« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 18, 2006

Binary Liquid Explosives: The Movie

The Register - Mass murder in the skies

Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?

The explosive in question is TriAcetone TriPeroxide, an interesting beast, more than a little tricky to make without blowing yourself up as a consequence of its high instability.

GlobalSecurity.org - Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP)

TATP can be easily prepared in a basement lab using commercially available starting materials obtained from, e.g., hardware stores, pharmacies, and stores selling cosmetics. TATP is a fairly easy explosive to make, as far as explosives manufacturing goes. All it takes is acetone, hydrogen peroxide (3% medicinal peroxide is not concentrated enough), and a strong acid like hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. I don't recommended mixing up a batch for Independence Day celebrations because it's easy to blow yourself up when you make it.

So mixing a batch in the toilet of an airliner in flight begins to look a bit dubious. Given the need for refrigeration and drying during the manufacturing processes, any would-be in-flight chemist is going to be spending a considerable time locked - like the two old dears - in the lavatory. After mixing the acetone, sulfuric acid and concentrated hydrogen peroxide (not the dilute 3% stuff from the chemist on the high street), the explosive takes hours to crystalise out at room temperature.

So our would-be terrorists first buy the ingredients undetected, in spite of being under surveillance for at least a year. Then boil the peroxide (without burning down the house) to concentrate it. Store it in non-reactive containers. Smuggle it onto 3/5/10/11/21/24 (delete as appropriate) airliners. Sneak to the toilets. Mix the stuff (without merely killing themselves in the process). Wait a few hours for the explosive to crystalise out (assuming they've survived this long). Then set it off in such a way as to effectively destroy the plane in flight. A typical London/New York flight lasts about 8 hours so our bombers had better get started as soon as the "Fasten Seatbelts" light goes out.

And - assuming our Government takes airline security seriously - there are problems with bringing TATP on board in its crystaline form. For starters, the stuff is highly unstable and reacts to to friction and shock. So packing the hand luggage and getting to the airport might be a bit fraught, especially considering the state of many of our roads. Then they've got to get past explosive detectors, and feel free to tell anyone who claims TATP is undetectable that they know nothing.

Worldpress.org - Science Takes on the Mother of Satan

Finally, in 2001, he created the first prototype of his Peroxide Explosive Tester, and just last month, he got an American patent on the third prototype. The device looks like an oversized pen with three levers at one end and a removable rubber cap at the other. The cap has a sticky surface designed to collect material; the levers release three solutions that wash over the cap when it is re-attached to the PET.

PET is meant to be a cheap, disposable device. Keinan predicts that it will only cost $10 to $15, and once on the market, it will soon find its way into the pouch of every police officer or agent who deals with explosives

Keinan is now negotiating with three companies that want to produce PET. The next step is to produce, together with Ben-Gurion University’s Zeiri, a long-range TATP detector. The two scientists, along with Ronnie Kosloff and Joseph Almog of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published an academic paper in January on the peroxide explosive. It turns out that TATP does not release heat when it detonates but rapidly decomposes into a gas whose force of expansion is lethal.

While such a discovery has no direct impact on detection, Keinan notes that “TATP becomes less of a threat the more we know about it.”

Even the infamous shoe bomber, Richard Reid, only used it as a detonator. As, in all likelihood, did the 7/7 bombers, if they used it at all.

So not such a threat then, after all. Meanwhile a consequence of the new security measures is to potentially increase the risk of your plane being blown up.

The Register - But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned.

And with more luggage consigned to cargo holds, are the security systems there up to the job?

Posted by Clive at 2:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 11, 2006

Something doesn't add up

Checking out the following:

<7-Aug: America's foreknowledge CBS - U.S. Gov't Knew Of Plot 'For Days'
Snow also said that Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a lengthy teleconference on the matter on Sunday and spoke again Wednesday, on the phone.

Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson said his agency had known for several days of the unfolding plot but waited for a signal from the British to announce it.

