Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
23 NOVEMBER 2004
MS JANE
CORBIN
Q40 Chairman: Are you surprised that
he has not been shot?
Ms Corbin: I am not. There is
another very large price on Osama bin Laden's head. There are
heavy prices on a number of heads of the known leaders of al-Qaeda,
and very few of them have been shot. They have nearly all been
killed or captured in shoot-outs rather than as a result of insider
information. It does not work like that in those areas where tribal
loyalties are strong, where fear of course is an enormous factor,
and in the general chaos that we have in Iraq and in the Sunni
Triangle, I am not surprised.
Q41 Sir John Stanley: I am going to ask
you the big question: do you think the world is a safer or less
safe place following the invasion of Iraq?
Ms Corbin: From my observations
within Iraq and in other parts of the world, I do not think it
is safer in any way. I would have to, if I am honest, say that
I feel that the world is a less safe place because of the fracturing
of these groups, their ability to form looser and looser affiliations
and to grow their network. I think that the CIA is recently on
record as admitting that they are amazed at the ability of al-Qaeda
to replicate. I think when I appeared before you just over a year
ago I said that I believed in the first six months after 9/11
in the war in Afghanistan that al-Qaeda was severely hit, it was
difficult for them to operate, but what has been extraordinary
is their ability to fight back not as a single organisation, and
it never was that by the way, but its ability to grow other organisations
and to form affiliations. Therefore, a more diffuse network is
more difficult to deal with and, consequently, I think, therefore,
that the world is less safe and Iraq I feel has certainly added
to the problem.
Q42 Sir John Stanley: Can I just turn
to how this grim form of terrorism is evolving. You have obviously
been watching it closely, particularly in Iraq, but also elsewhere,
so what is your judgment as to the degree to which al-Qaeda terrorists
or determined insurgents are increasing their level of sophistication
of operation, particularly combining conventional forms of terrorism
with the use of suicide attacks? Do you feel that they are on
a learning curve and becoming that much more difficult or not?
Ms Corbin: I think that 9/11 proved
how sophisticated an operation they could mount, so I think it
is not that they have become more sophisticated, but perhaps they
have found new opportunities, they have recruited new people.
In Iraq, for example, in the early days of the suicide bombings,
it was said that it could not possibly be Iraqis doing this, but
I think we have seen that the sheer number of such attacks has
grown and the sheer frequency that there can be little doubt that
Iraqis, perhaps people who were once very secular, have been persuaded
that this ideology of "martyrdom" is something that
they can follow, so I think that is very worrying. I think we
are seeing an increase, for example, in these suicide bombings,
so that is one thing that worries me, and I am not one of the
people who feels, as some do, that 9/11 was the last hurrah, if
you like, that they are not capable of mounting such an attack
or a similar kind of attack in terms of sophistication. I think
it will take a long time, but they are very, very patient and
they are prepared to wait for years until the right cell in the
right place can come up with the right plan. Therefore, I feel
that they have by no means finished, they have not been finished
and they still have the capability to mount such an attack or
something similar.
Q43 Sir John Stanley: Can I just take
you through some of the particular terrorist techniques which
are in operation now quite clearly in Iraq. What is your judgment
as to the degree of emphasis they are placing on infiltration,
particularly infiltration of the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army
recruits? Would you agree that some of the cold-blooded murders
that we have seen clearly depended on penetrating the security
of those organisations and working in conjunction with people
inside who knew about lorry movements and where concentrations
of the police or members of the armed forces were likely to be
found?
Ms Corbin: Yes, and I think infiltration
of course has been a very effective weapon that they have used,
but again I would differentiate between the more al-Qaeda-allied
Islamic militants and the Ba'athist insurgents. The Ba'athist
insurgents have used to great effect a lot of the military tactics
that, after all, they have learnt. Many of them are thought to
be former police and army officers and also have access to explosives,
so they have used those techniques very successfully and in the
cold-blooded murder of large numbers of Iraqi recruits to the
police services and security services, so infiltration is one
thing they have used very effectively. I think the other thing
we have all watched with growing horror is the practice of hostage-taking
and kidnapping and this certainly can be linked back as a tactic
to al-Qaeda. I think we all remember the capture, kidnap and eventual
horrible murder of Daniel Pearl shortly after 9/11 and before
that there are other examples in Kashmir, for example, involving
some British hostages way back before 9/11, so this is a technique
they have used. I think they have allied it increasingly to another
skill which they have become very adept at using which is the
whole business of propaganda, videos, pictures on the Internet
and the spread of those techniques, and that has been used to
horrific effect with these beheadings which they find a way of
getting on to television or the Web very quickly and that has
obviously had a big effect not only on the way people in Iraq
feel, but we have seen it even here with the taking of some of
the British hostages, the kind of effect it has had on public
opinion back here. This is tool of terrorism, this is what terrorism
is, it seeks to terrify, and this is a very effective weapon that
we have seen them willing to use more and more in recent months.
