The death of Osama Bin Laden, but not of al-Qaeda

Due the evolution of the al-Qaeda, the death of Osama Bin Laden although hugely symbolic and a psychological shock, especially to the 'terminally deluded' who actually carry out atrocities, is not, sadly the death knell of the al-Qaeda.

This is due to al-Qaeda having evolved into initially a 'franchise' and now with the exception of the core group, more into a purely a brand name, used by groups loosely affiliated, rather than being directed by central a strategy. Even the al-Qaeda ideology package has been modified by these groups to suit local circumstances and due to rise of sectarian difference, the 'value' of the al-Qaeda brand has also declined with certain Groups distancing themselves from their al-Qaeda connections. What has not changed is that across the board these groups ideology is still the same mixture of hate, corrupted religious beliefs coupled with a nihilistic agenda (What I find strange and frankly worrying is that so many otherwise intelligent people can believe in an ideology that would have been considered extreme even in the 12th AD).

The remaining senior members of what formed the core of al-Qaeda have in relative terms, only a small number of terrorists under their direct control but still have influence, albeit declining, with some affiliates This does not mean this core group isn't still extremely dangerous. Although none of them has the profile, or charisma to replace Bin Laden, they are to some extent revered in their own right and it would make the world a better place if they could join their leader in hell as soon as possible..

It is almost certain that all groups using the al-Qaeda Brand and even those that due recent differences have distanced themselves from their al-Qaeda inspired roots will attempt revenge attacks. Indeed some have already announced their intention to do so. Whilst any successful attack will cause death, suffering and grief, what concerns me most is those groups who have learned the lessons of careful planning, have the money and human resources to attempt revenge on a single major attack on a high profile target and to whom 'revenge is a dish best eaten cold' makes sense.

However what may, or may not happen in the following days and weeks, the World is a better place for the death of this evil man and I can only commend the Intelligence operation and subsequent US Special Forces action that resulted in his death. It is already apparent that this took years of hard and often frustrating Intelligence work and I suspect at times carried out at high risk by individual agents, culminating a 40 minute fire fight as US Navy SEALS attacked the Compound. Whatever recognition the US gives those involved the rest of us should also give them our thanks and congratulations on a job well done.

Granted Asylum in Britain dies an al-Qaeda Martyr in Afghanistan!

Having just read (belatedly) the Telegraph Article about Mahmoud Abu Rideh a British al-Qaeda refugee killed in Afghanistan. I thought I would do some limited research on the Background of this man.

Background to Mahmoud Abu Rideh in Britain:
Mahmoud Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugee parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and claimed asylum, whilst living off benefits with his wife and five children. Initially His asylum claim was refused because his story was not credible but he appealed and was granted refugee status in November 1998!

In December 2001 he was detained under anti-terrorism laws after the then home secretary David Blunkett concluded he was "an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network". The reasons for which are covered in the Telegraph Article and I quote:

The central allegation was that he had been involved in fund raising and distribution of funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda as well as procuring false documents and facilitation of the travel for volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan.

Although he was living on benefits, he was said to have raised around £100,000 in just two years, using the Arab Bank in Park Lane to funnel his money to al-Qaeda.

He also held an account at the Wimbledon branch of HSBC entitled “Islamic Services Bureau – Treasurer’s Account.”

He was said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of Osama bin Laden both in Britain and overseas.

He spent most of his time after his arrest at Broadmoor Secure Hospital (I think all Islamist Terrorists are mentally deranged, but the Law says otherwise). Surprisingly he was granted bail in January 2005, due to his deteriorating mental health (surely all the more reason for keeping him in a secure environment?).

This followed the overturning by the Law Lords of the Detention without Trial System for Terrorism Suspects (on the 16th December 2004) as this was against European human rights laws. The same day as Charles Clarke became Home Secretary. As the European Laws are binding on this Country a way had to be found that was acceptable to the unelected people who made these laws and so Control Orders were introduced. This almost exactly coincided with Mahmoud Abu Rideh's release on bail. Not surprisingly Mahmoud Abu Rideh became one of those subject to a Control Order.