7-Aug: Blair's foreknowledge. The Mirror - EXCLUSIVE: WHERE'S BLAIR? PM KNEW OF THREAT
Senior Government sources said Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director general of MI5, briefed the PM and Home Secretary John Reid on Monday, giving them details of the scale of the threat and possible death toll from an attack.

9-Aug: Blair's holiday departure. The Australian - Blair to work on tan and Lebanon solution
TONY Blair left belatedly for his Caribbean holiday on Tuesday, voicing hope over a UN resolution on Lebanon but preparing to spend much of his time in the sun on the telephone.

9-Aug: Prescott's new job. Daily Express - Prescott really is in hot seat

JOHN Prescott has finally got himself a new job – as the Government’s "heatwave tsar".

The £134,000-a-year Deputy Prime Minister has taken on the task of ensuring preparations are in place in the event temperatures climb back up to last month’s record levels.

10-Aug: Airport chaos following the foiling of the latest terror plot. BBC - 'Airlines terror plot' disrupted

So the U.S. Government knew several days before things blew up, as - presumably - did Blair, although all the emphasis has been on the Monday briefing. Unless there was a massive breakthrough in intelligence, the PM must have been aware that the raids were going to go off on the Thursday. In spite of this, he still flew out to Barbados on the Tuesday, leaving his supposed stand-in to take up a make-work roll while Dr John Reid effectively becomes the front man.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that our government is either dishonest, incompetant or supremely over-confident of its abilities.

For those of a tin-foil wearing disposition Sploid - Terra! Terra! Terra! (link via MattB)

Posted by Clive at 12:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2006

Stay lucky

We only need to be lucky once. You need to be lucky every time. — The IRA to Margaret Thatcher, after she survived the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton.

And that's the problem with combating terrorists, the security forces can't afford to ignore any intelligence pointing towards an attack, lest the terrorists get lucky. And so we have situations such as Forest Gate or the de Menezes shooting.

BBC - 'Airlines terror plot' disrupted

A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

Police arrested about 18 people in the London area and West Midlands after an anti-terrorist operation.

High security is causing delays at all UK airports, Heathrow is closed to incoming flights, and MI5 has raised the threat level to critical.

According to MI5's website, critical threat level - the highest - means "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK".

Now eventually the full details will come to light, and suspects will either be released without charge or prosecuted. And the prosecutions might succeed or fail. And successful prosecutions might be appealed against. The bottom line is that we live in such a state as a consequence of Blair's decision to re-interpret the special relationship with America as one where British foreign policy became a mere adjunct of US policy, and Blair effectively became a Presidential Spokesman with an English accent.

But the disruption and chaos caused in the fallout from foiling the plot might be used in future as a terrorist tactic. After all, why risk blowing yourself up, or getting caught red-handed with explosive materials, when effective use of electronic communications could give the impression of a credible terrorist plot. After all, the security forces can't afford to ignore it.

And the effects are impressive; Heathrow shut to incoming flights, air travel out of the UK disrupted, airline shares hammered, the FTSE down over 80 points, business meeting disrupted, increased security costs to cover additional security personal, etc, etc. Not to mention the costs of any potential, subsequent criminal proceedings.

Who needs a real bomb to cause havoc when the security services are so twitchy? Remember, even when the threat isn't real, it still costs you, personally.

Update 10:55 - Bloggerheads - They'll never take our freedaaaarrrgh!

Update 17:25 More bloggage:

Europhobia - Oh, come on...

Perfect.co.uk - Airshow

Kitty Killer - Now is the time for salt, and pinching

Blair Watch - John Reid - removing our freedoms in order to preserve them

Posted by Clive at 10:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 9, 2006

Be afraid

Be afraid, be very afraid. A classic quote from David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly. And with MI5 spending record amounts on anti-terrorism, that would appear to be exactly what the Government wants us to be.

