddenly decided that funding terrorists wasn't cool anymore.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[rleibman]

The Right to privacy, as well as the right to carry liquids in containers above 1oz on an airplane are clearly stated in the constitution, right next to the right to walk on your hands (it's actually the right to *pursuit* walking on your hands) and the right to wear green pants on Easter Sunday:

U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment. Quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment. Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Leading superpower? Not if we keep this up.

[CleverNickName]

Some people would say that the biggest problem the US faces is that so many of its citizens are so US-centric. It's hard to be the world's policeman and leading superpower when the people who vote aren't interested.

It's also hard to be a leading superpower when our leadership is so incompetent, the rest of the world doesn't respect us. Right now, the only reason anyone listens to us is because we have bigger guns and lots of consumers to buy crap, and that's embarrassing. I'd rather be respected than feared.