Originally published on the CGS blog on May 3, 2007.
This BBC piece from the Old Bailey Al Qaeda bombing trial (five men seeking to use a fertilizer bomb to wreak chaos in the UK) is bold in its suggestion that the prosecution witness Mohammed Junaid Babar represents the future of the war on terror.
The key quote: “If al-Qaeda operatives can be made to plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence and testify against their former “brothers” in court, then not only are the chances of convicting suspects dramatically raised, but the morale of the organisation suffers a big hit.”
I tend to agree with the writer that this trial is a big step forward for U.S. and British police and intelligence services in the fight against Al Qaeda. However, it does seem a bit odd that despite the mounting evidence that law enforcement and intel can lead to positive outcomes in the fight against Al Qaeda, here in the U.S. the policy/political debate still rejects the law enforcement/ intel approach and values a military approach. We all can probably remember Sen. Kerry getting beaten up during the 2004 race for suggesting that a law enforcement approach made sense. Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest that things have changed creating a situation where U.S. leaders inexplicably continue to embrace an expansion of the military instead of an approach to combating Al Qaeda that works – namely one that puts law enforcement, intel and tackling root causes and political tensions at its center.