In early 2007 Mahmoud Abu Rideh came before Mr Justice Beatson who on the 4th April 2007 ruled the order should be quashed, saying "its cumulative effects in my judgment deprive [Mr Rideh] of liberty, and the secretary of state has no power to make such an order". This judgement came as no surprise to Home Secretary John Reid (who would probably, if he had stayed in Office the best Home Secretary in living memory) as Mr Justice Beatson had made the same ruling in a previous case. However unlike most Home Secretaries who would have been 'extremely disappointed' by this judgement, John Reid immediately issued a new Control Order.

From this moment on there and increasing campaign to get the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh lifted.
When John Reid was sadly replaced by Jacqui Smith (who's lack of suitability for the post almost matched David Blunkett's) the campaign got seriously underway with Amnesty International (UK Branch) launching an appeal and PetionOnLine (they got 1078 Signatures).

By June 2009 he was working on generating his own publicity by appearing at the reception desk of the Guardian Newspaper. This resulted in the Guardian taking up the cause of this 'tragic figure' with his Walking Stick, worn clothes, visible evidence of self-harm and his tale of how his wife had finally left him with the five children to live with her parents in Jordan. The result was a 'heartbreaking article' and video: A day in the life of a terror suspect a man driven to despair due his loss of his freedom, his family and with suicide on his mind. Didn't actually mention his pre-British life working for a school in Afghanistan for Arab Speaking children, many of those fathers were some of the world’s most wanted men, or his later work with Islamic Services Bureau in Pakistan, run by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam. Or even his publicly known fund raising support of Terrorism whilst in the UK. But hey why spoil a good story!

On the 3rd July 2009 Amnesty International was able to trumpet that the Home Office, now under Alan Johnson had agreed to allow Mahmoud Abu Rideh to leave Britain (and Never Come back, although wasn't mention in the Amnesty release). So in September 2009 he left Britain but NOT off to Jordan to see the Wife and Children, no destination Syria and by whatever means eventually arriving in Afghanistan and then dying with a group of al-Qaeda Terrorists.

For 14 Years this man and his family lived in Britain at cost to the Taxpayer was a supporter of terrorism and when able was an active participant in raising funds for terrorist organisations and finally achieved what was probably his life's ambition of dying a terrorist. I hope whose who supported him like Mr Justice Beatson, the Guardian, Amnesty International and those who signed petitions are proud that they assisted him to achieve his goal of becoming a Martyr for a cause, that would, if it could, ensure that the very institutions and the people that supported him would be eliminated. In a world run by al-Qaeda, life in the 12th Century AD would appear utopian!

Some Questions for MP Mike Hancock: 1st why hire a Foreign National?

In the furore over whether Katia Zatuliveter is, or is not an agent of the SVR (KGB by any other name is still the KGB), some questions don't appear to have been asked.

• The most important being: Why employ a foreign national as a research assistant?
• Were there no suitably qualified Citizens of the United Kingdom?
• If, as stated she was the best person for the Job, how was the Job advertised and how many applicants interviewed?
  
• Was her ability to speak Russian a consideration? Because there are a large number of Russian Speaking UK Citizens. But this may have been a consideration as Mr Hancock does it appear have more than passing affection for Russia (as a state) and has made numerous visits there. Although exactly how many is publicly difficult to know, as his Passport 'fell into the sea'. However this begs another question:
  
• Who paid for this unknown number of trips to Russia?

A little more on Mike Hancock MP
Also there are it appears concerns about Mr Hancock himself, not that he is a spy, but his more than somewhat 'rose coloured' view of Russia plus his unusually large number of detailed questions on Defence Matters. Well as he is MP for Portsmouth South and Portsmouth is a major Royal naval base this might be understandable! But majority of these were a series questions were about the Trident Flotilla which is not Portsmouth based and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. He is also a denier of the Armenian Genocide and a 'friend' of the government of Azerbaijan. There are rumours he is womaniser and he is currently on Police Bail on suspicion of indecent assault (this will be heard in January 2011). He is also involved in supporting worthy causes notably: NSPCC, Captive Animals Protection Society and has been involved with MENCAP.

