When I used to get a bus to and from school there were certain things one might have wanted to keep hidden from prying eyes. For the fortunate few it might be getting to know better a girl from the next village. For the rest of us it was more likely just the cards we were holding at whist.

On impact, the destruction is profound. You can see the shattered glass, the collapsing panels. This experiment was shown to a British jury in connection with an alleged plot to bring down several airliners in 2006. Prosecutors allege this proves that liquid explosives disguised as sport drinks could have been smuggled onto planes causing massive damage.

From several different camera angles the hydrogen peroxide mixed with a powdered drink explodes with shocking intensity. You can hear loud bangs, you sense the extreme heat and other pictures show close-ups of punctures in the panels.

These video images and pictures were all played for the jury and accompanied by expert testimony. Eight men are now standing trial accused of trying to bring down American and Canadian jets with their ‘bottle bombs’. They deny all charges. The prosecution claims the experiment simulates what the accused were plotting and what they were perfectly capable of pulling off. The prosecution told the jury, the accused had all the component parts in place.

But the Judge in the case cautioned the jury after seeing the images, telling them the explosions were hypothetical, they had to deal in facts only: Would this have killed anyone or brought down a plane? The prosecution is expected to present more experts in the coming weeks to testify to the lethal potential of these ‘bottle bombs’

So it’s a bit of a shock when FBI boss Robert Mueller says that AQ will be defeated “on my watch.” The remark came at an event in London last month in response to a question from the audience. There’s a suggestion he might have misspoken and meant to say “in my lifetime.” Even if it wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it’s quite possible that Mueller was referring only to the core of Al Qaeda rather than all those inspired by it. You can watch the clip here.

But whichever way you want to slice or dice this particular remark, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that those fighting jihadi terrorism have a bit of a spring in their step at the moment. As one member of Britain’s intelligence community says, “there are green shoots of hope.”

He points to a poor showing from Islamists in the recent Pakistani elections, as well as his belief they’ve suffered a setback in Iraq and sustained severe and unforeseen blows in Indonesia and Malaysia.

He still puts a timeframe on the defeat of jihadi terrorism in the region of fifteen to twenty years but adds: “The problem probably won’t be sustained as long as I had originally thought.”

The news that Abu Qatada is to be bailed marks another plot turn in the blockbuster that is “Londonistan.” The story, for those who need reminding, begins in the late 1990s, when the French, in particular, were being driven crazy by what they saw as Britain’s naïve neglect of dangerous extremists living in London. These were people, they said, involved in spreading a message of hatred and violence towards non-Muslims; in some cases, too, it was said, helping to recruit volunteers and raise money for terrorist acts.

Slowly but surely, however, the main characters in “Londonistan” disappeared from Britain’s streets. Firebrand preacher Abdullah al-Faisal was convicted of soliciting to murder in 2003; last year he was deported to his native Jamaica. Abu Hamza, who ran the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, is serving time at Her Majesty’s pleasure after he, too, was found guilty of soliciting murder. Once out he faces almost certain extradition to the United States to face trial on separate terrorism offences. And Omar Bakri, the founder of AQ-sympathisers, Al Muhajiroun, fled Britain shortly after 7/7 and was subsequently barred from coming back.

Abu Qatada’s story was always more complicated. Convicted in absentia in his native Jordan for terrorism offences in the 1990s, he was later described by Spain’s chief terrorism prosecutor, Baltasar Garzon, as Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe. Recordings of his sermons were found in a Hamburg apartment frequented by the 9/11 hijackers.

Facing likely arrest in the face of new terror laws in Britain introduced after those attacks Abu Qatada went on the run. He was caught in October 2002 and then held without charge at Belmarsh high security prison for two and a half years. In March 2005 he won bail and was slapped with a control order instead, placing strict limitations on his movements.

At this point the British government embarked on a new strategy for dealing with foreign nationals it believed posed a threat to national security. It started negotiating agreements, or Memoranda of Understanding, with countries with dodgy human rights records aimed at securing a promise from those governments that they wouldn’t torture or carry out the death penalty on individuals returned there from Britain. After agreement was reached with Jordan in August 2005, Qatada was immediately arrested again pending deportation. It looked like the beginning of the end.

That is until not one but two key legal victories for Abu Qatada in the space of the last four weeks. First the Court of Appeal blocked deportation saying it was unsafe to send him back to Jordan. And now an immigration tribunal has granted him bail, albeit effectively confining him to his house for 22 hours each day. Britain’s Home Secretary pronounced herself extremely disappointed at this latest decision.

It’s all very messy and certainly offers fresh ammunition to those who believe “Londonistan” continues to tie British authorities up in knots. With recent High Court challenges to certain terror offences as well as the sanctions regime targeting terrorist financing, there will be those who believe British judges remain too soft on the terror threat.

Opposition politicians, meanwhile, are saying it underlines the need for Britain to fall into step with many other jurisdictions around the world and allow intercept evidence into court. If that’s what is needed to build a case against Abu Qatada in a British court, they say, then the case for changing the law has never been stronger.

So what are the facts? Do CCTVs make us any safer?

London’s Transport Police say the cameras do work. It claims violent crime on trains and buses is down by half in the past year alone. But officers admit they have to find smarter ways to use the technology.

“The challenge for the police service is to constantly look for smarter ways to look for the product, so the images. “ says Paul Crowther of the British Transport Police. He adds that law enforcement officials are constantly asking themselves how they can use the footage more effectively.

“How do we quickly get those images out, how do we process them, how do we identify the people that were on them and then turn those into arrests so that we can reduce crime further by making it clear to people that CCTV means they are going to get locked up,” says Crowther.

Privacy advocates in Britain claim the country has one fifth of all the world’s CCTVs, at least one for every 14 people in the country. When you’re in Britain, you can be caught on camera hundreds of times per day.

Scotland Yards refuses to comment, but its internal audit suggests all those long lenses are short on results. Government statistics on crime rates have held steady in Britain in the last decade despite billions of dollars of investment in CCTV.

“Most of these problems are social problems and you can’t just get around them by introducing a flashy new technology,” says David Murakami Wood, a surveillance expert who studies its impact on society.

But there is compelling evidence that some crimes would never be solved without CCTV evidence.

In July 2005, CCTV cameras in London candidly caught three armed men viciously stab and beat two friends on a night out. Even though all of it was caught on tape, it seemed to make no difference to the criminals. One of the victims, Daniel Pollen died that night, but Andrew Griffiths, the other victim, survived to see his attackers convicted using CCTV evidence.

“Without it, there wasn’t a case really,” says Griffiths. “Due to the fact that I didn’t remember barely anything, the CCTV showed everything that happened, the way it happened,” he adds.

Experience authorities here in Britain point out that there is no way of knowing how or when CCTVs actually prevent crime.

“This is a wonderful tool for crime reduction and crime prevention but it’s not being used in the right way” says John O’Connor, a former Scotland Yard commander.

“Who knows how bad crime would be if it wasn’t for the CCTV?” he asks.

Watch my report here.





By International Security Correspondent, Paula Newton.

A few of you have commented that regardless of the morality of torture, an interesting question is: Does it work? Back in the Fall, when CIA and U.S. justice department secret memos on aggressive interrogation were leaked, we interviewed a man who says he was tortured by American authorities. He claims torture is useless.


Watch my report here.


Update by Paula Newton.