Chapter 3
British Intelligence - Her Majesty’s Terrorist Network
Shaylergate
MI5, Military Intelligence 5, looks for spies and subversives within
the UK. MI6, Military Intelligence 6, operates under Foreign Office
control and is involved in spying on ‘enemies’ of the British state
abroad.
David Shayler worked for MI5 for over six years before quitting in
1997. Amongst other departments he primarily worked for G branch,
the international terrorism desk. Shayler headed the agency’s Libyan
section for around two years. During this period he developed a good
working relationship with his opposite number in MI6. In 1995
Shayler gained access to secret MI6 documents concerning a plot to
assassinate Colonel Mu’ammar Gaddafi, the Libyan Head of State.
FIG 3.1
[CAPTION: Former MI5 agent David Shayler pictured
here with his girlfriend, Annie Machon.
Shayler was arrested for
revealing British intelligence links to international terrorist
organizations.]
Mu’ammar Gaddafi was born in the desert near Sirte in 1942. He
overthrew the Libyan monarchy in 1969 and launched a cultural
revolution to remove traces of imported ideology. He has supported a
broad range of militant groups including the IRA and the Palestine
Liberation Organization. Alleged Libyan involvement in attacks in
Europe in 1986 led to US military strikes against Tripoli. For
several decades Gaddafi tried to portray himself as leader of the
Arab world, and has now taken up the mission of uniting Africa.
A document released on the Internet by Shayler confirms MI6 had
foreknowledge of the Gadaffi assassination plot. Shayler insists he
has further information to prove MI6 paid a Libyan member of the
Al-Qaeda terrorist network at least £100,000 ($156,000) to lead a 20
man team in carrying out the operation. This agent was code named
TUNWORTH, his MI6 handler was code named PT16. In a press release
Shayler stated,
We need a statement from the Prime Minister and the
Foreign Secretary clarifying the facts of this matter. In
particular, we need to know how around £100,000 of taxpayers’ money
was used to fund the sort of Islamic Extremists who have connections
to Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network.
Did ministers give MI6
permission for this?
By the time MI6 paid the group in late 1995 or
early 1996, US investigators had already established that Bin Laden
was implicated in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Given
the timing and the close connections between Libyan and Egyptian
Islamic Extremists, it may even have been used to fund the murder of
British citizens in Luxor, Egypt in 1996.1
1 Press release by David Shayler – November 11 2001 – available at
http://cryptome.org/shayler-gaddafi.htm
The assassination attempt
was carried out in early 1996 but failed with tragic consequences.
‘TUNWORTH’ was to place a bomb under Gaddafi’s convoy. However, he
foolishly placed the bomb under the wrong car, killing six innocent
bystanders.
Despite former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook describing the
allegation as ‘fantasy,’ a 2001 Metropolitan Police investigation
sought no charges against David Shayler for perjury or wasting
police time, confirming that his detailed sworn statement was
honest, reliable and true.
How can it be that the foreign intelligence agency of the British
government was colluding with Al-Qaeda terrorists who had already
been charged with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Several of
these individuals are still at large, appearing on the FBI’s most
wanted terrorists list.
The 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy was one of the worst
terrorist bombings London has seen. A 50-pound (22 kg) car bomb
injured 13 and almost destroyed the embassy. Later that night a
second bomb injured six people at the London offices of Britain’s
main Jewish charities and pro-Israel institutions. A previously
unknown group, the Palestinian Resistance Jaffa Group, claimed
credit for the attacks. Two Palestinians were later convicted for
the attacks. The presiding judge said it was only “providence” that
more people were not seriously injured or killed.
Shayler alleges that the British intelligence service MI5 was warned
in advance of the bombing, yet it took no action, failing even to
tip off the police or the Israeli government.
The warning, a written report from a highly trusted source, was sent
for assessment to a desk officer in MI5’s international terrorism
section. After she failed to act on the report, it was later found
buried in the filing cupboard of another officer, leading to
speculation of a bungled cover up. Neither officer was disciplined
and MI5 management failed to institute procedures to prevent the
recurrence of such an incident.
Shayler would have obviously been in a position to learn of the
cover up. He also worked at G branch, the international terrorism
desk.
