'Behaviour Of Concern'

The Dutch police are reported to  have arrested 12 passengers from aMumbai-bound  Northwest Airlines on August 23, 2006, after it was escortedback to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport  minutes after take off by  DutchF-16s.

A statement issued by the Airlines after the plane landed at the airport saidthe flight from Amsterdam to Mumbai with 149 passengers on board returned toAmsterdam after a couple of passengers "displayed behaviour ofconcern". Some passengers have been quoted by the media as saying that thearrested persons were handcuffed and taken out of the aircraft, after they hadbeen pointed out as suspicious persons by Air Marshals travelling under cover onthe flight. The Airline has not explained what it meant by "behaviour ofconcern".

However, the CNN has reported as follows: "Some of the passengers pulledout cell phones during the flight and appeared to be trying to pass the cellphones to other passengers, a U.S. government official said. In addition, somepassengers unfastened their seatbelts while the light requiring they be fastenedwas still illuminated, the official said. That was enough for U.S. Air Marshalsaboard the DC-10 to break their cover. Flight attendants ordered the passengersto heed the orders of the Marshals, the official added. There was nointelligence indicating the flight was at risk, and authorities are stillevaluating how much of a threat the passengers posed, officials said. Thepassengers who were arrested were looking into plastic bags and were busy withtheir cell phones, an airline source in Amsterdam said. The spokesman said the12 -- whose identities have not been made public -- face preliminary charges,but did not elaborate."

To avoid damage claims from the passengers, it is quite possible that theAirline company and the Police might  try to prosecute at least some ofthose detained under some charge or the other even if there is no evidenceagainst them. Later, they will try to pressure them to make a plea bargain andrelease them under the pretext that they admitted their guilt.

It is not merely the 12 passengers arrested by the Police at Amsterdam, whowere exhibiting "behaviour of concern". It is the Western securityagencies as a whole--helped by embedded journalists and equally embeddedcounter-terrorism analysts, who never ask them any inconvenient questions--whohave been exhibiting "behaviour of concern", which, if not checked,could play into the hands of jihadi terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Ladenand others.

While the so-called behaviour of concern of the passengers consisted oflooking into their plastic bags, which they are now obliged to carry after therecent London scare of a terrorist plot to blow up 10 US-bound planes and takingout their cellphones, the behaviour of concern of the Western security agenciesconsists of over-dramatisation of threat perceptions without properverification, indiscriminate arrests of persons without adequate evidence andfiling charges against some of the arrested persons even without adequateevidence against them in order to justify their initial over-dramatisation.

There have been many instances of such behaviour of  concern by theWestern security agencies arising from their tendency to over-dramatise threatperceptions and to over-react. I will give only two examples.

In June, 2006, the Toronto Police claimed to have prevented planned terroristattacks of catastrophic potential by arresting a group of terrorists ofPakistani and West Indian origin. These individuals, who had not committed anyact of terrorism before, were angered by the developments in Iraq andAfghanistan and by the participation of Canadian troops in the NATO force inAfghanistan. They decided to give vent to their anger by organising acts ofterrorism in the Toronto area by procuring ammonium nitrate to be used as anexplosive. Thanks to tight physical security in Canada, they could not succeedin procuring more than 200 grams of ammonium nitrate. If the police had arrestedthem at this stage, this might not have made a sensational case.

Through an informer, they offered to help the terrorists in clandestinelyprocuring two tonnes of ammonium nitrate and supplied to them two tonnes of aharmless substance, which looked like ammonium nitrate. After the terrorists hadreceived it, they arrested them, recovered this substance from their possessionand gave to the media dramatic accounts of their success in preventing acts ofterrorism of catastrophic  potential.

At the press conference organised by the Police, a police officer gave ahair-raising account of the disaster, which two tonnes of ammonium nitrate couldhave caused. Not a single journalist present at the press conference asked thepolice officers: The fact of the matter is the arrested persons had notsucceeded in procuring two tonnes of ammonium nitrate till the policethemselves, through an intermediary, offered to get it for them.What the policegave them was not even ammonium nitrate. It was a harmless substance. So, whereis the question of the police dramatically foiling acts of catastrophicterrorism?

The police could have legitimately claimed credit for preventing theterrorists from procuring an explosive substance.That would not have providedsufficient drama. So, they sought to magnify the case by offering to help theterrorists in their quest for a large quantity of ammonium nitrate and thenstaging a drama.

We have been seeing a similar case in the making with reference to thedramatic announcement by the British Police on August 10,2006, about thediscovery of a plot (Bojinka-2006) to blow up 10 US-bound planes by smugglingliquids capable of being used as an explosive into the aircraft, assembling animprovised explosive device on board the aircraft and triggering it off. OneRashid Rauf, a British citizen of Pakistani origin living in Bahawalpur inPakistani  Punjab, was arrested on August 8,2006, and projected as theChief Co-ordinator of the plot at the instance of Al Qaeda. The Pakistaniauthorities claimed to have discovered the plot while interrogating him.

Reportedly on the basis of a tip-off from the Pakistani authorities, theBritish rounded up 25 persons, including Tayib Rauf, a brother of Rashid Rauf.Three of them have since been released. According to the Sky News TV channel,one of those released for want of evidence is Rashid's brother. The Pakistaniauthorities, who went to town about the importance of the arrest of Rashid andhis role as the chief co-ordinator, are no longer talking about him. There isembarrassing silence. It is leant that the only actionable evidence collectedagainst him so far is that of illegally over-staying in Pakistan. If he was notthe chief co-ordinator, then who was it?

In the meanwhile, the British Police have so far been able to charge only 11out of the 22 still held by them.Only eight of them have been charged withconspiracy to murder and preparing acts of terrorism.Two have been  accusedof failing to disclose information and a 17-year-old has been  charged withpossessing articles useful to a person preparing terrorism acts.

Eight suicide terrorists could have blown up only eight aircraft and not10.The British Police, who initially said that the terrorists were planning toblow up 10 planes, are now saying that the terrorists were planning to blow up"upto 10 planes". If the planned modus operandi of the terrorists asinitially reported by the British police is correct---namely smuggling theliqids inside and then fabricating the IED after the plane had taken off--- eachplane would have required a minimum of two terrorists. Eight suicide terroristscould have blown up only four planes. As the number of persons with actionableevidence against them comes down, we may find the number of planes targeted alsocoming down.

What a drama the British Police staged and what confusion and panic theyspread in airports all over the West! The terrorists will be the ultimatebeneficiaries of the post-9/11 tendency of the Western security agencies toover-dramatise threats, over-demonise suspects and over-react in their follow-upactions. The incident at Amsterdam is the latest example of this tendency, whichurgently needs to be corrected.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.