2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | Terrorism in the United Kingdom | Terrorism in the United States | Failed terrorist attempts | Terrorist incidents in 2006 | 2006 in England | 2006 in the United Kingdom | Islamist terrorism in Europe
The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was an alleged terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board several airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States.[1] Unprecedented security measures were immediately put in place. This sudden imposition caused chaos and delayed flights for days. The restrictions were gradually relaxed in the following weeks, but the ability to carry liquids of any kind in the cabin is still limited. Of the approximately 24 suspects who were arrested in and around London on the night of 9 August 2006, eleven were charged with terrorism offences on 21 August, two on 25 August (subsequently discharged on 1 November), and a further three on 30 August. Trials will start in April 2008.[2]
Characterisation of the plotTargeted flightsThe Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Paul Stephenson, said that the plot aimed to destroy as many as ten aircraft in mid-flight from the United Kingdom to the United States, using explosives brought on board in the suspects' hand luggage.[3] News media reported that planned targets included American Airlines, British Airways, Continental Airlines, and United Airlines flights from London Heathrow and London Gatwick airports to Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Orlando, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; Newark, New Jersey; New York City; San Francisco, California; Cleveland, Ohio and Washington, D.C.[4] BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the plot involved a series of simultaneous attacks, targeting three planes each time.[3] Reports vary regarding the number of planes involved, ranging from three to twelve.[5][6] In a press release, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said "multiple commercial aircraft" were targeted.[7] Some reports say the attacks were planned for 16 August, but police say no evidence specifying the date has been found.[8][9] British officials have since stated that the estimate of ten aircraft was "speculative and exaggerated."[10] Airports affectedUnited Kingdom
United States
Canada Airlines AffectedBritish Airways:
American Airlines:
United Airlines:
Continental Airlines:
Flights TargetedFrom London/Heathrow:
From London/Gatwick:
Liquid explosivesAccording to several news sources, the plotters planned to use liquid explosives.[3] The New York Times reported that the plotters planned to use Lucozade bottles to contain these explosives.[10] The plotters planned to leave the top of the bottle sealed and filled with the original beverage, but add a false bottom containing a liquid or gel explosive dyed red to match the sports drink in the top of the container.[11] It has been widely reported that the plotters planned to use peroxide-based explosives. One report suggests the plotters would use liquid explosives.[12][13] United States authorities, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, named two peroxide-based liquid explosives that could be used: triacetone triperoxide (TATP) and hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD). These peroxide-based liquid explosives "are sensitive to heat, shock, and friction, can be initiated simply with fire or electrical charge, and can also be used to produce improvised detonators."[14][15] According to The Guardian, police sources have confirmed that the plot involved TATP.[16] According to the New York Times, the plotters wanted to use HMTD.[10] Investigation and arrestsOn 10 August 2006, British police arrested 25 suspects. 19 of the suspects had their finances frozen. 17 of the suspects were later charged with conspiracy to murder and commit acts of terrorism or failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism. 8 of the suspects were released without charge. Another seven suspects were arrested in Pakistan on charges related to the alleged plot. Police said they had been observing this plot for months, and that the "investigation reached a critical point [on 9 August 2006] when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt what we believe was being planned."[17] An undercover British agent had infiltrated the group, according to American government sources.[18] According to Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, "the plotters received a very short message to 'Go now'."[10] The arrests were made in London, Birmingham, and High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire in an overnight operation. Two of the arrests were made in the Birmingham area, where firearms officers were not involved, and five were made in High Wycombe.[19] The key suspects are reported to be British-born Muslims, some of Pakistani descent.[20][21][3] Three of the suspects are recent converts to Islam.[22] In a press conference, the United Kingdom's Home Secretary John Reid stated that he believed the key suspects in the plot were in custody, but did not rule out additional arrests.[23] British police said they are searching for two additional people in connection with the investigation.[9] The DHS believes that there could have been as many as 50 people involved.[24] Paul Beaver, a British terrorism expert, has said that it appears possible that the militant Islamic organisation al-Qaeda was behind the plot, which comes only weeks after the group threatened to attack British aviation.