Q44 Sir John Stanley: You have very acutely
anticipated my next two questions which were precisely in those
areas, about the use of kidnapping and the use of media manipulation.
Could I just ask you on the area of media manipulation, you very
well are able to give us your perspective from your particular
background, but is it your judgment that the showing of these
appalling scenes on television, including the beheading and murder
of people, in media terms that is working to al-Qaeda's advantage
or do you think this is actually showing millions of people around
the world the sheer horror of these people and repelling people
rather than attracting them?
Ms Corbin: Well, I think that
there are different audiences that these videos are directed at.
There is the western audience and the desire there is to terrify,
to spread the message of terror and I think that is very effective.
I think for a very small segment of the population that al-Qaeda
seeks to recruit and to attract, if you like, the angry element
of young, perhaps dispossessed Muslim youth, somehow the way that
these videos portray the ability of terrorists to exercise power
over westerners who are often seen in that society as being the
ones who exercise the controlling influence, that is quite potent
with that particular small group of recruits and it is meant to
be, so I think there are different messages going out to different
people. Bin Laden himself does not use those kind of videos. He
presents himself in a much more, if you can use the term and he
would like to think certainly, statesman-like way. He gives speeches,
he makes announcements things and you do not see him in these
blood-thirsty, awful videos, but you see some of his fighters
using these techniques, so again I think the sophisticated element
is the way that different videos are made in different ways and
directed at different segments of his audience. Again he appeals
sometimes to the broader opinion in parts of the Middle East where
there is anger at American policy, British policy and European
policy in, the Israeli/Palestinian question, for example, and
the skilful use made of video footage of the killing of Palestinians,
for example, and that is another element they use very well in
their videos, so I think different messages to different groups
and some of them very effective. Yes, you are right, they are
very, very off-putting and they are cruel and evil in the extreme,
and to the audience that receives them in that way, the message
of terror I think is very clearly taken.
Q45 Sir John Stanley: Terrorism coupled
with kidnap coupled with media exposure, do you judge that that
is going to remain confined essentially to Iraq and possibly one
or two neighbouring countries, possibly even Saudi Arabia and
Afghanistan, or do you have any anxiety that this is a particular
form of terrorist technique which might get used more widely?
Ms Corbin: Well, I think that
we have seen actually something a little more encouraging in the
last few weeks and certainly when I speak to contacts in Iraq,
as I do on a daily basis, the information that I have is that
the awful video, which we have not seen, but some Arab stations
have shown, of what happened to Margaret Hassan has actually turned
public opinion in Iraq in quite a dramatic way. Now, whether that
will last or not, I do not know, but people have been horrified
because here was an aid worker who had given her life to Iraq.
It may be that that was a video too far, but, on the other hand,
we have seen of course the release in Afghanistan just today of
some western hostages, so I would like to think that perhaps that
is another encouraging sign that we have seen the tide turn in
using this as a technique. I am afraid that these things go in
waves and it may go quiet for a while now, but that does not mean
that we have seen the end of hostage-taking as a purely criminal
endeavour because a lot of it is about raising ransom money and
this, I think, will continue, so I do not think we have seen the
end of it, although, as I say, there are some encouraging signs
that it has backfired, if you like, on the kidnappers.
Q46 Sir John Stanley: Do you agree with
the reports that the hostage-takers in Afghanistan, and we all
hugely share your relief at the release of those three hostages,
that that particular group in fact was doing it for commercial
reasons rather than plain terrorism?
Ms Corbin: I think, knowing Afghanistan
and kidnap is a long and honourable tradition, or not so honourable
a tradition in certain areas, it was probably for money at the
end of the day.
Q47 Sir John Stanley: I would like just
to turn to Afghanistan now. What is your view as to whether we
are winning the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, whether
it is still stale-mated or whether we are actually losing it as
of now?
Ms Corbin: Well, I think the recent
elections were very encouraging, that President Karzai received
a mandate to govern that country and will now be seen to be independent.
I think the parliamentary elections, which will come in April,
will be perhaps even more revealing if they can be held in an
atmosphere of relative calm. I think there will be the temptation
for more violence there because it will be easier for people to
intimidate through violence in all the different regions, so I
think it remains to be seen, but I think that the security situation
is not good. It is not possible to move around outside Kabul and
the warlords still reign supreme. Personally, I think it is a
matter of great concern that the opium production is up 400% from
the year 2001 and that it may mean that some element of that production
is being used to finance what remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban
still exist in the country and over the border in Pakistan, so
I think the situation is very unstable. We have done better perhaps
in the War on Terror in Afghanistan than we seem to have done
so far in Iraq. I think it is early days yet and I think that
perhaps with the efforts to find an exit strategy in Iraq by both
the British and the US Governments, which obviously are going
to be key in the next year or so, perhaps the pendulum will swing
and more resources and more effort will be put back into Afghanistan
and into those areas particularly in the south and the east where
we still believe that al-Qaeda is able to operate across those
borders and where I still believe bin Laden and those around him
may well be.
Q48 Sir John Stanley: I would like to
come to Europe and the United States and the degree of risk there
in a moment, but let's take some of the other parts of the world.
What is your judgment at the moment as to whether we are, in simplistic
terms, winning or losing the battle against what can broadly be
called al-Qaeda? Clearly we have had some extremely serious al-Qaeda-type
terrorist attacks in Saudi, we have had serious attacks elsewhere
in the Middle East and we have had another attack against an Australian
target in Indonesia. Do you feel that worldwide we are losing
or do you feel in fact that we are still getting on top of al-Qaeda?
Ms Corbin: I think in some areas
there have been encouraging signs. I think al-Qaeda, through the
offices of Algerian militants, have tried to expand into the Sahel
region, into Chad, Mauritania and northern Nigerian where there
are obviously large Muslim populations and I understand that local
forces, aided with specialist expertise from American forces,
have been able to push back that attempted expansion. However,
on the other hand, we have seen, for example, in south-east Asia
and Australia difficulties in getting to grips with Jamaarh Islamia
who are believed to have been behind the Bali bombing and although
we have had the arrest of important operatives, amongst them Hambali
who was very key in that Bali bombing planning, we have new local
leaders. This goes back to what I said about al-Qaeda's ability
to regenerate itself, to split, to form new groups. There is somebody
called Zulkarnean, a former Afghan veteran, who, it seems, has
replaced Hambali. It is almost like an alphabet soup of names
in that for everyone who is taken out of circulation, you can
point to another one who begins to become important within the
hierarchy, so it is mixed news. There have been successes in certain
parts of the world and I think in other parts and certainly in
Saudi I think the problem still remains very, very acute, just
as the Saudi authorities, who seem to be far more focused now
on their hunt for these people, just as they arrest or kill one
leader of al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is able to announce the formation
of a new group and a new leader, so I think in those areas we
cannot say that we are getting on top of the problem. Al-Qaeda
remains a threat and it is always looking through affiliated groups,
through like-minded organisations who share the same philosophy
and it is always looking for opportunities, for weaknesses in
states, for difficulties that it can exploit to bring into being,
and to encourage, local chapters.
Q49 Sir John Stanley: Coming to Europe
now, clearly all the European governments have been doing their
utmost to put in place tougher legislation to deal with terrorism,
and in the UK we have had some more announced here today. We have
had the Spanish rail terrorism and clearly there are relatively
high terrorist threats on any sort of western target throughout
Western Europe, including of course the UK. What is your judgment
as to the degree of vulnerability we have to al-Qaeda now compared
to just before 9/11?
Ms Corbin: I think we have to
be vigilant because just as it is undoubtedly true that bin Laden
and, if you like, al-Qaeda central is part of an old formation
of al-Qaeda which has less day-to-day control and has been replaced
with this new, more diffuse organisation, which even intelligence
agencies tend now to characterise as new al-Qaeda rather than
old al-Qaeda, we know that the hard core, if you like, old al-Qaeda
is still capable of running operations long-term and I think in
the case of Madrid, there is a strong feeling, and also in Turkey
where the attacks were against our own consulate, that there was
an element of central al-Qaeda being involved in the planning
of those operations. I think this shows that they still have the
reach to Europe and to British interests in places like Turkey
which are obviously on the border between the East and the West,
so I think we have to remain vigilant. I do not think we can say
that al-Qaeda has mutated into something less dangerous, that
day-to-day control has been taken away from bin Laden, or that
they are no longer interested in, or capable of, carrying out
long-term terror attacks. They may not be capable of such ambitious
attacks as 9/11, but, goodness, Madrid of course was a terrible,
terrible attack.
Q50 Chairman: And not very sophisticated.
Ms Corbin: And not very sophisticated,
but quite sophisticated as to its timing, as to the near simultaneous
bombing on the four trains. No, the methods, the backpacks with
the explosives all bought from a mining company, were relatively
unsophisticated, but the sophistication of using mobile phone
detonators and having four teams able to do that near-simultaneously,
that is the hallmark of al-Qaeda and I think shows they are still
able to do it and that is why vigilance is important as is the
whole process of law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering, which
I have always felt was more of an answer long-term than a military
solution in the war against terror.
Q51 Sir John Stanley: Then the United
States. We were very interested in your extremely illuminating
recent programme on Panorama with the relatives of the
9/11 victims, and clearly they have, understandably, and right
across the United States there is still, a very real fear of being
subjected to another terrorist attack. How far do you feel that
the US Administration has conferred a significant extra degree
of security on that now?
Ms Corbin: We see a number of
alerts from orange to red to yellow which constantly changes.
I think the awareness is there of course post-9/11 and given it
did to the psyche of that country. The work that was done by the
9/11 Commission I think has meant that the US public will be far
more prepared and far more alert. Some have been critical saying
that it is scaremongering, that fear is being unreasonably stirred
up. However though I think that they are more prepared, how prepared
can an open country, a democracy, ever be against people who are
very determined to do this kind of thing? Every road tunnel, every
bridge, every railway, every tube station is a potential target
and it is impossible to protect, but better intelligence-gathering,
better sharing of information—and certainly the American
public is aware in a way that it never was before, and some would
say it was complacent before—I think are the best safeguards,
but you cannot have 100% security and the ability to guard against
terror attacks.
Q52 Sir John Stanley: Al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related
elements have been using conventional weapons, conventional explosives
for doing terrorist attacks, 9/11 and subsequently. What is your
judgment as to the degree of risk that they may try to move into
WMD and where do you see the risks that they might be able to
do that in terms of what they might be able to procure?
Ms Corbin: I think that when I
last appeared I said that I felt the intention was there, but
not the ability above and beyond a sort of crude ability to create
poisons in terms of chemical and biological weapons, but the nuclear
option I felt was still quite a long way off. I have not seen
any information and I have not come across any information in
the last year or so that tells me they are any closer to their
objective and I still believe that it is an objective of bin Laden's.
I note that the US Marines have said that in the combing through
of Fallujah in the last two days, they have found a cache of chemicals,
crude chemicals, but chemicals that might be incorporated into
the kind of bombs that the insurgents would be using in Fallujah,
some of them are Islamic militants, so again I think they may
not have the ability to strike in a way that would endanger a
whole city, but they are looking for it all the time. They are
looking for the value added, in their terms, and I do not think
I can say too much about it, but certain things, events in this
country and arrests that have been made, though I do not want
to stray into legally difficult areas here, have also shown that
those who are accused of having sympathies or perhaps being involved
in these organisations have sought such materials, but again I
do not think I should talk about it too much given that it is
as yet going through the courts.
Q53 Mr Illsley: On something you mentioned
earlier, a courier from al-Zarqawi to bin Laden was intercepted,
it just struck me, are we any closer to finding bin Laden? Again
this follows on from another thing you said about the ability
of the organisation to recreate itself. Donald Rumsfeld said on
the 4th October, I think it was, that more than two-thirds of
al-Qaeda's leadership have been arrested, detained or killed.
That obviously contradicts what you have been saying and tends
to give me the worry that we will never find bin Laden.
Ms Corbin: Well, perhaps I can
just deal with Donald Rumsfeld's comments and come back to bin
Laden. Yes, this is a message that comes constantly from the Bush
Administration, and the figure they give is that between two-thirds
and three-quarters of al-Qaeda's leadership has been dealt with,
but this was the three-quarters of the leadership that we knew
about on 9/11 and that is three years ago, and there is an alternative
leadership now. First of all, they have not taken out the people
at the very top and those underneath them, we are led to believe,
have been replaced by others, for example, in Saudi where whenever
they take one leader out and then al-Qaeda announces that it now
has different person, and Amer Azizi is a new name that comes
up who is a man still at large and believed to be behind the Madrid
bombing, a new al-Qaeda figure. We could talk about names endlessly,
but I personally do not believe that you can say that the majority
of al-Qaeda's leaders are taken out. I think the ones we knew
about then have been taken out and have been replaced with other
leaders and also people below that in the strata, because it has
always operated in cells anyway and I am not quite sure how important
leaders, in the sense that we understand them in the West as military
operational chiefs. I am not sure how important they are, I am
less confident that the organisation has been decapitated and
still the man at the very top and indeed his deputy and indeed
Mullah Omah, who were the three top wanted figures when the War
on Terror was launched, are still at large, and whether they exercise
day-to-day control or not, they are figureheads and they are very
important, I think, as propaganda tools for al-Qaeda.
Q54 Mr Illsley: Are we still looking
for them?
Ms Corbin: Yes.
Q55 Mr Illsley: The reason I ask that
is you have just said that the organisation can operate without
them and I just wondered whether the West was now perhaps looking
to spend more time, effort and resources dealing with anti-terrorism
at home rather than going looking for, if you like, the leadership
and whether, even if we find them, it will make any difference
to a terrorist attack.
Ms Corbin: Well, I think it is
important for political reasons and the kind of propaganda we
have been talking about where the videos and audiotapes that continue
to come out are powerful recruiting tools, so making bin Laden
still very effective. We can talk a little about the latest tape,
if you like, because I think that was a particularly key moment,
the appearance of bin Laden on video after more than two and a
half years. On the hunt for bin Laden, we are led to believe that
the trail has gone cold. The belief is that he is still in the
border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan and indeed his video
is believed to be genuine and he makes comments in it that date
it to recent months, but the idea that anybody has got any closer
to him has certainly gone away. There was a period in the summer
when we saw intense activity in the tribal areas on the Pakistani
side of the border, an operation known as the "Hammer and
Anvil" whereby the Pakistani forces were attempting to drive
across the militants to be trapped, if you like, against the anvil
of American forces on the Afghan side, but people were unsure
as to how much that was for political effect to show that President
Musharraf was a trustworthy ally in the War on Terror and how
much was down to the real indication that they had al-Qaeda people
cornered. There was certainly a rumour that they believed al-Zawahiri
was in that area, but I never heard of real concrete evidence
that they had bin Laden cornered at that point. Since then, my
information is that the trail has gone cold.
Q56 Mr Illsley: Just moving, as Sir John
mentioned, to the situation in Europe, I just wondered what your
take was on the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the film-maker, whether
that was just an incident of a backlash from the Muslim community
against the film that they saw as offensive, a Satanic Verses-type
issue, or whether this has developed into something far more serious
and will produce perhaps a backlash against the Muslim communities
in Europe where there are now attacks on mosques and so on in
the Netherlands. Are the two linked or would it be possible to
isolate the incident?
Ms Corbin: I think there were
similarities to the Satanic Verses in that I understand
that the film which sparked this particular attack was very controversial
and put forward views which would be offensive to many Muslims,
but I think, on the other hand, there is no doubt a section of
young Muslim men usually who are very angry, who feel dispossessed
and disillusioned in our society, whether it be the Netherlands
or here in Britain. I think the fear of those who track these
developments, and I think it is something for our own Government
and I know our own Government is very interested and concerned
about, is how do you head off that anger and that feeling of alienation
and dispossession before it is put to potent use by those who
would recruit from that alienated section of our society. I think
it is a very real problem for us in this country. It is not new,
it has been that way for some time and I think 9/11 brought it
to a head. I think again, if I can just go back to Iraq, that
those insurgents who have been captured recently, whether they
be on the Ba'athist end of the scale or the Islamic militant end
of the scale, they are very angry and sometimes very incoherent
about what their reasons are for wanting to fight and kill coalition
forces, but there is a common theme which is an anger and a feeling
of futility and loss in not quite knowing the motive for what
they are doing and what the future holds for them. I think that
can be paralleled in a less extreme way in our own society and
in the Netherlands as well and it is a potent mix and it is a
mix that we have to get to terms with and we have to try and find
long-term solutions to.
Q57 Sir John Stanley: You have just touched
on the area that I wanted to come on to which is what are the
policy options and whether there are things that particularly
the British Government, which we are particularly concerned with
here, could be doing and are not doing now. We all recognise that
this is by far and away the most difficult terrorist issue in
our lifetime because these are people who basically have a non-negotiable
agenda. Do you feel, against that background, that in terms of
trying to overcome them that we have any options other than the
military and intelligence options in dealing with the al-Qaeda
hard-core? Do you feel that there are any political policy options
or negotiating options that we can entertain?
Ms Corbin: I think that law-enforcement
and intelligence have to be the option with the hard-core because
it is perhaps too late to do anything about the way that they
feel about our society, but I think it is very important that
a different attitude be taken to those who might find themselves
swimming in that direction or might find themselves susceptible
to joining and that is to do with integration into our society,
being part of it, being given opportunity, and also, it has to
be said, solving the kind of political problems long-term that
anger many of the Muslim world, whether it be the Israeli/Palestinian
question or the lack of democracy across the Arab world. However,
for the hard-core I believe that you have to keep a firm intelligence-gathering
and legal framework, law-enforcement framework, but the whole
point of the operation is to stop that sector growing and to head
people off before they join. There are initiatives, like, for
example, the attempt to regulate the kind of religious teachers
that come to Britain and teach in mosques, to encourage a more
home-grown, moderate form of Islam than the importation of mullahs
who follow a more extreme Wahabist creed of Islam, though that
seems quite a long-term view, but it is important. On the other
hand, I think that when terrorist attacks occur as happened in
Madrid and we in the UK see that and we feel that to be very close
to home, then it is important too that the Muslim community here
stands up and is counted in (a) saying it is wrong and (b), if
they have information, being encouraged to report it and to make
sure that these kind of terrorist cells are not allowed to develop
here. I think responsibility lies there as well.
Q58 Sir John Stanley: How up the agenda
for the British Government and indeed other western governments
should be the whole issue of trying to support reformist, more
democratic movements inside some of the key Middle Eastern states,
African states, Saudi, and down the Gulf? I think we are all very
conscious that there is a sort of small two-way conflicting push
here which to a degree we experience in this country. Terrorism
tends to make governments reach for suppressive, intrusive and
potentially dictatorial instruments, but at the same time if you
pursue those policies, as the Saudis are certainly experiencing,
you create a potential cauldron which is likely to overcome your
regime. Do you feel that the British Government is doing enough
in the reformist agenda or do you think that it is going to have
to accept the realities of terrorism and recognise that a lot
of countries will say, "Our first priority is to keep our
state together", and they are not going to take whatever
measures unless they can ensure that happens?
Ms Corbin: I think Britain has
taken a tougher stance. I am not sure that it would have taken
it if America had not taken it following 9/11 and the fact that
19 of the hijackers were Saudi. I think this has changed public
opinion in America towards Saudi Arabia and has driven their Government's
policy, so I think we have followed on from them, and I am not
confident that the British Government would have perhaps taken
that line alone. Recent and very interesting work has been done
in Norway on the reasons why terrorists become terrorists and
particularly suicide bombers. It was often thought that poverty
was a key factor, but their work has shown that it is not poverty,
but one of the key factors is repression, the lack of democracy
and the feeling that they have no voice in their own country,
so I think that research bears out the importance of pushing in
that direction, pushing for more democracy in those countries
where it is lacking.
Q59 Chairman: Following Sir John's theme,
in terms of the implication for us in the UK of these wider movements,
there was an interesting juxtaposition in today's morning press
where The Independent suggested that the Government was
seeking to create a climate of fear as if exaggerating the threat,
yet the Daily Mail had a large piece about the danger or
the threat to Canary Wharf. How do you respond?
Ms Corbin: Well, in the book that
I wrote about al-Qaeda, I did actually give details about Canary
Wharf as a possible target and the fears of our own intelligence
and security apparatus about Canary Wharf, but I have never seen
any evidence that suggests that a plot has actually been uncovered
to attack Canary Wharf. There certainly was information about
an attack on Heathrow Airport and that was well documented and
troops were sent to surround Heathrow Airport. The fear was there
that a shoulder-launched missile could have been used against
a plane taking off or landing, but I was a bit surprised at the
Daily Mail headline today. I do not know of an actual plot
to fly planes into—
|