The Times - MI5 diverts record amount of budget to fight terrorism

To cope with the terrorist threat, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director-General of MI5, has now switched another £16 million of her annual budget of £200 million towards fighting international terrorism. A record 87 per cent of the MI5 budget is now spent on counter-terrorism.

So we're now spending somewhere in the region of £174 million a year fighting terrorism in this country.

The thirteen foiled suspected international terrorist plots include one in November 2000, four in 2003, two in 2004, four in 2005 and two this year. The suspected plots this year do not include the police raid in Forest Gate, East London, conducted on June 2 after an intelligence tip-off raised fears that there was a chemical device in a house. Nothing was found.

The suspected plots also do not include a mass of overheard and uncovered conspiracies still in full flow with which the security services are trying to keep pace as more intelligence is gleaned daily.

Notice how things escalated after we commited ourselves to standing shoulder to shoulder with the US on Iraq and the War on Terror? It just goes to illustrate the dishonesty behind Blair's claims that our involvement in Iraq had done nothing to increase our exposure to terrorist attack.

Referring back to the aforementioned film, the original tag line could apply to John Reid; Half man, half insect ... total terror!;

The Guardian - Britain facing 'most sustained threat since WWII', says Reid

In a speech to Demos, a London thinktank, the hyperactive home secretary - who will mark 100 days in the job this Friday - confirmed that a terrorist attack on the UK was "highly likely", as signalled by the current "severe" warning on official government websites.

He also called for a "Darwinian" approach to the legal system, saying that it must be "responsive to change" in order to protect the nation against terrorism.

Now I hate it when politicians use the term Darwinian to describe their approach to policy making. Because instead of evolutionary, what they are really describing is a suck-it-and-see approach to matters. Now what Reid proposes as a constructive way forward is less of a policy and more a spasm, an uncontrollable jerking abour guaranteed to do more harm than good, and with any benefits that may result being more by luck than anything else.

He complained that as home secretary he was "in a very difficult position", unable to always prosecute individuals due to the difficulty of obtaining "sufficiently cogent admissible evidence for a criminal trial", while facing legal bars against deporting or detaining them.

And such marvellous doublespeak, giving the impression that the problem is not with inadequate evidence, but rather with the law placing an unreasonable burden of proof upon the state. Yet these are laws that New Labour placed on the Statute, including too many pieces of anti-terror legislation to mention. All the same, Reid is saying, it's not our fault that we can do nothing with these obviously guilty people. So what does he propose?

"Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms."

Short term presumably being for the duration of the War on Terror. But given how sluggish performance has been so far in Afghanistan, Iraq and - for the Israelis - in Lebanon, short term could be a very long time indeed. And again we have the doublespeak - "..modify some of our own freedoms..." - the reality being closer to sacrifice than adjustment.

And the piece-de-resistance?

Mr Reid also pointed out that European-wide human rights - such as freedom from detention, forced labour, torture and punishment without trial - had been formulated in the wake of state fascism, but were now threatened by what he dubbed "fascist individuals".

There you have it. The solution to the threat from "fascist individuals" is to effectively reintroduce state fascism, the very evil which human rights legislation was supposed to protect us against. Marcus Aurelius said that "The noblest kind of retribution is not to become like your enemy.", something our leaders would do well to consider as they take us inexorably down the path to oppression, becoming that which they claim to be struggling against.

And it is incumbent upon us, as civilised individuals to do all we can to oppose the few who would lead us down this path and the more numerous who condone such a course of action.

The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all. - Tacitus

Posted by Clive at 9:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 8, 2006

When does it end

There comes a point when enough is enough, when, in all honesty, you're just too fed up of taking sh*t and the chances of anyone doing anything about are pretty damn near zero.

Daily Express - Blair to stay another year

TONY Blair still wants to be Prime Minister a year from now – or longer – supporters claimed yesterday.

He was said to be "very definitely up" over his future and didn’t intend this summer to be his last as PM. A Number 10 official said Mr Blair felt there was "unfinished business" and that he wanted "over the next year or so" to see the development of the next generation of ideas for New Labour.

