(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

More fuel for the fire for those of us suspicious of the war on terrorism...

An alleged Australian terrorist has had his conviction quashed because of how his confession was extracted. According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantánamo. The twist in the case is that, in other circumstances, he has pretty much admitted the crimes of which he was accused. A retrial may return him to prison; if it doesn't, then an apparently guilty man will walk free because his interrogation was against the law. What could be more counterproductive?

flyingsauce links to commentaries which cast doubt on the alleged liquid explosives plot. If it's true that liquid explosives would be extremely unlikely to succeed as bombs, then of course the alleged plot could still be for real, and horrific - but not the "unimaginable" threat we were told about.

Comments

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

massive media and public attention on why the security services and the government were negligent, incompetent, or even complicit

del_c counters this point effectively, IMO.

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

My view is Australian-based (since that's where I live), but...

Australian intelligence agencies had numerous reports about imminent terrorist operations but misread the signs and failed to predict the 2002 Bali attacks..."

Inquiry finds intelligence failure over Bali

Intelligence agencies and authorities received even more warnings than first thought before the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, it has emerged.

Negative media attention is hard to miss when you're the subject of it.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

As I've said, it's understandable that the police and intelligence agencies, knowing that they'd missed warnings of previious atrocities, would be keen to follow up even the flimsiest leads. However, the Australian government hasn't been damaged by the threat of terrorism; if anything, it's thriven on it.

[irritant01.livejournal.com]

I think you need to draw a clear division between the security services and the governments they work for. Yes, governments seem to gain from intelligence failures, but the security services really are sledged in the media when they miss things.

Certainly there was a lot of negative press against the CIA and the FBI following 9/11. Likewise ASIO and the ONA copped flak after the Bali bombings.

An article from the New Yorker on FBI and CIA interests in the 9/11 bombers prior to the attack

And it's not a surprise either - security services are (and should be) treated like any other public service organisation. If they're not doing their job properly, the people have a right to ask why, and to ask what could be done better. If it then turns out that an intelligence failure was the result of a government policy, then it's the government who should cop the blame, not the intelligence service.

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

This point I must concede.

The more self-aware individuals in the security services are a bit conflicted about this - terror is a bad business and frankly everyone would rather that robbery and hot-blooded murders were the worst thing about. Recent years have seen much $$ pumped into the security services. In that sense, it's been good for business. But I'd still rather it wasn't necessary.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Mind you, i the money's being spent on improving intelligence, then I have no problem with it - even a cursory glance at Hersh's chapter on 9/11 makes it clear that problems like shite computers and lack of translators were impeding US intelligence.