Kommentar

Stor-razziaen mot et hus i Forest Gate i Øst-London sist fredag, kan ha skjedd på feilaktige premisser. Det brukes nå for alt det er verdt, fra Dagbladets korrespondent til Council of British Muslims. Man bruker ethvert feilgrep til å så tvil om politiets motiver og metoder. Resultatet er at terskelen for å aksjonere kan bli høyere.

Informasjonen politiet fikk var så konkret og så alarmerende at de ikke turte å la være å aksjonere. Denne gang handlet det om et kjemisk angrep.

Andy Hayman, the Met’s assistant commissioner specialist operations, refused to apologise for the raid yesterday while admitting that so far officers had not found the specific item they were looking for – thought to be a chemical device – in the terraced house in Forest Gate which was the subject of a pre-dawn raid involving more than 250 officers, including armed teams and government scientists.

He refused to end the confusion about the raid or clarify how a 23-year-old man was shot during the operation. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is likely to take months to produce a report on the shooting.

Mr Hayman said officers had «no choice» but to mobilise a large number of officers and force entry into the house in Lansdown Road at 4am. During the operation Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot before being arrested with his 20-year-old brother, Abul Koyair. Both men were being held at Paddington Green police station last night, although officers have yet to begin interviewing Mr Kahar because of his injury.

«The ideal situation is you have as much time as you possibly can to get the richest of pictures,» Mr Hayman said. «The dilemma is in receiving information that is so specific and of a nature that starts to put public safety into question, there is no real decision to be made. You have got to take public safety as an overriding priority.

«If you chose not to do that and heaven forbid it was a wrong decision and there was some device or whatever else, you would never be able to live with yourself, that you shied away from deciding to intervene.»

Den «liberale» pressen og generalsekretæren for Muslim Council of Britain, Mohammad Abdul Bari, vil ikke høre på det øret. De agerer som om politiet enten griper feil personer med vilje, eller ikke bør handle før de er 100 % sikre. For å legge makt bak ordene truer han med hva muslimene kan finne på hvis de blir sinte nok.

Dr Bari, who visited residents and businesses in Forest Gate yesterday, said the community was angry, confused and frustrated about what had happened.

«People want to know what exactly happened and about the intelligence – is it genuine information, is it flawed? These are the questions police have to answer as soon as possible,» he said.

Dr Bari said trust between the community and the police could break down if the questions were not answered.

«Angry people can do anything,» he said. «Angry people can even feel that they should take the law into their own hands, so anger has to be directed into positive action.»

Lederen i the Guardian kjøper den samme defaitiske logikken: Muslimene føler seg fremmedgjort på grunn av Irak. Dette er sannelig ikke noen enkel problematikk. På hvilket grunnlag reagerer de? Det er opptil flere grunner som ikke er spesielt aktverdige. Skal britisk anti-terror-arbeid måtte innrette seg etter at en bestemt gruppe muslimer reagerer på Irak? The Guardian ignorerer fullstendig at det blant dem som «reagerer på Irak» finnes elementer som støtter drapene på britiske soldater i Basra.

The danger is that the Muslim community, still reeling from Iraq, could be further alienated if tactics deployed are felt to be arbitrary or disproportionate. This would pose security risks: intelligence must come from within that community and will be harder to come by if suspicion of the authorities grows.

Guardian ser bare en side av saken, og det er de sinte muslimenes perspektiv. De beklager at informasjonen som førte til raidet bare kom fra en kilde, og sier myndighetene må stå på bedre fot med muslimske samfunn. Men hvis man står på bedre fot med Muslim Council of Britain, hvilket Blair gjør, så får man muligens informasjon, men kanskje ikke den som forhindrer et angrep?

Trust at risk’ after terror raid

Intelligence needed