Given his recent shmoozing trip to the US, it's hardly surprising that the bastard feels "up". Especially if he has managed to arrange some deal for when he finally leaves power. As has been said before, Blair's current objective is surely to beat Thatcher's 11 years and 6 months as Prime Minister, regardless of the damage inflicted upon this country's position both at home and abroad.

The fact is that for all his talk about British influence abroad, his slavish adherence to tying British foreign policy with that of the United States has ultimately resulted in our having no independant influence.

The Telegraph - Peace deals with French fries to go

But if Britain's star is in the decline, this is because Washington has finally woken up to the weakness of Mr Blair's domestic position and the ineffectiveness of the Foreign Office, which seems institutionally incapable of dealing with blatant threats to international security.

Even Blair's cabinet choices are influence by Washington.

The Sunday Times - How the US fired Jack Straw

WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.

And that's not mentioning Robin Cook's departure as a consequence of his criticisms of America's failure to act on the Kyoto Protocol.

So foreign policy is decided in Washington, domestic policy is a mess of sound bites, restatement of failed policies, continued privatisation by the back door and a slavish devotion to money and big business.

Inspite of all of this, we have Blair vowing to stay on for another year, Prescott stripped of his office but still Deputy PM, Gordon Brown plotting and scheming in a so-far ineffectual manner and creeps like Milliband smarming their way into the list of potential successors.

And John Reid has the temerity to state that Tony Blair will leave at a time of his own choosing. That’s what the party wants and what is best for the country.

"The important thing is that the country knows that, whenever Tony Blair leaves, the Labour Party will continue to be a reforming, centre-left, progressive party, addressing the issues this country wants addressed.. Progressive? Centre-left? And as for addressing the issues this country wants, don't make me laugh.

But maybe New Labour is just an inevitable consequence of decisions made at the beginning of the last century. The Fabians and the Independant Labour Party (both participants in the Labour Representation Committee founded in 1900 along with representation from the Social Democratic Federation and trade unionists) decided on a course of reform rather than revolution. They believed that true socialism could only realistically be achieved by reforming the capitalist system, rather than by its abolition. And therein lies the seeds of New Labour's failure. Although appearing radical at the time, piecemeal reform inevitably exposed the Labour Party and its ilk to a dilution of principles and a corruption of ideals. Had Kier Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and their fellows of the time know where the future would take the Labour Party, one has to wonder whether they might have decided that the radical, revolutionary approach was indeed the better way forward.

The above shouldn't be taken as a criticism of Hardie and the leading lights of the Labour movement at the time. They were living in revolutionary times; Kier Hardie was born less than 40 years after the Peterloo massacre, and Britain throughout the 19th century stood on the precipice of revolution more than once. The failure of revolution in Russia to deliver real power to the people must have been a reassurance that the reform approach was the right one.

Just over 100 years after its formation, the Labour Party has never been further from its roots, from its original aims and objectives. Instead of delivering real power to the people, it has become a party of government whose prime objective is to remain in power with people like Blair reaping the benefits of a system that has always favoured the few rather than the many.

Certainly there are many Labour Party members who have kept the faith to a greater degree; people like Bob Piper and Walter Wolfgang to name but two. And the recent success of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance in the recent NEC elections shows a glimmer of hope. But it is only a glimmer, and one that could be easily extinguished.

The next 12 months are critical. If Blair is allowed to choose the time of his departure and the nature of both his successor and the party then, as a representation of socialism, Labour will have failed. If it can find a way to rid itself of Blair, end its love affair with the capitalist system and realise that radical reform is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago (and as nothing to do with PFI), then maybe, just maybe, that glimmer of hope can be nutured.

To be honest, I think it is too late. Labour has moved too far to the right, its acceptance of the capitalist system has become almost overwhelming. In the early days of the last century, reform was chosen over revolution. In the early days of this century, revolution looks like the only way forward.

Posted by Clive at 1:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack