Terrorist Incident in Trebes France

Trebes

In relation to Islamist inspired terrorist attacks it has been relatively quiet in Europe over the past few months but once more France has suffered another tragic attack where it is reported that three people have been killed.

The gunman, who has not been named but is believed to be a Moroccan, has been shot and killed by the French police. The incident started in Carcassone where the gunman hijacked a car killing the passenger and injuring the driver. En route to the supermarket in Trebes he shot a wounded a police officer who was jogging. Reported to be heavily armed, the gunman entered the supermarket in Trebes taking staff and shoppers hostage.

salah abdeslam

It is reported that the gunman had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam who was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks and who was recently convicted of terrorist offences linked to those attacks. Although more information has yet to be released, it does appear that once more we have witnessed another tragic act of terrorism committed by a person who has been inspired by the Islamist narrative of the group Islamic State rather than acting under direct orders of the group. While Islamic State have lost control of key territory in Syria/Iraq and Libya, this incident reveals how potent the narrative of Islamic State still is in influencing the vulnerable and inspiring people to carry out acts of violence in the group’s name. Their media activities via electronic communications has not decreased and this attack should put us all on notice of the potential threat Islamist groups still pose to Western states’ security.

ACT Campaign

We can all play our part by passing information of activity we think is suspicious to the police and in the UK this is part of the current ACT  Campaign Action Counters Terrorism) where if you are suspicious where you can either call 0800 789 321 or compete an online form.

radio scotland logo

I will be discussing this incident in more detail on BBC Radio Scotland just after 6pm (GMT) today.

Islamic State’s Kotey and Elsheikh Captured in Syria: How should the US deal with them?

Kotey & Elsheikh

Two UK citizens, Kotey and Elsheikh, were captured by US backed Kurdish forces (part of the Syrian Democratic Forces) in January 2018 and handed over to US Special Forces. Kotey and Elsheikh were part of Islamic State’s execution cell and worked with two other UK citizens, Emwazi (also known as Jihadi John)who was killed in a drone attack in Syria November 2015 and  Aine Davis, who was convicted of terrorism offences in as Turkish criminal court in May 2017.

emwaziIS flag

The execution cell was responsible for torturing and killing its captives, including captives from Europe and the US, notably killing David Haines and Alan Henning from the UK and James Foley, Alan Sotloff and Peter Kessig from the US. It is reported that Kotey and Elsheikh allegedly took part in mock executions, waterboarding and crucifixions of their captives as well as being party to the killing that took place.

GTMO

The question is how should they be dealt with? Effectively being in US custody they could be transferred to the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, but this would not be a positive move due to the Centre’s reputation. If the US does this it could be counterproductive and be used as propaganda by Islamic State and other Islamist inspired groups to show that there is one rule for US citizens and one for Muslims from other states. This can be a powerful recruitment tool.

The best move the US can make is to transfer them to the US to face trial in a criminal court for the murder of the US citizens killed by Islamic State’s execution cell. It would still be a terrorist trial as  the alleged motive behind their actions would be the Islamist cause, which is a terrorist cause. Many states like the US, the UK, Canada and Australia have legally defined terrorism to include terrorism in states around the world. Even if no evidence can be found that either Kotey or Elsheikh actually killed the captives, their involvement with Emwazi who did will through the criminal law principle of joint criminal enterprise be sufficient to try them for murder.

NYC_-_New_York_County_Supreme_Courthouse

By having a potential criminal trial will not just ensure due process takes palace, it will demonstrate to the world that justice is being done as Kotey and Elsheikh’s rights will be carried out. They will have access to qualified defence lawyer, have trial by jury and in the US criminal trials they have very strict rules in appointing jurors to ensure a fair trial. Also, in a criminal trial Kotey and Elsheikh will have the opportunity to present their evidence. In my opinion this would be the preferred approach in dealing with these two men.

Should they go to Guantanamo Bay the UK government should take steps to extradite Kotey and Elsheikh to the UK to face trial for the murder of David Haines and Alan Henning. One factor involved in this process would be the US government, in particular the current US President. Donal Trump has taken a strong stance against Islamist inspired terrorism, both in the US and abroad. He has expressed strident views on this issue, especially via his personal Twitter account. This included retweeting three tweets made by the extreme far right group Britain First. This did cause a diplomatic incident between the US and the UK, but President Trump has since states that he had no idea who the group were when he retweeted their tweets.

If President Trump wants to demonstrate to the world how the US deals with terrorists, having a criminal trial will show how rights in western states’ democracies apply to all by being dealt with fairly and equitably. As Lord Justice Gordon Hewart said in R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy (1924), ‘Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done’.

My terrorism book cover

I discuss the legal issues contained in this blog in more detail in my book ‘Terrorism: Law & Policy’ being published by Routledge in March 2018.

bbc news logo

I discuss this news story and the legal issues in my interview with BBC News Channel.

David Anderson QC Report into Manchester Bombing and other Terrorist Incidents 2017: What have we learnt?

david anderson 1

On Tuesday 5th December the UK’s Home Secretary, Amber Rudd gave details from the report into the terrorist incidents the UK have suffered in 2017 conducted by the UK’s former independent reviewer for terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The report examined if the UK’s Security Service (MI5) and counter-terrorism police could have done more to prevent the attacks from happening and if any blame could laid at their door.
In essence David Anderson found no great culpability on the actions by either MI5 or the police. He did find the following:

westminster atatck 1

Khalid Masood (Westminster Bridge attack March 2017) – he was an MI5 subject of interest between Feb to Oct 2012and between 2012 – 2016 he was linked intermittently to Al Muhajiroun (a Salafist jihadist group linked to international terrorism that is proscribed in the UK). There was no intelligence indicating that he was planning an attack;

manchester arena attackabedi

Salmen Abedi (Manchester Arena bombing May 2017) – he had a criminal record limited to theft related offences. He became a subject of interest for one day in Oct 2015 due to contacts he had with an Islamic state figure in Libya. In May Abedi was identified a person who needed further consideration with a meeting to consider him planned for the 3st May, nine days after the bombing. When Abedi returned to the UK from a trip to Libya on the 18th May he had not been flagged so no port stop under Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000 was carried out on his return. This is led to David Anderson saying that with hindsight the intelligence MI5 had on Abedi could, ‘…have been highly relevant to the planned attack’ but at the time it was received the intelligence was not fully appreciated by MI5 with David Anderson adding that if the ‘cards had fallen differently’ the attack could have been avoided;

BRITAIN-ATTACKSKhareem Butt

Khuram Butt (London Bridge and Borough Market attack, June 2017) – he was known and was a principal subject in an MI5 investigation, Operation Hawthorn. He was known to be active in recruiting people to Islamic State (IS) and planning trips to IS’ self-proclaimed caliphate that existed in Syria. In mid-2015 intelligence was received that Butt aspired to carry out an attack in the UK but following risk assessments carried out, by Sept 2015 Butt was considered to have a strong intent but a weak capability to carry out the attack;

Finsbury Park attackDarren-Osborne4

Darren Osbourne (Finsbury Park attack July 2017) – there was no intelligence held by either MI5 or the police that he was going to commit the attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly in relation Abedi, if there were a handful of investigations ongoing in the UK then maybe there could be a greater degree of culpability on the part of MI5 and the police but this is not the case, something that David Anderson recognised. Currently in the UK there are approximately 500 ongoing investigations into 3,000 individuals, with 20,000 individuals in the intelligence system graded of serious concern. This is not counting individuals who are on a system but who have been assessed as a low threat. These figures alone reveal the enormity of the task facing the UK’s security services and police in preventing terrorist attacks from happening. As there is only limited resources in both staffing levels and equipment priority has to be given to what the analysis of the vast intelligence/information received that reveals where the greatest risk lies.
Following the 2005 London attack the key lesson learned was that intelligence must be shared between the security services and the police and the UK has developed a model of intelligence analysis with the introduction of bodies like the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) where the intelligence is forwarded onto the relevant agency with the greatest capability for dealing with specific issues. It is model that has served the UK well in recent years as between 2005 and 2017 the only other main attack we witnessed was the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 and is model other states have wanted to emulate.
Of course some will say why has the UK sustained five major attacks (the attack in Parsons Green in September 2017 does not appear to have been part of the remit in David Anderson’s investigation)? The Manchester bombing was the most sophisticated attack that involved more individuals that just Abedi. One could arguably say the same for Parsons Green in relation to the bomb that fortunately failed to detonate fully on the Tube train, but lack of knowledge and inexperience existed in that attack. The other three were low level attacks carried out by driving vehicles into people and stabbing victims with knives. These are relatively easy to prepare and carry out, something we have tragically witnessed in other European states. Since March 2017 the UK’s security services and police have prevented nine attacks from taking place, twenty-two since the killing of Lee Rigby. At the time Amber Rudd was informing the UK Parliament on the findings in the Anderson report news also broke related to terrorism arrests. Two men, Rahman from London and Imran from Birmingham were appearing in court on the 6th Dec for allegedly plotting to kill the UK Prime Minister, both men were arrested on the 29th November 2017. Rashid from Lancashire (northwest England) who was arrested on the 22nd November 2017 was charged with offences of preparing acts of terrorism, will be appearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London today.
Preventing terrorist attacks is a difficult task, but in the current climate it is virtually impossible to prevent all attacks from occurring. One should focus on what the UK security services and the police have achieved. Lessons will be learnt and it maybe that intelligence form other police sources could be shared such as neighbourhood officers who may have that vital piece of intelligence on individuals who may have been downgraded as a low priority that would make those countering terrorism look at them again.

I discuss this in more details in my interview with BBC Radio Wales (1 hour 10 minutes 33 seconds in) and on BBC North West Tonight (TV)

New York Terrorist Attack: What measures can be taken to prevent vehicle attacks?

new-york-terror-truck attackSaipov

In the late afternoon on Tuesday 31st October 2017, Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek citizen who arrived in the US in2010 and became a legal US resident, drove a truck down a cycleway in lower Manhattan, New York, killing 8 people and injuring 11 more. After crashing the truck, Saipov emerged from the vehicle wielding a pellet gun and paintball gun. NYPD officers shot Saipov who received serious but non-fatal injuries and was arrested. The cosmopolitan make-up of New York was seen in the victims where five of those killed were Argentinian and another victim who died was Belgian. Within an hour of the attack New York authorities declared this was a terrorist incident. Saipov left a note in the truck claiming he committed the attack on behalf of the group Islamic state (IS), adding ‘ISIS lives forever’. At the time of writing IS have yet to claim responsibility for the attack, but as I have said in previous blogs, IS do claim responsibility for many attacks where they do not give direct orders or have any direct contact with the attacker.

Möglicher Anschlag mit Lastwagen auf Weihnachtsmarkt

Once more we have witnessed an attack where a vehicle has been driven into people. We have seen a number of attacks of this nature in the last 18 months from Nice, July 2016, the Berlin Christmas Market, December 2016, three attacks in the UK in 2017, Stockholm, April 2017, Barcelona, August 2017 and now New York. In total these attacks have killed 136 people with many more injured.

This raises a number of questions, including if we should expect more of these type of attacks and, importantly, what can be done to prevent these attacks? To the first question it appears the answer is yes, we should expect more of these attacks to occur in the near future. It is an easy form of low-level attack to carry out that can have the maximum, impact in terms of casualties. In IS’ online magazine, Rumiyah, issue 3 contained an article detailing the best methods to use in preparing and carrying out a vehicle attack. Other issues have published articles on how to carry out the most effective knife attacks and in kidnapping western hostages. Even though IS has lost control of a lot of geographical territory, its propaganda media is still effective, especially in influencing individuals to follow IS’ narrative and carry out attacks in the group’s name. So, unfortunately it is highly likely that we will see more attacks of this nature.
In relation to whether anything can be done to prevent these types of attack we are approaching seasonal time of year in western states with events ranging from Thanksgiving celebrations in Canada and the US, Christmas Markets and other open air public events through to New Year’s Eve celebrations. It is of paramount importance that we all play our part in preventing attacks, not in leaving it solely to the security services and the policing agencies. Local governments and business should regularly review there contingency plans and where events are planned to ensure sufficient resilience has been built in to prevent terrorist attacks. This can range from ensuring sufficient and effective physical barriers as in place to having effective evacuation facilities.

UK-Security-expo-2017

In the UK this comes under the Protect strand of the CONTEST counter-terrorism policy. With colleagues, I will be advocating this at the UK Security Expo 2017 exhibition that is being held at London’s Olympia exhibition centre 29th and 30th November 2017.

radio sheffield logo

I discuss the New York attacks and issues above in more details in my interview with BBC Radio Sheffield. The interview is 1 hour 9 minutes 10 seconds in

Should Persons Possessing Items Like the Anarchist’s Cookbook be Prosecuted in a Criminal Court?