Links:
Mike Hancock CBE - Personal Website Which has a Heading: Standing up for Portsmouth.

Mike Hancock on Wikipedia

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!

At a Special Immigration court Mr Justice Mitting's judgement on  the first of two Pakistani Citizens: Abid Naseer appealing against Deportation concluded:
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," and added "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

Abid Naseer

So there we are this man is deemed a Danger to the Citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore should be deported immediately. But NO, the Judge then determined that it was impossible to return the men ( the second man being: Ahmad Faraz Khan)  to Pakistan - Actually it's very easy, police officers escort them to the Airport and travel with them on a Plane and then hand them over to the Authorities. But of course the safety of Abid Nasser and Ahmad Faraz Khan is much more important than the safety of United Kingdom Citizens as the Judge decided that "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance" - by the Pakistani Authorities. Which is interesting as three other Pakistani Citizens Arrested with Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan have returned to Pakistan of their own free will!

Ahmad Faraz Khan

Of course the new Home Secretary will be appealing against this decision? NO she is NOT; instead she said she was 'disappointed'.
Well Theresa May I am disappointed in you as already you have failed in your duty to protect Public Safety by not even trying to get this ruling  reversed, NOT a good start!

For more details see:
BBC: - 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation
Guardian:  - Pakistani students arrested in anti-terror raids can stay in UK
Telegraph: - Pakistani students arrested in terror raids win deportation battle

Biometric Passports & ID Cards are Necessary

The new UK Coalition Government is determined to scrap both the New Generation of Biometric Passports and ID Cards and therefore the National Identity Register.

Whilst this is not news, I had hoped once the new Government was in power there would be a realisation that whilst the Labour Government's handling of the planning and initial implementation was 'poor' to say the least, these projects were beginning to progress towards being not only a much needed addition to our Border and Internal Security, but also would have the potential to be useful across all Government Departments and even, in the case of ID Cards have the potential to be useful to citizens in everyday life both as a way of proving identity and when , as is inevitable dealing with Government both Local and National.

But of course getting rid of them is going to be simple as both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were against them and therefore getting them cancelled will be easily passed by Parliament.

Of course wasting all the public money already spent on a £5.4 Billion project is not going to even cause them a smidgen of concern.

But hey, let's not let National Security, or the other benefits of this project get in
the way of populist politics.

Are Your Communications Habits Being Monitored?

A News Item in Silicon.com: - One in 78: The chances your comms are being monitored forms a teaser to a much more detailed news report from ZDNet UK: Public targeted by 1,500 monitoring bids per day. So quoting from the ZDNet article: Police, local councils and other UK public authorities made more than half-a-million requests to see citizens' communications data in 2008, according to a watchdog report.

I am neither shocked, nor surprised at the total, but was surprised and actually quite annoyed, that local councils appear to be a major player in wanting to see our communications records. As far as I am concerned, the Police, Security Services, Borders Agency and HM Revenue and Customs should be the only organisations with the authority to request this information.

Requesting Communications data, which by using the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act , authorities can ask service providers for data such as which individual has communicated with whom, and when and where this communication took place and that is totally different from actively monitoring someone's communications.
From the moment I made my second post in this Blog, I assumed that due some of the Words and Phrases used, it would attract the interest of automated monitoring software (in this case no different from the way a search engine would gather information) and that providing the authorities were having a slow day, they might first request my Communications Data and then if things were really quiet, they might be granted a request to actively monitor my communications. Does this remote possibility upset me: NO, actually I would feel sympathy for any operative tasked with doing the monitoring, as being bored to tears listening/reading my communications, was almost certainly not what they hoped their job would entail.