[25] DHS Secretary Chertoff stated the plot was "getting close to the execution phase", and that it was "suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot".[26] It was not clear from press releases when these attacks were to have been launched, and the New York Times has since reported that the plans were at an earlier stage than was initially stated.[10] On 28 August 2006, The New York Times reported that seven martyrdom tapes made by six suspects were recovered.[10] Upon the advice of its legal counsel, the U.S. based newspaper blocked IP addresses in Britain from accessing a story titled "Details Emerge in British Terror Case."[27] If a user in Britain tried to access the article, he or she was met with a disclaimer: “On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.” Using software technology designed for targeted advertising, the New York Times was able to comply with laws stricter than those in the United States. British authorities have carried out a total of 69 searches of residences, businesses, vehicles and open spaces, which have netted bomb-making equipment and chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said on 21 August. "As well as the bomb-making equipment, we have found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 items of removable storage media such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs," he said. "So far, from the computers alone, we have removed some 6,000 gigabytes of data." It will take "many months" for investigators to analyse all of the data, he said.[28] The prosecutor, Colin Gibbs, has said that the trial would not realistically start until at least January 2008 and would last between five and eight months.[2] Disagreement over when to make the arrestsNBC News reported disagreement between the United States and Britain over when to make the arrests. According to NBC News, a senior British official contended that an attack was not imminent, noting that the suspects had not yet purchased airline tickets and some did not even have passports; he urged that the investigation continue to collect more evidence. The report noted that this official's statement was contrary to statements by other British officials previously reported in the press. The same source also told NBC News that the United States had threatened to use extraordinary rendition upon suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, or to pressure the Pakistan government to arrest him, if he were not immediately taken into custody. According to the same report, a United States official acknowledged this disagreement over the timing of arrests and that a British official believed that an attack was not imminent. However, Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, denied the report of a dispute: "There was no disagreement between US and UK officials."[29] Pakistan's role in the alleged plotInitial reactions praised Pakistan's assistance in stopping the plot before its execution. However, later press reports have questioned Pakistan's claimed commitment to the War on Terrorism. Other press reports that the alleged bombers were funded by "charities" intended to help victims of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake.[30] The FBI and Scotland Yard are investigating links to Kashmir terrorists and the flow of money to the conspirators.[31] Pakistan and international press also reported that Rashid Rauf, the key player in the plot, had links with the Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Kashmir terrorist group banned by several countries.[32] Media reports state that he has close family ties to Maulana Masood Azhar,[33] one of the most wanted criminals in India. In Pakistan, law enforcement authorities continued to interrogate Rashid Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent, over his alleged key role in the plot. Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said British police were conducting inquiries in Pakistan but were not involved in questioning Rauf.[28] The UK Foreign Office is seeking Rauf's extradition from Pakistan, and it has been reported that Pakistan plans to accept the request.[34] In mid-December 2006, terrorism charges against Rauf were dropped by a Pakistani judge, who ruled there was a lack of evidence. Rauf's case was transferred from a terrorism court to a regular court where he faces lesser charges including forgery.[35] Sceptical responses to the arrestsSeveral commentators expressed scepticism over the allegations.[36][37][38] Many mentioned the Forest Gate raid, the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Iraq War, all based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, as reasons for their doubts.[39][40] Muslim sections of the British population were also reportedly sceptical that the plot was carried out by other Muslims.[41] Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray was sceptical of the account of the plot. He based his criticism on the assumptions that "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports." He also suggested that suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf invented the plot under torture in Pakistan.[42] The Register ran a story on the practicalities of producing TATP on board an airplane from constituent liquids and concluded that, while theoretically possible, the chances of success would be extremely low. [43] On 18 September, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer with decades of anti-terror and explosives experience, declared the plot to be 'fiction'. He said the explosives in question could not possibly have been produced on the plane. "So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated. He further suggested that the plot was an invention of the UK security services in order to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act of 1998.