Responding to the revelations, Israel’s ambassador to Britain Moshe Raviv said,
“This story is completely new to me. The Embassy had
passed on to the Foreign Office general warnings based on
information from Jerusalem. These warnings had been sent to a number
of our embassies and as a consequence we had asked the Foreign
Office to step up security and vigilance at the Embassy in London.
If this information is correct, it is amazing that greater efforts
were not made to prevent the attacks.”2
Shayler also made the
allegation that MI5 had prior knowledge of numerous IRA bombings in
London, most notably the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, in which an IRA
truck bomb devastated the Bishopsgate area of London’s financial
district, killing one and injuring 44.
Shayler’s July 2000 Punch Magazine article entitled ‘MI5 could have
stopped the bomb going off’ detailed how MI5, the police
anti-terrorist branch and GCHQ - the government’s electronic
eavesdropping center, had tracked the bombers for six months before
the operation and were fully aware of the specifics of the plot
before it was carried out.
Punch was fined £5,000 for contempt of court but the charge was
later reversed on appeal. However, the back issue containing the
article cannot be sold in Britain. I personally ordered a copy but
ended up with a refund after being told that particular issue was
unavailable. The article in full is available on the Internet.3
2 Mail on Sunday – November 2 1997
3 ‘MI5 could have
stopped the bomb going off’ – David Shayler – Punch Magazine – Issue
111 July 26-August 28 –available at
http://www.bilderberg.org/sis.htm#Punch
As I
will later document, the Bishopsgate case is just one example of
MI5’s link to Irish Republican terrorism.
The Gag
Shayler’s revelations were first published in a series of reports
for the Mail on Sunday in August 1997. From this point onwards, all
articles by or about David Shayler had to be passed through a
special branch of the Ministry of Defense, whereupon the attorney
general, Lord Williams, scanned them for any details that would
breach the 1989 Official Secrets Act. The publishers were then told
whether or not they were allowed to print the report. The British
government had appointed itself as state censor. Their argument that
publishing Shayler’s information would breach national security can
be debunked by the very fact that their own intelligence agencies
are a threat to national security by way of their treasonous
behavior.
Following the Mail on Sunday expose, Shayler fled to France in an
attempt to avoid arrest. The British government were so desperate to
extradite him, Shayler even half joked that MI5 fixed the 1998 Coca
Cola Cup soccer tournament in England so that Shayler’s team,
Middlesborough, would reach the final, tempting him to return to
attend the game. Shayler resisted the urge but was subsequently
arrested by the French authorities.
Shayler was released from prison in November of 1998 and from that
point on fought a war of brinkmanship
with Tony Blair’s government, threatening to release more damaging
information while they tried to either lure him back to the country
or have the French extradite him. This exchange continued up until Shayler’s return to the UK when his trial for violating the Official
Secrets Act commenced in October 2002.
On Monday October 7th 2002, numerous articles appeared in British
newspapers specifying how top Labour cabinet members were
intimidating the judge of the Shayler case, Justice Alan Moses. MP’s
such as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Home Secretary David Blunkett were trying to force Moses to accept
Public Interest
Immunity Certificates that would make part of the case, i.e. the
£100,000 bin Laden transfer, secret. Upon mention of this material,
media and public would have to leave the courtroom.
By the evening of October 7th, the British newspaper reports had
either been
removed from their respective web sites or completely amended. The
original
London Guardian report that was later erased stated,
Ministers have demanded that part of the trial of David Shayler, the
former MI5 officer, which
starts at the Old Bailey today, be held in secret in what lawyers
say is an unprecedented attempt
to influence the course of criminal proceedings. The home secretary,
David Blunkett, and the
foreign secretary, Jack Straw, have signed public interest immunity
certificates - a device
designed to gag a court - insisting that the media and the public
leave if activities of the security
and intelligence agencies are raised by the defence
Government officials and lawyers persuaded the two cabinet ministers
to sign the PII certificates
after they learned that Mr Shayler intended to defend himself at the
trial.