Whilst I am more than peeved by Local Councils being involved in find out peoples communications data, my angst is nothing compared to extreme annoyance of the Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary Chris Huhne: Who criticized the Government for allowing that volume of communication data gathering. Amongst the other things he went on to say, the following provided some ironic amusement:
"The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, and not a blueprint," said Huhne. "We are still a long way from living under the Stasi, but it beggars belief that is necessary to spy on one in every 78 adults."
Thoughts:
I wonder how many were repeat requests for the same person? - I suspect a large number.
How many requests led to a request to actively monitor communications in real time for a period of time (which is spying)? - I suspect a tiny percentage.
How many active monitoring requests led to a full investigation? - My guess is very few!
How many investigations led to prosecution? - Knowing, would satisfy my curiosity, but suspect less than 10%
Because, Local Council involvement aside, I don't have a problem with this, I am almost certainly once again out of step, at least with the 'chattering classes'. Well I can live with that!

Finally, back to Chris Huhne and George Orwell's 1984: This book was indeed a warning, about control of the population by taking away any sense of personal responsibility and accountability. This being accomplished through the enactment and then enforcement of laws that governed a citizen's every moment of their life and making every utterance either politically correct or illegal. In Orwell's world, even a simple domestic request becomes a major bureaucratic exercise.
Now for me this does have a familiar ring. Welcome to the 'Nanny State' resulting in a 'You Cannot do that Britain'. Now that is something I find very worrying!

cc All Emails to Jacqui Smith Day - Not A Good Idea

An internet group is urging internet users to send a copy of all emails they send and receive on the 15th June to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary in protest against the government's plans to monitor internet communications (emails, VoIP calls, texts, internet usage etc). Actually the email address is Home Office Address for comments regarding the Policy Consultation Document and not Jacqui Smith Directly.

Firstly I see the policy, which is in the Consultation Phase, as an extension of existing powers covering 'traditional means of communication'. Probably because I have spent much of my professional life in an industry where Terrorism has been the 'Elephant in the Room', not discussed, but always there, I understand the need for extending current legislation to encompass the internet and am in many ways concerned that this has not been dealt with earlier.
However I can understand that for many people this is an issue, and their concerns have both an emotive and intellectual basis and accept my viewpoint is a pragmatic one because of my background.

Secondly the Consultation Document covers the alternatives methods of achieving what is required, whilst at least giving some consideration to privacy concerns. Despite what some Online Articles and Blogs have indicated, HMG is NOT considering a Central Mega-Database (although the consultation document indicates that this would have been a good solution but not a viable one for non-technical reasons - Note: from the Governments Record on actually implementing major IT projects I see this as non-option anyway). So the alternatives revolve around the collection and storage of the required information by: ISPs, Social Networking Sites and VoIP providers.

Moving on from Policy to Emailing the Home Office. Emailing a Government Department regarding a particular issue, or policy statement is the right of every citizen. Encouraging what is effectively email spamming of a department, is at the very least juvenile and distasteful.

I am not a fan of Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary and really don't believe she should be in that job, nor indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity.
Unfortunately the flood of pointless emails will be directed at those trying to put together the comments concerning the Consultation Document and I suspect the effect will be to harden Jacqui Smith's resolve that the policy is necessary and urgent.

Thus the Idle Man finds himself in the awkward position of agreeing with Jacqui Smith that legislation is needed and the consultation document makes sense.

Links:
Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment
If having read the above you want to comment then:
Email the Home Office (But do it before 15th June, as any valid considered comment will be lost in the spam),

In the interests of balance here are some links to sites which have a very different viewpoint to mine:
Henry Potter's Blog - Guardian
NO2ID

Finally of course, you may wish to be Juvenile and Distasteful:
cc all your emails to Jacqui Smith day

Attack in Sri Lankan Cricket Team -Six Police Die in the line of Duty

There has been a lot of criticism over the measures taken by Pakistan to secure the safety of the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.

Well six Policemen Died in the Line of Duty as part of that security failure!

Ambushed and Outgunned the Police did not really stand much chance, but their deaths along with the quick actions of the Driver of the Team Coach saved the Cricketers lives.