[44] Due to the mountain of evidence, including forensic material, he expected the men to face "a very long trial of (between) five and eight months." Political reactionPrior to the arrests, the plot was discussed at a high level of government, with then Prime Minister Tony Blair knowing about it for months, and alerting President George Bush to the investigation on Sunday 6 August 2006.[45] On 9 August, hours before the arrests, the then Home Secretary John Reid gave a major speech to Demos (a British think-tank) hinting at a new round of anti-terror legislation and claiming that the country was facing "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war".[46] The following day Reid broke the news along with Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary.[47] In the United States, the announcement was made during a joint press conference by the head of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the Director of the FBI Robert Mueller. Chertoff refused to be drawn on questions about the design of the devices or whether any bombs had actually been built.[7] On the same day, President George Bush commented upon arrival in Wisconsin: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."[47] On 12 August, British Muslim groups sent an open letter to the Prime Minister, stating that "current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad."[48] Many such groups and even certain sectors of UK government[49] have suggested that (among other factors) the foreign policy position of the United Kingdom in places such as Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq is to a large extent responsible for the increasing radicalisation of young Muslims in the UK, thus promoting the possibility of actions like the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The letter also states "Attacking civilians is never justified", and encourages the UK to reassess its foreign policy in order to maintain the safety of individuals both in the UK and abroad. In interviews with the BBC, John Reid described the letter as "a dreadful misjudgement", and former Conservative leader Michael Howard described it as "a form of blackmail".[50] On 13 August, Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, claimed that the chaos at airports meant that the terrorists were achieving their aims.[51] On 25 August, O'Leary announced plans to sue the British Government over the disruption to his business.[52] Security reactionIn the immediate aftermath of the first arrests, passenger rules were amended for flights between the United States and the UK to make all liquids (apart from baby milk) forbidden, including beverages, hair gels, toothpaste, lipstick, sunscreen, and hand lotions, due to the suspicion that liquids were planned to be used in the attacks. Since passengers may purchase beverages after passing regular airport checkpoints, gate checkpoints were also implemented at many American airports, such as Boston's Logan International Airport.[53] In addition, all non-essential hand luggage was banned on all flights from the UK.[54] United KingdomFollowing the raids, the terror alert level was raised by Britain's Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre from 'severe' to 'critical', signalling an attack was believed to be imminent, although this was only done after the raid.[4] On 14 August 2006 the threat level was reduced from 'Critical' to 'Severe'.[55] In the immediate aftermath of the raids, no hand luggage was allowed except for a very few essentials such as travel documents and wallets. Hand baggage was reintroduced at some smaller airports on 14 August, but was not permitted at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports until 15 August. The size of baggage was restricted to 45 cm x 35 cm x 16 cm but this was increased to 56 cm x 45 cm x 25 cm as of 22 September 2006.[56] Despite having made it clear in August that the unprecedented security measures were "here to stay", at the end of September, upon pressure from the industry representatives and professional musicians, the British government relaxed the restrictions on size to the aviation industry standard (56cm x 45cm x 25cm) and allowed musical instruments as carry-on luggage. [1][2]. On 6th November 2006 the restrictions were relaxed once again to allow limited amounts of liquids in the cabin. [3] In November 2007 Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that from 8 January 2008 British airports will be able to allow more than one item of hand luggage on board. This was following criticism in October by the shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, who said that because of the restrictive rules, Heathrow was "rapidly becoming a national embarrassment". Chief executive of British Airways Willie Walsh was also critical, saying that they are "damaging the UK's reputation around the world from a business perspective". [4] However, the implementation of this new rule is subject to the discretion of the individual airports, and at some airports, differs depending on the airline travelled with. [5] United StatesFollowing the operation, United States Homeland Security banned all liquids and gels except baby formula and prescription medications in the name of the ticket holder in carry-on luggage on all flights.[57] The DHS level in the United States was raised to 'severe' (red) for all flights from the UK. The terror level for all other domestic or non-British international flights to the United States was raised to High (orange). 
As of 13 August 2006, airline passengers in the United States can take up to four ounces of non-prescription medicine, glucose gel for diabetics, solid lipstick, and baby food aboard flights. All aerosols are prohibited and the TSA now demands that passengers remove their shoes so they may be X-rayed before boarding. Later, passengers were allowed only a certain amount of liquid aboard an aircraft in carry-on luggage. The restrictions do not apply to checked luggage. Other countriesThe heightened security levels affected many other countries across the world, both directly and indirectly. ImpactOverall, an estimated 400,000 passengers were affected because of the alerts. It has been estimated that the first day of delays cost the airlines over £175 million.[citation needed] As many as 20,000 bags are believed to have been misplaced at Heathrow.[58] Flight cancellations on the 10 AugustSome inbound flights to London Heathrow Airport were cancelled on the day of the arrests, most notably the Thursday short-haul flights of British Airways. Some flights to and from London Gatwick Airport were also suspended,[59] although US Airways flights continued flying normally from Gatwick according to the airline's helpline. Service resumption
A few hours after the beginning of the confusion, aircraft began to fly out of London Heathrow, although not at the usual level of more than one per minute. The situation remained chaotic with huge queues of passengers waiting to check-in and get through the strengthened security procedures, and reports of some aircraft leaving Heathrow airport with only transit passengers aboard. On Sunday 13 August 30% of flights out of Heathrow were cancelled to reduce pressure on the screeners.[60] By 15 August flight cancellations had fallen to 47 flights at Heathrow, and 8 Ryanair flights from Stansted. It was reported by BA that 10,000 items of baggage belonging to their passengers had gone missing. It was anticipated that cancellations would reduce on 16 August, with 90% of flights expected to depart as scheduled.[61] Controversy over the alertOn 12 August a public argument broke out between BAA, the operator of Heathrow and other airports, and British Airways, with Willie Walsh, BA's Chief Executive, accusing BAA of not being able to cope with the increased security and baggage checks. Ryanair also called on the British government to employ police and military reservists to speed up the full body searches which were now mandated.[citation needed] Three days later on 12 August 2006 the owner and operator of London Heathrow, BAA ordered airlines using the airport to make a 30 per cent reduction in departing passenger flights (something BA was already having to do as many passengers missed flights due to the extra time it took to clear security), to help reduce delays and cancellations.[62] On 18 August Ryanair's O'Leary delivered an ultimatum to the British government demanding the resumption of normal hand baggage dimensions and hand screening one passenger in four instead of one in two within one week, otherwise Ryanair would sue the Government for compensation under section 93 of the Transport Act 2000. The government responded that the actions were taken under the Aviation Security Act 1982, and no compensation was payable.[63] Several pilots have complained about the "ridiculous" luggage restrictions that was thought up by "utter morons".[64] Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety at the British Airline Pilots Association, said that "the procedures put in place are not sustainable long term, and unless the passengers are treated more reasonably we will not have an industry left".[64] The British government was criticised for scare mongering for its response to the alert[65] and for using it to drive through unpopular reforms.[66] Economic effectsThe Times commented the day after the arrests, that the economic effects were minor and that the FTSE 100 index showed only "mild signs of strain", suggesting that terror was already priced into assets, that the market impact will be contained, and that "what is lost on the swings may be gained on the roundabouts". It observed that the real commercial risk is that "people's behaviour is altered... change may come so subtly and subconsciously that it is hard to see, let alone measure... people may stop travelling for example, not because they are scared of being blown up, but because they are tired of complying with necessary security measures."[67] Estimates have also been made of the cost to airlines of their disrupted business. British Airways had to cancel 1280 flights, at a cost of £40 million.[68] Ryanair had to cancel 500 flights,[citation needed] and are suing the UK government for the £3.3 million the cancellations cost them.[69] Easyjet had to cancel 469 flights, at a cost of about £4 million.[70] BAA says the alert cost them £13 million.[71] BA is considering making a claim for compensation against BAA, which operates Heathrow, for its failure to provide adequate security services and shortages of personnel during the crisis.[72] Air passengers also switched to other means of travel, including SeaFrance ferries operating from Dover to Calais, and Eurostar.[73] In November 2006, BA claimed the increased security measures since August had cost it £100 million.[74] Other responses
|