They appear to be
worried that he will make further allegations about MI5 and MI6
knowledge of a plot to
assassinate the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy, in 1996. A book,
Forbidden Truth, published
this summer claims that British intelligence was in contact with
“Osama bin Laden’s main allies”
who were opposed to Colonel Gadafy.4
By the late evening of October 7th, the London Evening Standard and
the
Scotsman had also removed their original reports concerning the
trial. The
London Evening Standard were forced to censor the following,
Shayler will be defending himself during the trial. He is expected
to claim that British secret
service agents paid up to £100,000 to al Qaeda terrorists for an
assassination attempt on Libyan
leader Colonel Gadaffy in 1996. He is seeking permission to plead a
defense of “necessity” - that
he acted for the greater good by revealing wrongdoing by the
security service.5
4 ‘Ministers issue gag orders for MI5 trial’ – Richard Norton-Taylor
– London Guardian - October 7 2002 – available at
www.propagandamatrix.com/ministers_issue_gag_orders_for_mI5_trial.htm
5 ‘Calls for secret Shayler trial’ - Patrick McGowan – London
Evening Standard – October 7 2002 -
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1488303
Whereas the Scotsman, before completely changing the nature of the
article,
stated,
The renegade agent, who faces six years imprisonment for breaching
the Official Secrets Act
after making a number of sensational revelations about MI5 to a
national newspaper in 1997, will
represent himself for part of the landmark case. The trial will
centre around a number of
allegations made by Shayler about MI5 holding files on prominent
politicians, including former
cabinet minister Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary. He also claimed the
secret services ignored warnings that might have prevented bombings
in the London in 1993 and
1994.6
It became apparent that a D-Notice had been issued to gag the story.
A D-Notice is a mandate emanating from an office of the Ministry of
Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee, effectively silencing
any media report that is considered harmful to national security
implications. Luckily, I had already saved and printed these deleted
stories, which enabled me to use them as a basis for an article I
would subsequently write for my web site, entitled ‘ShaylerGate.’
After I advised my readers to mass E mail the British media, asking
them why they had deleted these stories, the London Guardian was
forced to print a small blurb in its October 8 edition which read,
An Old Bailey court yesterday heard legal arguments relating to the
trial of David Shayler, the former MI5 officer charged with breaking
the Official Secrets Act. The judge ruled that they cannot be
reported.7 So in effect, using the analogy of Russian dolls, the
British government had gagged the gag.
They had ensured parts of the Shayler trial remain secret and at the same time, prevented the
mainstream British press from reporting on the very debate of
whether that was in the public interest. An Australian newspaper
later confirmed this, The British media have been gagged from
reporting sensational courtroom evidence of former MI5 spy David Shayler, including his alleged proof that the British secret service
paid $270,000 for al Qaeda terrorists to assassinate Libyan leader
Muammar Gaddafi in 1996. In its efforts to contain Mr Shayler’s
allegations to the privacy of the court, the government has even
stopped the media from reporting its successful attempt to win a gag
order.
The British media widely reported on Monday that lawyers acting for
Mr Shayler had accused the government of trying to “intimidate”
Justice Moses. But on Tuesday the newspapers - many of which had
mounted their own legal case against the application of the
certificates - reported simply that the court had heard legal
arguments relating to Mr Shayler’s trial.
“The judge ruled that they
(the legal arguments) cannot be reported,” The Guardian reported.
Although Mr Shayler’s jury trial is expected to begin next week in
the Old Bailey, any evidence
relating to sensitive security or intelligence matters will be kept
private. After the judge’s ruling on Monday, several articles detailing Mr Shayler’s anticipated evidence
- and the government's efforts to keep it secret - were withdrawn from newspaper websites
across the country.8
Note that according to The Age, the Al-Qaeda payoff was even
greater, standing
at £170,000.
6 ‘Renegade MI5 agent ready to face jury’ – Karen McVeigh – The
Scotsman – October 7 2002 – available at
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/renegade_mi5_agent_to_face_jury.htm
7 ‘Shayler Hearing’ – Richard Norton-Taylor – London Guardian –
October 8 2002 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,806640,00.html
8 ‘Media gag on alleged plot to kill Gaddafi’ – Paul Daley – The Age
– October 10 2002 -
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061258269.html
Why bury the story?
It is common knowledge amongst journalists that MI5 has a very
close relationship with London’s Fleet Street hacks. The Security
Service has at least two agents working in every major newspaper
office. MI5 frequently issue their officers with false National
Union Of Journalist cards denoting them as reporters, standard cover
for clandestine stage management of the media.
The argument that the story was gagged because it contravened the
Official Secrets Act and was a threat to national security does not
hold sway. Recall, this was the same Labour government that before
it came to power argued vigorously to amend the Official Secrets Act
to protect whistleblowers.