Already their deaths and those of the two civilians also killed are footnotes in todays stories in the media. But the Idle Man hopes that the Lahore Police Force buried their dead with Honour and Ceremony due to those who died in the line of duty and will help their families through this time of their grief and into the future.

Moving on to the overall security arrangements, well much better qualified people than I, have stated these were less than adequate, and therefore must have been privy to these arrangements prior to the attack. If this is so, did they raise these concerns before the attack?

Sorry I am being ironic, the people commenting of the security arrangements in the media wouldn't have been briefed and as usual are being wise after the event.

The primary failure as in all highly successful terrorist attacks is in Intelligence. If you don't have prior knowledge of at least the general plan then you cannot quantify the action needed to either arrest those planning to take part, or provide the correct security needed to thwart the attack if it occurs.

That does not mean there were not failures in security on the ground. Mention has been made that the Team Coach took the same route each day. The small scale map of the area I have seen, seems to indicate that the Liberty Roundabout, scene of the attack was going to be part of any route to the ground. Commonsense dictates that if this is a 'choke point' on the route it is where security needs to be at its highest. But the level of security like any insurance is based on risk assessment, which brings us back to the failure in Intelligence.

Every successful Terrorist attack is a failure in Intelligence and Security. But to paraphrase an IRA Terrorist 'you can stop us 9 times out 10, but we only need that one success'.

I am extremely pleased that the casualties to the Sri Lankan Sportsmen and the Officials were limited to minor wounds and also laud the efforts of the Coach Driver to save himself and his passengers.

But my sympathies lie with the families of the two civilians and six policemen who died and the Men and Women of the Lahore police force who lost six colleagues, but today have to carry on policing the city.

External Links:
BBC - How the attack on cricketers happened

The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA

With the arrest of and subsequent court appearance of Kevin Crilly the Torture and subsequent Murder of Captain Robert Nairac is back in the news

Although Kevin Crilly has been released on bail (which I find strange even by the standard of NI judiciary favouring former members of the IRA, due the Peace Accords), the question is which haven for Terrorists has been sheltering Mr Crilly since 1977 – Libya which had links with the IRA by shipping them Arms, Marxist Rebels in Columbia, who used IRA Men as Instructors, or some other shadowy group, or regime?

Well none of the above, as like many terrorists of his ilk he found sanctuary in the United States of America along with two other suspects to the Murder of Captain Robert Naira.

Now the Nairac Case has been revitalised, the police are in discussions with the US Authorities over extraditing the two remaining suspects. I wish them luck, as I covered America’s habit of sheltering Terrorists in a post on the UK-US Extradition Treaty back in August 2006. However I do think it is worth remembering the Crime these men committed which should have them in front of the War Crimes Tribunal In the Hague, not facing some pathetic two year sentence under the Northern Island Peace Accords:

The following is taken from the George Cross Database and formed part of my post:
Pondering on three types of Courage from May 2005

Quote
On the night of 14/15 May 1977 Captain Nairac was abducted from a village in South Armagh by at least seven men. Despite his fierce resistance he was overpowered and taken across the border into the nearby Republic of Ireland where he was subjected to a succession of exceptionally savage assaults in an attempt to extract information which would have put other lives and future operations at serious risk. These efforts to break Captain Nairac's will failed entirely. Weakened as he was in strength-though not in spirit-by the brutality, he yet made repeated and spirited attempts to escape, but on each occasion was eventually overpowered by the weight of the numbers against him. After several hours in the hands of his captors Captain Nairac was callously murdered by a gunman of the Provisional Irish Republican Army who had been summoned to the scene. His assassin subsequently said "He never told us anything".
Captain Nairac's exceptional courage and acts of the greatest heroism in circumstances of extreme peril showed devotion to duty and personal courage second to none.”
Unquote

I hope the United States is proud that it has sheltered the Cowardly Murderers of such a brave man for 30 Years because it has no moral right to say that it is the Leader on the War Against Terror, whilst providing sanctuary for Terrorists!