Joshua walker

On his return to the UK after fighting with Kurdish forces against Islamic State, Joshua Walker was detained at Gatwick Airport and after being found to be in possession of the Anarchist’s Cookbook Walker was prosecuted for section 58 Terrorism Act 2000, even though a person can purchase the item form Amazon. On Thursday 26th October 2017 the jury at Birmingham Crown Court took three hours to deliberate on their verdict, where they found Walker to be not guilty of the offence. Section 58 has raised a degree of controversy.

anarchists cookbook

 
Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 provides investigators with a wide power. It is wide because a person merely has to collect or make a record of information that is likely to be useful to a person involved in terrorist activity. What has to be ascertained is the type of article section 58 is referring to. The question is if it includes what would be considered innocuous items such as a train timetable or a map of a city centre with certain locations highlighted or items downloaded from the internet for personal interest. It is worth noting that under section 58 investigators do not require reasonable suspicion the article is for a purpose connected to terrorist activity. In effect, under section 58 the burden of proof is not placed on the prosecution but on potential defendants who have to prove they had a reasonable excuse for their possession of the article.
As a result there have been a number of legal challenges as to what amounts to an article for the purposes of section 58. In R v K (2008) the Court of Appeal held that section 58 was never intended to criminalise the possession of theological or propagandist material adding that:
‘A document or record will only fall within section 58 if it is of the kind that is likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. A document that simply encourages the commission of acts of terrorism does not fall within section 58’.
In R v G, R v J (2009) the House of Lords examined section 58 and, building on the K judgement, the House held that for a conviction under section 58 it is a requirement that the defendant not only possessed the document that may be of use to a terrorist, but they must also be aware of the nature of the information contained therein. The House stressed that this did not mean the prosecution had to show that the defendant knew all the details contained in the document, only that the defendant knew of the nature of the material it contained. The Court held for a person to be convicted under section 58 the prosecution must prove the defendant:
1. Had control of the record which contained information that was likely to provide practical assistance to a terrorist;
2. Knew that he had the record; and
3. Knew the kind of information which it contained.

J challenged this decision and the case went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) where the case was Jobe v UK (2011) J claimed that section 58 violated article 7 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) where there can be no punishment without law. The premise of J’s claim was that section 58 was so vague it was not law and if the court agreed with this argument, his article 10 ECHR rights (freedom of expression) was also violated because section 58 would not be deemed to be an act prescribed by law. The ECtHR held there was no violation of article 7 and stated the House of Lords decision was fully and clearly reasoned. Key to the ECtHR reaching this decision was the guidance the House of Lords gave in their decision regarding the three points cited above that have to be proved for a conviction under section 58 to stand. Likewise the ECtHR found there to be no violation of article 10 saying it was justified under the legitimate aims of the interests of national security and that it did not criminalise in a blanket manner the collection or possession of material likely to be useful to a terrorist.

radio scotland logo

I cover this and other statutory preventative measures in the UK, US, Australia and Canada in my forthcoming book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ that will be published by Routledge in March 2018. For a more in-depth analysis of Walker’s case you can listen to my interview with BBC Radio Scotland from Friday 27th October 2017 that is 55 minutes 28 seconds in.

The £4 Billion Refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster: An Opportunity to Incorporate Sate of the Art Security

westminster

The Palace of Westminster is to undergo a major refurbishment at a cost estimated to be between £4 billion – £7 billion that is due to start 2019-2020. It is not the first time that MP’s and Lords will have to move to temporary accommodation as following the 1834 fire that destroyed virtually all of the old Palace building MP’s were temporarily relocated to Buckingham Palace. Built during the 1840’s, the Palace does not have modern security provisions built into it. The major refurbishment is an excellent opportunity to ensure that this iconic old Parliament building will combine old world charm with contemporary security.

Sputnik logo

You can read my discussion on this issue with Chris Summers from Sputnik News on the link.

National Action Member Charged with Encouraging Murder of UK MP

National Action 2

A 31 year-old male, Christopher Lythgoe has been charged for being a member of a proscribed group, the extreme far right group National Action and for encouraging the murder of a UK Member of Parliament (MP), Rosie Cooper. Lythgoe is appearing in Westminster Magistrates Court (London) today. National Action were proscribed as a terrorist group in December 2016 by the UK government.

LBC logo

I will be discussing the implications of this along with the threat extreme far right groups pose to state security with Shelagh Fogarty on LBC just after 3pm (BST) today (27th Oct)