Slashdot Mirror
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."
You would have thought that after the whole threat was rubbished by just about anybody with any basic knowledge of classroom chemistry, the home office and BAA would have downgraded the threat. I must say though, I flew from Gatwick 1 week after the plot was 'uncovered' and it didn't really affect me in the slightest. The queues were orderly and moved at quite a good pace, but the security staff didn't have a clue what they were doing. One woman performing searches on people let several people through with cigarette lighters and cigarettes, both clearly not allowed through the checkpoints. Shambles.
They probably had strike anywhere matches in mind when they did that. Of course, those are almost impossible to find anymore. I really miss them too. Literally fun on a stick.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
There were other arrests made here, so let's review:
- Suspects carrying potential ingredients for creating explosives
- Raul is one of many (one potential ingredient)
- was not carrying a bomb per-se
- Raul is however suspect in other outstanding cases
Raul was found not guilty on terrorist charges which (IANAL) are inconclusive as he was tried seperate from the `other ingredients` in this particular event. Would Raul have been able to assemble a bomb if he had the possessions of each of the other suspects (known suspects or not) on that particular flight? Pakistan should have allowed the suspect to be extradited to the UK for trial both for the 2002 murder case and in conjunction with the other suspects arrested in the plane threat to be taken in as a whole and not one part.the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes.
Soda (bigger than 3 oz.) can be brought on if purchased in the gate. Baby bottles of any size are also allowed. There are other exceptions, such as any medicines with a prescription.
People accept it because there's little they can do. It's either obey or not get on the plane. The only way to potentially change the rules (that I can think of) is to have a huge letter writing or signed petition campaign go to members of congress. Things will have to get much worse before anyone could energize a large enough public campaign.
Developers: We can use your help.
I thought it was now common knowledge that the whole thing was a sham. It was to get another embarrassing item off the news at the time; our ongoing support for the bombardment of Lebanon when every other country in the world was crying out for a ceasefire. It was getting pretty embarrassing for them just as this story "broke".
UK intelligence agencies have said (off-the-record of course) that they wanted to continue observing the group and taking notes, getting contacts and so on. There was never any danger; not only did they not have any chemicals or plane tickets, most of those involved did not even have passports!! It was amateur hour and I believe that the intelligence agencies were waiting to see if they actually knew anyone relevant that they could further investigate.
It was said at the time that the push to make arrests came from the US intelligence service and that this was in spite of vocal opposition from those watching "the group". Now, from what I understand, the only reference to actually attacking planes comes from the torture of someone in Pakistan. The person in question had fled the UK on suspision of murder charges. So, what do you get when you combine an untrustworthy person with torture? Fairytales.
Further reading:
A chemists view
Opinion on those involved
More on the chemical side
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 dropped a brand new box of those strike anywhere matches on the floor once when I was a kid. It was still pretty tightly sealed so after the heads burned the wood didn't go anywhere, but it was still pretty scary.
I read the internet for the articles.
Last week I was on a short business flight within Canada.
;).
When I went through security I had to give up my ***potentially explosive*** 1L plastic bottle of Pepsi, and be hassled about wearing steel toed shoes (regulation work issued footwear).
After clearing security and getting into the holding pen..err...Lounge area, I went to a vending machine and purchased a GLASS bottle of orange juice.
Now, I'm not the stereotypical terrorist type, but yeah, I could kill a pilot or a couple stews with a broken bottle. It makes me so appreciative of the safety provided by those airline security fees I paid for, knowing they are being circumvented by the Coca-Cola delivery guy
- Requires longer than a transatlantic flight to make, and
- Will explode if shaken (e.g. by turbulence) at several stages, although the explosion will only be big enough to kill the person mixing it.
Even discounting the fact that most flight attendants would probably be suspicious of someone spending eight hours in the toilet, it doesn't seem entirely feasible.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I follow British-American news. Under normal circumstances, it's illegal for the British media to report on stings-in-progress. Left to themselves, most of the British police would've continued to infiltrate terrorist groups (real or otherwise), gather evidence, arrest suspects and so on, not letting the papers know until it was finished. They'd just let this be another of the umpteen plots the UK gov. claims to be working on but won't discuss.
There was one publicity-seeking cop. He leaked this to an American paper. Since this was obviously of interest to Americans (it was a London-to-NY flight), the American press ran the story. It was over a day between when the American press broke the story and when the British press admitted it.
Yes, someone was going after PR. But we don't know that this leak was the UK government's idea. I personally doubt it: the UK government proudly claims to have foiled hundreds of plots that they refuse to detail, inc. one that they say happened before 9/11. This could've been just one more, and it would've worked for them--just not for America.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney