British Intelligence Knew About Nigerian Undie Bomber 3 Years Ago

British intelligence knew about Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s terrorist ties three years ago.
PTINews reported:

British security agency MI5 was aware that Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, whose attempt to blow up a packed US plane was foiled on Christmas, had “multiple communications” with Islamic extremists in UK three years ago, but did not share this with American officials.

Quoting counter-terrorism officials, The Sunday Times reported that Abdulmutallab was “reaching out” to extremists whom MI5 had kept under surveillance while he was studying at University College, London.

Officials said the 23-year-old Nigerian was “starting out on a journey” in Britain that culminated in his attempt to bring down Northwest Airlines’ flight 253 from Amsterdam as it prepared to land in in the US city of Detroit on Christmas Day.

#2 January 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm
CDR M commented:

Interesting to note that the reporter says the attack was “foiled”. Not quite the term I would use for this incident. Failed comes to mind as does bungled but not foiled as no security plan in place “foiled” this incident. Not even sure that the quick thinking of the passengers foiled it either as it seems the terrorist did not use the syringe correctly.
#4 January 3, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Joanne commented:

I think people should be asking themselves who did Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist, come into contact with too. He was a home grown terrorist, and it would be a good assumption to believe he was in contact with others of the same mindset who reside in America.

#5 January 3, 2010 at 12:55 pm
JollyR commented:

Some news reports are saying the British MI5 did not inform the US of their findings and concerns. I find this hard to believe , but if it is true I wonder if Obama’s rude behavior to PM Brown and the Queen might have a little bit to do with it. Hell, our current leaders in Washington seem to have better relationships with our enemies than our friends.
#7 January 3, 2010 at 1:52 pm
bg commented:

++

i call that SCAPEGOATING!!

bottom line:

it does not NEGATE the fact that O’s US had
their own intelligence & they blew it big time!!

via TRBO

Kristol Crushes

[Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters provides the highlights:

Bill Kristol has set forth a stinging indictment of the Obama admin’s handling of the war on terror. His two-minute monologue on today’s
Fox News Sunday delineated a devastating bill of particulars:

# It was a mistake to treat Abdul Mutallab as a criminal defendant rather than as an enemy combatant: “Mr. Brennan [Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser who appeared earlier] said to you that we’re very worried that there’re other Abdul Mutallabs out there. This Abdul Mutallab was there for four months. He might know who the others are. He might know their names. Will you let him lawyer up?”

# As to Brennan’s claim that there was no “smoking gun” regarding Abdul Mutallab: “He is the smoking gun,” going on to detail all the red flags surrounding him. “Frankly, for Mr. Brennan to say, well, no smoking gun, that itself shows a kind of not-serious-about-the-war mentality.”

The Weekly Standard editor wasn’t through . . .

# “Closing the embassy in Yemen last night? No one wants State Department officials put at risk, but that is a sign of weakness. Closing the embassy? We can’t protect our own embassy in Yemen, a place where we have special operations forces. A place we say we’re working with the government on the front lines of the war on terror? And there’s a terror threat, and we close the embassy?

# Kristol’s damning summation: “That’s a victory for al Qaeda. This
last week has been a victory for al Qaeda in that region, I’m afraid.”]

==
#8 January 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm
bg commented:

via TRBO

Pundita: Whaddya mean there was no smoking gun, Mr
Brennan? More nonsense from Abdulmutallab terror case

[Market Watch reports that Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who made the rounds on TV talk shows this morning, told
ABC’s “This Week” that there was no “smoking gun” or single piece
of intelligence that indicated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was going
to try
to mount an attack.

Actually, the CIA had very specific information that pointed directly
to an imminent terrorist attack. Before reviewing the information I’ll
let Mr Brennan continue talking himself out on a limb.

From the Market Watch report:

“We had the information that came from his father where he was concerned about his son going to Yemen, consorting with extremists, and that he was not going to go back. We also though had other streams of information coming from intelligence channels that were little snippets,” Brennan said [...] “We may have had a partial name, we might have had an indication of a Nigerian, but there was nothing that brought it all together.”

He added that the government needs to do a better job of bringing that sort of information together, “so when a father comes in with information and we have intelligence, we can map that up so that we stop individuals like Abdulmutallab from getting on a plane.”

You lie, sir, or maybe someone lied to you, or your assistants need to keep you better informed. Kudos to blogger Dan Riehl at Riehl World View for rescuing an important ABC News investigative report, dated December 31, from year-end news cycle oblivion. ]

more @ link..

==
#10 January 3, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Paddy commented:

Let’s assume that MI5 gave us information about Mutallub’s radicalization. What happened to it. Who had it and what happened to it for 3 years? The answers present another horrible failure of our intelligence apparatus.

Worse, assume that MI5 did not give us this information. Why? Don’t they trust us to keep secrets and act responsibly?

Worse yet, what if the story that MI5 had the information is false? Who is responsible for it? Al Qaeda? Or, is it deflection from the White House PR department?

Frankly, I believe that the likelihood of an intelligence obtaining meaningful and useful information about Muttalub 3 years ago is unlikely and not credible given the circumstances.
#12 January 3, 2010 at 4:00 pm
chuck in st paul commented:

The explanation is really quite simple – the Brits didn’t want the report on the front page of the New York Times. I don’t blame them, but if this is true then our oldest ally in this deadly world has just walked away. Thanks O-bow-ma.
#13 January 3, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Robert commented:

Again I maintain that there was plenty of cause right at the boarding to require additional screening, or even to deny passage.

All this hype over intelligence is all a bunch of hoopla to push the story around until they can let it drop from the front page.

And yet again nobody will be held accountable.
#14 January 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm
bg commented:

++

chuck in st paul @ 4:00 pm #12

gah!! i had a written a huge post & lost it!! duh!!

anyways, i don’t feel like spending the
time to re-do.. so i’ll just keep it short..

read between the lines..

whatever the Brits knew matters not, our own
intelligence had even more info for 4 months..

besides, i didn’t see any proof that the Brits knew & didn’t share.. note
the source & the vagueness of the report.. it’s strictly a scapegoating distraction as of now, and not a concern imho.. i am positive the Brits
do & would notify US of any pending attack/ers..

whether attention is/would be paid at our end is another story,
as Obama has been/is erecting another communications wall..

==