There is a growing, and regrettable, tendency to reject all official explanations of horrific, headline-making events and see instead plots, conspiracies and cover-ups. From the death of the Princess of Wales to the atrocities of 9/11, coverage and debate have been skewed by rumour and distortion — not only on the wilder internet sites but in speculation by politicians, commentators and demagogues.
The wish to believe the worst has sometimes been fuelled by unreliable official information put out too soon, as well as by the culture of spin that attempts to deflect well-deserved blame. But conspiracy theories have also been nurtured by disaffected insiders who have seen a chance to embarrass their superiors and are all too willing to spread unprovable allegations.
The bombings in London last July are fertile ground for such conspiracies. Despite the swift and admirably forthright report last month by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) into 7/7, there have been persistent rumours and speculation that not all the facts were uncovered and that crucial evidence was suppressed to spare the blushes of MI5.
Our report today details allegations to a respected American writer, Ron Suskind, by a source in the FBI that Mohammad Sidique Khan, the presumed ringleader of the four, was closely followed by US intelligence agents for two years, who tipped off British security officials. That directly contradicts what the ISC was told by MI5 — that Khan came only peripherally on to the intelligence radar as a figure related to another investigation.
The US allegation has been strongly denied by British Intelligence. But it will bolster calls, by relatives of the victims, some Muslims and some political groups, for a full inquiry into the bombings. If there are still so many un- explained factors and if a clearer picture needs to emerge before lessons can be drawn for the future, the argument runs, only a lengthy inquiry will suffice. The truth is that an inquiry can never quell all the speculation by those determined to believe the un- believable: witness the endless claims over John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
Advertisement
There is room, nevertheless, for a swift, independent assessment of 7/7 and formal recommendations, prefer-ably by a respected public figure, of how security can be improved. This should not divert resources away from the job of making this country safer, but raise the issue of how MI5 and the police can better foster public co-operation, particularly after the Forest Gate episode. It should also look at national priorities. Were the failings of last July the result of a lack of resour-ces?
Is sufficient now being spent in relevant areas, and have enough counter-terrorism experts, especially from ethnic minorities, been recruited? And are relations with US and other intelligence services in good working order? Already the security services have established a confidential hotline, which has yielded useful information. Preventing terrorism must be seen as the responsible and ethical choice of all citizens, and not as snooping on neighbours or acting as stooges.
Inevitably, however, there is much that will remain confidential and that we have to take on trust. We are paying people to be secretive, and so secretive they inevitably will be. The security services must recognise that criticism is not a personal attack, but an inevitable quality of a questioning democracy.