The story was gagged because at that time its implications would
severely undermine both the validity of the war on terrorism and the
rhetoric behind the impending invasion of Iraq.
Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary who issued one of the
PII
gag certificates, was involved in soliciting illegal weapons
transfers to numerous countries, deals that directly contravene
international protocol. As I document elsewhere in this book,
Britain has been caught shipping arms to India, Pakistan, Israel and
Iran – directly fomenting instability in those regions.
In addition, Shayler insists he has more revelations concerning the
British tool company Matrix Churchill and the arms to Iraq scandal,
which originally broke under the former Tory government. Again, this
is covered in detail elsewhere in this book.
I have no doubt, and the man himself has publicly stated so, that
Shayler has even more damaging information concerning British
intelligence collusion with the very organizations we are told are
our supposed enemies. A £100,000+ Al-Qaeda payoff, after they had
bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, may only be scratching the
surface.
The paranoid and authoritarian reaction of the British government in
censoring both the Gadaffi plot and David Shayler’s trial begs the
question - what else do they have to hide?
Protecting bin Laden’s Lieutenants
In September of 2002, one year after the attacks on New York and
Washington, French intelligence officials angrily accused MI5 of
failing to cooperate in stifling Islamic terrorist groups. The level
of assistance received from British intelligence was described as
being “worse than before” September 11th.
The French specifically referred to the case of Abu Qatada, a
43-year-old militant Muslim cleric born in Jordan. Qatada is
described by many as the leader and mastermind of Al-Qaeda’s
European network. Videos of Mr Qatada’s speeches were found in the
Hamburg flat of Mohamed Atta, who is believed to have been the
leader of the September 11 hijackers.9 Qatada has links with terror
suspects in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Britain and Spain.
Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish National High Court judge charged with
leading Spain’s Al-Qaeda crackdown, named Qatada as the “spiritual
head of the mujahideen in Britain.”10 I n 1993 Qatada was sentenced
to life imprisonment, in his absence, by a court in Jordan for his
involvement in a terrorist bombing campaign. He escaped jail by
fleeing to West London and bought a house in Acton. Claiming
political refugee status, he avoided extradition.
After September 11th, Qatada was identified as a ‘specially
designated global terrorist’ by a US executive order.11 He was also
categorized by the British Treasury as ‘believed to have committed,
or pose, a significant risk of committing or providing material
support for acts of terrorism.’12 Qatada disappeared from his London
home in December 2001, just before the implementation of new
antiterrorism legislation would have finally paved the way for him
to be deported.
In the summer of 2002 a sensational Time Magazine report revealed
where
exactly Qatada had gone,
Senior European intelligence officials tell TIME that Abu Qatada is
tucked away in a safe house in
the north of England, where he and his family are being lodged, fed
and clothed by British
intelligence services. “The deal is that Abu Qatada is deprived of
contact with extremists in
London and Europe but can’t be arrested or expelled because no one
officially knows where he
is,” says the source, whose claims were corroborated by French
authorities.
“The British win
because the last thing they want is a hot potato they can’t
extradite for fear of al-Qaeda reprisals but whose presence contradicts London’s support of the war on
terror.13
Despite official denial French anti-terrorist officers stated on the
record that they
were certain MI5 were protecting Qatada, and in addition believed
they had
actually colluded in his disappearance. A senior French intelligence
agent stated,
“British intelligence is saying they have no idea where he is but we
know where
he is and, if we know, I’m quite sure they do.”14
9 ‘Al-Qaida suspect hidden by UK agents’ – Vikram Dodd – London
Guardian – July 8 2002 -http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,751102,00.html
10 ‘Britain sheltering al-Qaeda leader’ – BBC – July 8 2002 -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm
11 ‘West London Terror Suspect’ – BBC Radio Four – October 19 2001 -http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/qatada.shtml
12 ‘Terrorist Financing: List of Suspects’ – British Treasury, Bank
of England – October 12 2001 -http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/sanctions/sanctionsconlistoct01a.pdf
13 ‘Sheltering a Puppet Master’ – Helen Gibson - Time Magazine –
July 7 2002 -http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,300609,00.html
14 ‘French accuse MI5 of failing to help terror hunt’ - Kim Willsher
and David Bamber – London Telegraph – September
15 2002 –http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/15/nspies15.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/09/15/ixhome.html
FIG 3.2
[CAPTION: Abu Qatada – the Al-Qaeda leader given
protection by MI5.]
Why on earth were MI5 protecting Osama bin Laden’s European ambassador while at the same time claiming
ignorance of his whereabouts? If they wanted to interrogate him in
secret then why did they wait three months after 9/11 before coming
into contact with him? The leaders of the ‘war on terrorism’ seem to
treat high-level Al-Qaeda members with reverence, even recruiting
them as agents. Why wasn’t Qatada sent to be held in U.S. military
custody at Guantanamo Bay? He is a known Al-Qaeda terrorist,
expresses support to Osama bin Laden’s ideals and is named, in
British government documents, as highly likely to be involved in
future acts of terrorism.
Qatada wasn’t transferred to Guantanamo because he actually was a
terrorist, unlike the other ‘residents’ of the naval brig. A
Guantanamo official, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, stated, “some
of these guys literally don’t know the world is round.”15 The same
report detailed how U.S. authorities had yet to identify any senior
Al Qaeda leaders among the nearly 600 terror suspects from 43
countries being held at Guantanamo Bay. The torture camp consisted
of nothing more than a group of goat herders that had been given a
gun and thrown onto the front line by the Taliban.
As the Qatada case highlights, the real Al-Qaeda and Taliban
leadership were whisked away to safety by orders of U.S. and British
intelligence. This contradicts the entire scope of the ‘war on
terrorism’ and leads us to question who precisely is giving comfort
to terrorists – rogue states or our own governments?
The Real IRA: MI5
For more than 30 years, Catholics and Protestants have fought
bitterly over whether Northern Ireland should belong to Ireland or
to Britain. The conflict has left 3,600 people dead on both sides
and more than 30,000 injured. There was hope in 1998, when the
landmark Good Friday peace agreement was reached. The agreement
created a government in which both Protestant and Catholic
representatives could share power in Northern Ireland. But tensions
continued to grow between Catholics and Protestants, especially
after the IRA refused to destroy or surrender its weapons.
The Real IRA is a hard line group of between 70 and 170 members
dedicated to an armed campaign aimed at driving the British out of
Ireland. Its members see themselves as Irish republican purists,
accusing the Provisional IRA of selling 15
‘U.S. has found no Qaeda
leaders among captives at Guantanamo’
– Bob Drogin – Los Angeles
Times – August 19 2002 -
http://www.iht.com/articles/68054.html
short republican ideals.
Since its founding in 1997, the Real IRA has been fully infiltrated
by British intelligence - MI5. The first double agent to infiltrate
the Real IRA on behalf of the British government was David Gary
Rupert, an elusive loner born in Madrid, New York State. Rupert
first surfaced at an Irish Freedom Committee meeting in Chicago in
1997.
Eye Spy Magazine reported,
He was a well-known figure at
meetings and became the talk of the IFC. Many believed he had
contacts that wended their way to the very top of organizations like
Sinn Fein and the IRA. MI5 had successfully tracked US fund-raising
efforts to certain US citizens and groups through bank accounts.
But
they needed more information. Together with the FBI and Irish
security police, they spoke to Mr Rupert who agreed to work for them
as a double agent. It was a major coup. Throughout the last four
years he has supplied intelligence on fundraising, bank accounts,
and recruiting campaigns. He “networked” between various rival
factions and was so trusted he eventually befriended members of the
Real IRA and several political organizations, such as the 32 County
Sovereignty Committee. Similarly, he was befriended by Martin
Galvin, a New York lawyer and the head of Noraid, the American
fundraising arm of the Provisional IRA. Rupert was given codes and
access to various associated groups and learned of leading personnel
on both sides of the Atlantic.
As Rupert forwarded donations to
Ireland and elsewhere, MI5, the FBI and the Garda were carefully
following the transactions, collecting details of every bank account
the money was channeled through. In 1999 Rupert met with Michael McKevitt, who MI5 believe is the head of the Real IRA. Mr McKevitt
is said to have introduced Rupert to other leading players in the
group. And, according to sources, he handed over a £10,000 donation
to ‘cement relations’. Rupert told the Garda that the organization
was planning a series of top-level meetings at a certain location.
The Irish security services planted listening devices and
surveillance equipment in the room. Much evidence was apparently
acquired and then the Garda asked MI5 and the FBI if it was time to
act.
The agencies mind was made up for them when Rupert said McKevitt had allegedly asked him to participate in a terrorist act.
The Garda said that if they arrested McKevitt, Rupert would have to
testify and this meant blowing his cover. MI5 knew they were about
to lose one of their most important agents, but the prize they
believed was worth it. Rupert agreed to testify for a massive sum of
money and a new identity. He was also relocated.16 Twenty-nine
people were killed and 200 badly injured, when a 500 lb bomb
exploded in a busy shopping street in Omagh, Northern Ireland, on 15
August 1998. The bomb was planted by the dissident republican group,
the Real IRA, although at the time of writing only one individual,
Colm Murphy, has been formally charged. The tragedy claimed nine
children as victims.
MI5, along with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, knew at least two
days before the attack not only that an attack would take place, but
also the name of the bomb maker and his car registration. If they
had placed this terrorist under surveillance, the horror of Omagh
would have been prevented. British intelligence had a reason for
allowing the bombing to go forward. One of the terrorists in the
bombing team was a double agent. He was working for MI5.
16 ‘MI5 Infiltrate the Real IRA’ – Eye Spy Magazine – August 31 2001
-
http://www.eyespymag.com/features/mi5ira.html
FIG 3.3
[CAPTION: The Sunday Herald report on MI5
involvement in the 1998 Omagh bombing
should have led to arrests and
reprimands but it was just calmly reported in the back of the
newspaper.]
This damning information was released by Kevin Fulton (a pseudonym),
another British double agent in the IRA. Fulton was an ex-British
army soldier and onetime member of the army’s covert Force Research
Unit. Fulton says he was recruited by the secret service to inform
on the activities of the IRA in the 1980s. He claims to have been an
informer up until the IRA cease-fire in 1996.
Included in a whole
raft of separate allegations is Fulton’s contention that MI5 and the
FBI helped him travel to the United States and buy state of the art
infra-red equipment for the IRA so that they could trigger bombs
from over a mile away.17 Fulton was also involved in the process of
actually mixing explosives to make new types of bombs. He also
coordinated political assassinations and robberies to help finance
the IRA. This policy came directly from the very top; then-Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher received a weekly briefing on Fulton’s
activities.
Fulton states,
“I was told ‘there’ll be no medals for this, and no recognition, but
this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister
knows what you are doing.”18
Fulton had to slip into the role of a
terrorist to prevent his cover from being blown. He helped plan
murders and torture innocent people with the backing and
encouragement of the Prime Minister and MI5. When Fulton had
outlived his usefulness he realized that MI5 and military
intelligence were fully prepared to leave him to be killed. It was
at that point that he distanced himself from both the IRA and
British intelligence and began a whistle-blowing campaign.
Fulton alleges that 48 hours before the Omagh bombing he met with a
senior member of the Real IRA in a pub in Dundalk. The man was
covered in dust and gave off a strong odor of fertilizer sediment.
He had obviously been making a bomb. The man told Fulton “there’s
something big on.”
Within hours, Fulton informed his handler, telling him the name of
the man and his car registration number, along with a description of
the vehicle. The sensitivity of the information would have meant
that Fulton’s RUC handler immediately pass it on to higher
authorities. Any information portending to an immediate threat to
British national security is subject to a ‘FLASH’ classification of
urgency, meaning it instantaneously receives the attention of MI5
and MI6 counter terrorism agents.
17 ‘Ulster spies to blow MI5 cover’ – Rosie Cowan – London Guardian
– July 6 2002 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,750427,00.html
18
‘The army asked me to make bombs for the IRA, told me I had the
Prime Minister’s blessing ... then tried to kill me’ –Neil McKay – Sunday Herald – June 23 2002 -
http://www.sundayherald.com/25646
Another ex-informer, Willy Carlin, said of the Fulton allegations,
“I would believe that the officer put it in the system, and it would
have immediately been shared
by the security services, by MI5 and MI6. It would definitely been
shared with the Chief
Constable, no doubt about it. And it would have been shared with the
Garda [the police in the
Irish Republic]. And the question is, if it was shared, what
happened? And why didn’t someone
turn up in Dundalk and watch this man for 48 hours?”19
British intelligence sat back and did nothing as the bomb traveled
from Dundalk
to Omagh in a vehicle they could easily have identified and
apprehended. It has
now been confirmed by the Sunday Herald that MI5 allowed the bombing
to take
place because one of its own double agents had successfully
infiltrated the Real
IRA and his cover would have been blown if the bomb plot had been
exposed. Of
course, this in itself is a whitewash. The agent, code named
‘Stakeknife’ had
managed to tap the upper echelons of the terrorist group and MI5
valued the
continued position of him as a key informer over and above the 29
lives that were
suddenly ended on that hot August afternoon.
The Sunday Herald
source stated,
“The only reason the RUC would not act on a tip-off which stated a
bomb was in the offing is if a member of the bombing team was a
highly-placed agent and they needed to keep him in place. If the
operation was allowed to go ahead then the agent would be seen as a
good guy by the Real IRA; but if it failed, he could have come under
suspicion of being an informer and been killed.”20
How can the MI5
and the RUC justify allowing a terrorist bombing to proceed to
simply keep an agent in place? An informant is supposed to have the
rationale of warning his superiors so that they can take action to
avert such a catastrophe, as mentioned earlier in the circumstances
surrounding the infiltration of the Real IRA by David Rupert. This
wasn’t the case in Omagh.
So why did the British government
authorize the bombing?
FIG 3.4
[CAPTION: The Omagh bombing – MI5 had an agent
within the actual bomb squad carrying out the terrorist attack.]
Just weeks after the bombing, the Irish and British parliaments were
recalled early to pass anti-terrorism legislation openly described
as “draconian.”21 Despite Prime Minister Tony Blair’s assertion that
the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill was not a ‘knee
jerk reaction’ – MP’s were not even given time to thoroughly read
it. The bill was passed within 24 hours of its proposal.
19 ‘Northern Ireland:
Allegations of British collusion in Omagh bombing’ – Robert Stevens
- World Socialist Web Site –September 4 2001 -
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/ire-a04.shtml
20 ‘British double-agent was in Real IRA’s Omagh bomb team’ – Neil
Mackay – Sunday Herald – August 19 2001 -
http://www.sundayherald.com/17827
21 ‘Irish anti-terror measures
become law’ – BBC – September 3 1998 -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/164405.stm
Former Prime Minister John Major
gleefully admitted that the new laws were a response to “the public
mood for action following the atrocity at Omagh” without consideration of how the wider legal implications
could effect that very same emotionally manipulated public who had
just been bombarded for two weeks with horror stories about blood soaked babies and missing limbs.22
The
new legislation enabled the government to prosecute any group they
defined as an ‘active paramilitary’ as a terrorist organization and
deny them the right to legal counsel. The mandate of the bill,
‘intended to catch the Omagh bombers’ can only be considered to have
been a complete failure, as to this day the individuals responsible
for the Omagh bombing are still at large.
Again we see the Hegelian dialectic at work. Create the problem
(allow the bombing to take place), apportion blame (the Real IRA),
get the desired reaction (shock, revulsion and a desire for
vengeance) and then hurriedly offer the solution (draconian police
state laws) that do nothing to stop real terrorists and only strip
innocent people of fundamental human rights.
The final word on Omagh will be left to Lawrence Rush, the husband
of one of the victims,
“Tell me, are you a completely incompetent
force, that in Great Britain they can pick up lone murderers out of
a population of 59m? Do you recognize that we have a population of
4m and you cannot pick up over 100-odd people? My dear sir, this is
a conspiracy.
This will come out like the Derry Thirteen (a
reference to the Bloody Sunday massacre by the British army in
1972). Why did Sinn Fein close their office the day before the bomb?
Why was the army confined to barracks? Why sir, did the RUC have
only three men on the streets of Omagh and 24 men in surrounding
areas? Tell me that.
This is a conspiracy by the British government
and by everyone involved in the administration. This is an example
of administrative terrorism.”23
Mr. Rush’s wife died in the blast.
Victims of both the bombing and the suffocating legislation
introduced shortly afterwards were the only victims of Omagh. The
perpetrators in both cases were the British government, MI5 and MI6,
Her Majesty’s terrorist network.
22 ‘Commons passes anti-terrorism bill’ – BBC – September 3 1998 -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/163686.stm
23 ‘Revealed: the evidence that forced a new Omagh inquiry’ – Nick
Hopkins – London Guardian – August 17 2001 -http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,538098,00.html
|