Eight alleged terrorists were charged in Britain this week. One was caught with
detailed plans of several US buildings.

By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
LONDON – A counterterror operation that started in Pakistan last month and
rippled through the United States culminated in Britain Wednesday when eight
suspects appeared in court charged with involvement in an alleged terrorist
plot.

The eight, arrested earlier this month on the basis of intelligence gleaned from
arrests in Pakistan, face charges of conspiracy to murder and to use hazardous
materials to cause disruption or harm. Significantly, one was also charged with
possessing reconnaissance plans of several public buildings in the US,
including the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF).

On the surface, the development suggests successful coordination of
international counterterror efforts: A pair of suspected Al Qaeda lynchpins are
nabbed in Pakistan; a few megabytes of intelligence retrieved from a computer
point to a conspiracy and several plotters; the US raises its terror alert and
warns the public; the British police and counterterror units swoop.

But intelligence experts say that privately there is great concern that the
operation was jeopardized by US public pronouncements that were made before the
British suspects were even apprehended.

"For reasons not so far satisfactorily explained, the US authorities decided to
broadcast specific intelligence material upon which they must have known a
vitally important future UK arrest operation would be based," says Charles
Shoebridge, a former British counterterrorism intelligence officer now based in
London.

"The broadcast would have inevitably compromised that operation and by
implication the actual security of the United States itself."

The broadcast was made on August 1 by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, two
days before the Britons were arrested. Mr. Ridge said the intelligence from
Pakistan indicated that Al Qaeda was targeting several buildings including the
IMF and World Bank, Prudential Financial in New Jersey, and Citigroup and the
NYSE in New York.

Significantly, the charges levelled at one of the Britons in court on Wednesday
mentioned exactly the same buildings. The implication, Mr. Shoebridge says, is
that the suspects would have been startled by Mr. Ridge's pronouncements,
alerting them that the net was closing.

As a result, subsequent arrests were dramatic and dangerous. Police, who remain
tight-lipped about the case, have admitted that they swooped earlier than
planned.

A spokesman confirmed Wednesday that some of the suspects were charged with
having "reconnaissance material from America" but said the US pronouncements
did not affect the operation.

"The operation was in place well before that weekend," he said. "There was an
operational decision on when to move."

Yet some analysts believe that Washington's new-found openness with security
intelligence could pose an operational risk.

"It's fair to say it can't have helped the development of transatlantic
relations with regard to antiterrorism matters," Shoebridge says.

Professor Paul Wilkinson, head of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and
Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, agrees that the
recent conclusions of the 9/11 commission may have made US officials more
determined to err on the side of caution when it comes to terror threats.

The authorities, he says, cannot be blamed for divulging specific terror threats
because if they fail to do so and the threat materializes "the public would
have had every reason to be outraged."

But Washington should take care to ensure that its release of such information
does not upset counterterrorist efforts elsewhere, he adds.

"Unless you have a common approach it's quite possible unthinkingly to
jeopardize an operation which is likely to yield convictions," he says.

Daniel Benjamin, former director for transnational threats at the National
Security Council in the Clinton administration, says he found Ridge's
high-profile announcement "inexplicable."

"The key thing is this seems to me to have been a huge botch," he says. "I don't
understand what was gained by having such a high-profile announcement."

Some observers worry that Ridge's announcement may have prevented British
authorities from gathering more intelligence from the eight suspects.

What's troubling, they say, is the implication that politically motivated public
disclosure may have hurt long-term counterterror objectives.

"The whole [Bush] administration is trying to lean pretty far forward and show
results in the run-up to elections," Benjamin says.

The eight British terror suspects were remanded in custody pending a hearing
next week. Lawyers said the charges would be "fully contested."

But concerns have been expressed at the possibility that some of the group might
be extradited to the US. US Attorney General John Ashcroft has noted that some
of them "may have connections to potential terrorist activities in the United
States," and that US charges could follow.

"Our expert team of agents and analysts from the FBI will continue to share
information and expertise with their British colleagues," he said on Tuesday.

In recent weeks, two Britons - one of them the noted cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri -
have been arrested on US extradition requests related to alleged terror
offenses.

Lawyers and human rights campaigners oppose the move. They note the difference
between the European approach to dealing with terror suspects through the
criminal-justice system and the US Guantanamo Bay model.

They balk at the possible death penalty. And they insist that suspects who face
charges for crimes allegedly committed in a European jurisdiction should stand
trial there.

"These [suspects] are British subjects, their charges relate to activities in
Britain and there can be no question of extradition to the US," says Barry
Hugill of the human rights group Liberty.

"We would reject any request for extradition unless they receive the quality of
justice they'd receive in the UK, which is always a problem in the US because
of the death penalty."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p07s01-woeu.html