India's External Affairs Ministry expressed ‘serious doubts’ about Pakistan’s
‘sincerity’ in dealing with terrorism after Hafiz Saeed was released from house
arrest on the orders of Lahore High Court. –File Photo

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Tuesday told India to refrain from commenting on court decisions and questioning its sincerity about action against terrorist outfits.
‘Polemics and unfounded insinuations cannot advance the cause of justice in civilized societies. Legal processes cannot and must not be interfered with,’ said Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit while commenting on Indian External Affairs Ministry’s criticism of Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed’s release.
Hafiz Saeed was put under arrest following Mumbai attacks.
The India External Affairs Ministry expressed ‘serious doubts’ about Pakistan’s ‘sincerity’ in dealing with terrorism after Hafiz Saeed was released from house arrest on the orders of Lahore High Court.
Basit dismissed Indian concerns as ‘misplaced.’
He stressed that the Pakistani government knew its national and international obligations and had shown complete sincerity and commitment in the Mumbai attack probe.
Indian authorities, the spokesman recalled, is yet to provide an English translation of the information material about the Mumbai attack which they handed over to Pakistan on May 20 in Hindi and Marathi languages.

Obama reaches out to Sharif in hopes to stabilise Pakistan

NEW YORK, May 2: Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is being courted by the Obama administration to bolster the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to confront the stiffening challenge by Taliban insurgents, the New York Times said on the eve of Zardari’s visit to Washington.

The newspaper said as the American confidence in the Pakistani government wanes, the Obama administration is reaching out more directly than before to Sharif.
The report, since President Obama on Wednesday himself declared Zardari regime ‘weak and vulnerable’, reflects the heightened concern in the Obama administration about the survivability of the Zardari government, the newspaper said.
Obama said he was ‘gravely concerned’ about the stability of the Pakistani government; on Friday, a Defense Department official described Mr. Zardari as being ‘very very weak’ the newspaper said.
Gen. David Petraeus the head of the United States Central Command, has said in private meetings in Washington that Pakistan’s government is increasingly vulnerable, according to administration officials.
General Petraeus is among those expected to attend an all-day meeting on Saturday with senior administration officials to discuss the next steps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in advance of high-level sessions next week in Washington, when Zardari and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan will meet with President Obama at the White House.
The Times said Washington has a bad history of trying to engineer domestic Pakistani politics, and no one in the administration is trying to broker an actual power-sharing agreement between Zardari and Sharif, administration officials say.
But the officials were quoted as telling the newspaper that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have both urged Zardari and Sharif to look for ways to work together, seeking to capitalize on Sharif’s appeal among the country’s Islamic groups.
Some Pakistani officials told the Times that members of Zardari’s government already were reaching out to Sharif and that officials in Washington were exaggerating their influence over Pakistani politics.
According to one Pakistani official, the government in Islamabad recently asked Sharif to rejoin the governing coalition. The two tried power-sharing last year, and that dissolved in acrimony only a week after Sharif and Zardari had banded together to force the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf
Obama administration officials have been up front in expressing dissatisfaction with the response shown by Zardari’s government to increasing attacks by Taliban fighters and insurgents with Al Qaeda in the country’s tribal areas, and along its western border with Afghanistan.
One official told the Times the administration wanted to broker an agreement not so much to buoy Zardari personally, but to accomplish what the administration believes Pakistan must do.
‘The idea here is to tie Sharif’s popularity to things we think need to be done, like dealing with the militancy,’ said the official, who insisted on anonymity to speak more candidly about American differences with Pakistan’s government.
Both Holbrooke and Clinton have spoken with Sharif by telephone in the past month, and have urged Zardari’s increasingly unpopular government to work closely with Sharif, administration officials said.
‘We told them they’re facing a national challenge, and for that, you need bipartisanship,’ a senior administration official said. ‘The president’s popularity is in the low double digits. Nawaz Sharif is at 83 per cent. They need to band together against the militants.’
Sir Mark Lyall Grant, director of political affairs at the British Foreign Office, was in Washington on Monday for talks with Holbrooke and Clinton on Pakistan, according to American and European officials.
The three discussed Sharif, but no conclusions were reached, a European official said. ‘There’s certainly no agreement that Nawaz should become Zardari’s prime minister,’ the official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity.
He said the enmity between the two would make such a situation impossible. But he added: ‘We need people who have influence over the militancy in Pakistan to calm it down. Who’s got influence? The army, yes. And Nawaz, yes.’

SWAT: Security forces regained control of several areas in Adenzai and established check posts as operation Rah-e-Rast is underway in Malakand Division.
According to Dir media center, forces took control of Shewa, Ketyari and Asbanar areas of tehsil Adenzai and set up checkpoints in theses areas.
Meanwhile, Security forces are advancing towards Kala Kalay area. Crackdown against suspects is underway in different areas of Lower Dir as local Lashkar killed seven militants during last 24 hours.
According to sources, local lashkar killed four more militants in Nango Tel area during action on second day.
On the other hand, security forces defused six remote control bombs in Kalpani area after clearing the area from Kalpani to Kambar, Security forces allowed locals to return into the area. At least 69 people have been arrested so far during operation.
According to Dir media center, curfew will be relaxed till 6:00 pm in tehsil Maidan and Adenzai.
Security forces action continued in tehsil Charbagh and Kabal of Swat whereas forces advancing towards Kala Kalay after regaining the control of Sarsenai area in tehsil Kabal. Militants positions were pounded overnight with heavy artillery in upper parts of Kabal while the district remained under curfew without relaxation.

By Farzana Shah

In a country affected by low intensity conflicts, economic mismanagement and political corruption at all levels, constituting a foreign policy which can protect its security interests is really a cumbersome job but even then there are some red lines which nations draw and are not meant to be crossed at any cost.
These red lines are drawn at all fronts; be it political, economical or strategic front. It seems that replenish US policies towards establishing Indian hegemony in South Asia are in full swing thanks to another US supported government in Islamabad. Present government just like previous one, is more willing to cross red lines just to protect artificial democracy in Pakistan.
On May 6th 2009 Pakistani and Afghan ministers signed a MoU in US to give India a transit facility for trade with Afghanistan through Pakistan.
According to understanding between Afghanistan and Pakistan by end of 2009 Pakistan, will surrender its 43 years’ old stance on not allowing India to use its soil for trade with Afghanistan till the resolution of all outstanding issues including Kashmir.
Although foreign office in Islamabad rejected media reports that India will get all benefits from this agreement. But US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was jubilant over signing of this “landmark” memorandum of understanding.
The statement "India will get trade route" coming from a top US official is something to be believed more than what the Pakistani foreign office says.
Under the second clause of the agreement not only Afghanistan could get access to the sea route; it could also find new avenues to India and China for similar purposes.
The clause titled "Objectives of Pak Afghan Transit Agreement" elaborates that the agreement emphasizes easiest routes for international traffic (also including access to a third country).
It also emphasizes the need for establishing a transit corridor connecting Pakistan’s border areas with Afghanistan, and to give the two countries access to each other’s neighbouring countries. Among these countries include India, China (through Pakistan).
This clearly shows that Pakistani government is trying to sell another lie to its public.
Why US is eager to have India in Afghanistan through Pakistan? This is something which needs to be understood by high echelons of security managers in Pakistan.
The MoU if materialised would be a bigger favour to India by USA than nuclear deal between Washington and New Dehli.
India had been trying its level best in the past to get this transit route through Pakistan which will easily give her a license to expand its footprints from Myanmar in the East to Afghanistan in the West. Pakistan will be deprived of all its security and economic interests in the region.
Allowing transit route to India has some grave implications for Pakistan ranging from security issues to economic ones
1. Benefiting India at own cost
Pakistan and India both have long and outstanding issues. India never misses any chance when it comes to harming Pakistani interests.
Giving India transit route amid concerns about Indian involvement in Balochistan and FATA is going to be disastrous for Pakistan.
The accord will allow India to use Pakistan as a road to benefit Indian economy resultantly contributing towards its military buildup and intelligence network against Pakistan.
Once gates are opened it would be difficult for Pakistan to distinguish between traders and Indian intelligence and military personnel. Keeping situation in NWFP in view, this route can turn into a dangerous trap against Pakistan.
Trucks loaded with RAW operatives, Indian military personnel or weapons pretending as trade convoys can proved to be new aid route to Indian-backed insurgents in Pakistan.
So Islamabad must take all these matters into consideration before signing any agreement specially allowing transit route which is a step forward to ease up Indians more on its Western borders.
2. Undermining Gwadar, Pak-China interests
Pakistan and China have invested heavily in Gwadar mainly for using it as a trade hub between countries in Central Asia, China, Russia and rest of the world.
Allowing India transit through Pakistan may end up in allowing all Central Asian countries and Russia to sign deals with Afghanistan and India for using Indian ports instead of Gwadar for trade with Far East, Australia and Japan as Indian ports are closer to these counties than Gwadar.
China and Pakistan both have strategic and economic interests in Gwadar which would be greatly harmed in case India is allowed transit route as road link will enable India to support its assets (BLA) in Baluchistan more aggressively.
BLA whose leadership currently is said to be based in Afghanistan, in the past has deliberately tried to harm Pak-China relations. BLA has been involved in kidnapping and killing Chinese engineers working in Pakistan.
The terrorist outfit Blaochistan Liberation Army killed three Chinese engineers in Hub area of Balochistan in 2006.
In May 2004, three Chinese port workers were killed in a similar attack at Gwadar by BLA. The growing influence and support by India would definitely encourage BLA to keep Chinese away from any project in Baluchistan.
We need to understand the geo-political game being played by internal as well as external players to exploit the grievances of our Baluch brothers.
The Chinese investment in Baluchistan along with better governance by Pakistan can turn misled youth of Baluchistan in favor of a strong united Pakistan. US made many promises for development in Pakistan, but never acted on them. Establishing ROZ (Reconstruction Opportunity Zones) can be taken as benchmark in this context. These were promised some 5 years back but still bill of establishing these zones is pending with US congress. On the other hand China began work on Gwadar in 2002 and in 2006 first phase was completed and the port became operational in early 2009.
3. Pakistani industry to suffer
Although Pakistan has smaller share in trade with Afghanistan, but still its traders have their presence in Afghan market. Currently 90 per cent goods ranging from food to construction material are being supplied by Pakistani traders. By allowing Indian supplies to Afghan market through Pakistan, will reduce cost of Indian goods in Afghanistan boosting these supplies further. Currently India cannot access Afghanistan through roads so cost of Pakistani goods is somehow competitive to Indian goods but after the transit route opened Pakistan will completely lose Afghan market.
Cost of production in Pakistan is considerably high compared to Indian products primarily due to utter inept behavior of current and previous governments towards producing cheap electricity in the country. Allowing Indian industry to keep its foot on Pakistani market will simply kill our local industry. In quality Pakistani products are still better but Indians in the past have been selling Pakistani products including rice with Indian stamps on bags to international market. There is no guarantee that Indian will not repeat the same in Afghanistan where there is a pro-India government in place.
4. Water Disputes
Although water dispute seems to be an isolated matter in context of transit trade between India and Afghanistan through Pakistan but it indirectly can turn into a bigger problem as India is persuading Afghanistan to build dams on Kabul River which contribute to Indus River in Pakistan and India itself has plan to build multiple dams in Kashmir on Indus River. So, Pakistan must not allow India to shift its engineers and machinery to Afghanistan through its soil to build dams on Kabul River. It will intensify water crisis in Pakistan.
Water dispute erupted between Pakistan and India recently can be taken as bench mark to foresee all future agreements in region with regards to interests of the both the countries.
Taking maximum advantage of unilateral ceasefire at LoC, India completed and started major dams in held Kashmir on Chenab River. Despite the mediation by World Bank, design of the Baghliar dam was not changed and India did stop flow of river when Pakistani farmers were about to sow crops.
With blockage of Kabul River water, Pakistan will become barren sooner than feared.
5. Forcing Pakistan Army to police Indian goods
This is the biggest reason militarily why Pakistan must not allow Indian trucks rolling through its soil. Any attack on Indian conveys inside Pakistan will provide an excuse to Indians for demanding Pakistan military to police these conveys all the way to Khyber Pass.
More disturbingly is if any such attack happens, which is very likely in presence of Jihadi outfits in Pakistan, international and Indian media will start a new wave of propaganda against Pakistan being a failed state. By this vertex this MoU seems to be a step towards US plans to turn Pakistani military into a mere police force.
6. Kashmir Issue
Allowing India trade route has always been linked with solution to Kashmir issues by the Pakistani policy makers since last many decades.
The sudden U-turn by current government not only surprised Pakistanis but it will send a very disturbing message to Kashmiris as well.
The decision is as damaging to Pakistani interests as was Musharraf’s decision to announce ceasefire at LoC which allowed Indians to fence LoC and declaring it International border between Pakistan and India which sent a wrong signal that Pakistan was surrendering its stance on Kashmir.
6. Economic interest can’t override security interest
Most vocal argument made in favour of this MoU by some business circles in Pakistan, is that Pakistan will be charging transit fee from India and Afghanistan amounting to some $20 million per year.
Currently Pakistan is facing much bigger security challenges than economic ones.
If friends of Pakistan has announced $5.28 billion and US to give Pakistan $7.5 billion in next five years apart from $2.8 billion as military aid then why Pakistan is seeking these $20 million per year so eagerly at this point? In current situation no economic interest can be bigger than Pakistan’s own existence which is at risk.
Final thoughts
The leadership crisis which had emerged during Musharraf regime still continues in Pakistan. Mass corruption and dictatorial attitude of previous government allowed laws like NRO which allowed direct US meddling in Pakistani affairs. Giving unilateral concessions to Indians is something initiated during military dictatorship in the last 8 years and what we are witnessing now is just an extension of decision taken by previous US supported government.
Past track record of India’s reactions to unilateral concessions by Pakistan speaks volumes for possible outcome of another big strategic concession to India.
When will Pakistan realise that there is a red line and crossing that line will put the entire nation’s existence at stake. Leadership crisis in Pakistan after US meddling in our politics is increasing by every minute.
Is there a leader who can save national interest with some national zeal? Are we ever going to see an independent foreign policy?
- Asian Tribune -

Thursday, June 04, 2009

CAIRO: “Obama is just a prettier face. I’m sure his intentions are in the right place but I don’t expect much from the man,” a Cairo electrician said on Wednesday as US President Barack Obama began his much-anticipated Middle East trip. Newspapers, analysts and ordinary Arabs warned Obama — whose election was hailed across the region — against emulating the policies of Bush by lecturing Muslims on democracy, and also urged him to be tough with Israel.
Obama began his tour in Saudi Arabia and will deliver a speech in Cairo on Thursday to the world’s 1.5 million Muslims, after eight years of fraught ties under his predecessor George W Bush. “Don’t be biased towards Israel, don’t interfere in countries’ internal affairs and don’t give lessons in democracy,” said an editorial in Egypt’s state-owned Rose el-Youssef newspaper. The chief editor of Egypt’s state-owned Al-Ahram, Ossama Saraya, said Obama faced demands from his team to “put pressure on the Muslim world under the pretext of democratisation and respect for human rights.
“There’s nothing more absurd than putting more pressure on the Arab-Muslim world,” Saraya said. Washington’s key Arab allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia have repeatedly come under criticism from international rights organisations for their poor human rights records.
“He can’t help the Palestinians because of the closeness of ties between Israel and America. He can’t improve the situation here (Egypt) because he’ll never convince the regime to change,” said taxi drive Mohammed Abdullah.”
In Amman, the Jordan Times hoped that Obama — whose electoral promise of change has grabbed hearts in the troubled Middle East — should deliver on his pledge. “If Obama fails in his mission of peace, the parties, and the world, might just as well prepare for more suffering and turmoil.”
In Lebanon, where Sunday’s parliamentary election will be monitored closely by Washington as it pits a Western-backed majority against a Hizbullah-led alliance backed by Syria and Iran, reactions were divided.
“The Americans are testing the waters,” said travel agent Moufeed Shbeir. “Obama is trying to take a different route than Bush, but we’ll have to wait and see the results: are they going to bomb Iran? Yes that’s what I want them to do.” Saudi Arabia’s Al-Riyadh newspaper warned Muslims against having high expectations.
“The Islamic world should not think that Obama is coming to be an ally or a supporter,” an editorial said. “Let’s realise that he will speak as a moderate American who understands the sensitivity of the region, as well as its wars and suffering caused by the US Machiavellian policy over the past five decades.”
Beirut-based analyst Paul Salem, who heads the Carnegie Middle East Centre, said he expected Arabs to be disappointed by Obama’s speech. “What they want him to say is more than what he’s going to say,” he said.
“They want him to say that he’s going to come down hard on the Israelis, that he’s going to confront the settlement policy and that he’s going to push the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank. “Of course that is what every Arab would like to hear.”
On the streets of Cairo, which were getting a facelift ahead of Obama’s speech, citizens were more concerned about traffic jams than regional diplomacy.
“What’s he going to do for us? Lower the price of bread? If he does, then he’s welcome here,” said 38-year-old cafe worker Ahmed Abdel Salam.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.

The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 4, 2009 An article on Wednesday about the mistaken release of a report detailing America’s civilian nuclear complex described incorrectly a statement on the document’s cover about its publication. The statement said the document had been “referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.” It did not directly attribute the report’s publication to the committee.

The state wallet is empty. The bank closed. Credit has dried up, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told lawmakers in a special Tuesday morning address at the Capitol.
“California’s day of reckoning is here,” he said. With no action, the state will run out of cash in 14 days. Three months after the state budget was approved, California faces a $24 billion deficit.
Schwarzenegger has already proposed massive cuts to education, health care and prisons. Now he’s looking for structural reform to make government more efficient and stretch taxpayer dollars.
He’s asked the State Board of Education, for example, to make textbooks available in digital formats — a move that could save millions.
In 2004, the governor talked about blowing up boxes and consolidating agencies, but the initiatives never gained traction.
They’re back.
Schwarzenegger is proposing once again to eliminate and consolidate more than a dozen state departments, boards and commissions. This includes the Waste Management Board, the Court Reporters Board, the Department of Boating and Waterways and the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee.
Earlier this year, the state began consolidating information technology departments.
Now Schwarzenegger wants to consolidate departments that oversee financial institutions and merge tax collection operations. In July, state leaders will receive recommendations on how to modernize the tax code.
“This will be a tremendous opportunity to make our revenues more reliable and less volatile and help the state avoid the boom and bust budgets that have brought us here today,” Schwarzenegger told lawmakers.
It’s not going to happen in 14 days, he said. But it could happen before the Legislature adjourns for summer recess on July 17.

Kathy Robertson of the Sacramento Business Journal, an affiliated publication, compiled this report.

Exclusive: How MI5 blackmails British Muslims
'Work for us or we will say you are a terrorist'

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor

TERI PENGILLEY

Mohamed Aden, 25, who was approached by a fake postman

Five Muslim community workers have accused MI5 of waging a campaign of blackmail and harassment in an attempt to recruit them as informants.
The men claim they were given a choice of working for the Security Service or face detention and harassment in the UK and overseas.
They have made official complaints to the police, to the body which oversees the work of the Security Service and to their local MP Frank Dobson. Now they have decided to speak publicly about their experiences in the hope that publicity will stop similar tactics being used in the future.

Intelligence gathered by informers is crucial to stopping further terror outrages, but the men's allegations raise concerns about the coercion of young Muslim men by the Security Service and the damage this does to the gathering of information in the future.
Three of the men say they were detained at foreign airports on the orders of MI5 after leaving Britain on family holidays last year.
After they were sent back to the UK, they were interviewed by MI5 officers who, they say, falsely accused them of links to Islamic extremism. On each occasion the agents said they would lift the travel restrictions and threat of detention in return for their co-operation. When the men refused some of them received what they say were intimidating phone calls and threats.
Two other Muslim men say they were approached by MI5 at their homes after police officers posed as postmen. Each of the five men, aged between 19 and 25, was warned that if he did not help the security services he would be considered a terror suspect. A sixth man was held by MI5 for three hours after returning from his honeymoon in Saudi Arabia. He too claims he was threatened with travel restrictions if he tried to leave the UK.
An agent who gave her name as Katherine is alleged to have made direct threats to Adydarus Elmi, a 25-year-old cinema worker from north London. In one telephone call she rang him at 7am to congratulate him on the birth of his baby girl. His wife was still seven months' pregnant and the couple had expressly told the hospital that they did not want to know the sex of their child.
Mr Elmi further alleges: "Katherine tried to threaten me by saying, and it still runs through my mind now: 'Remember, this won't be the last time we ever meet.' And then during our last conversation she explained: 'If you do not want anything to happen to your family you will co-operate.'"
Madhi Hashi, a 19-year-old care worker from Camden, claims he was held for 16 hours in a cell in Djibouti airport on the orders of MI5. He alleges that when he was returned to the UK on 9 April this year he was met by an MI5 agent who told him his terror suspect status would remain until he agreed to work for the Security Service. He alleges that he was to be given the job of informing on his friends by encouraging them to talk about jihad.
Mohamed Nur, 25, a community youth worker from north London, claims he was threatened by the Security Service after an agent gained access to his home accompanied by a police officer posing as a postman.
"The MI5 agent said, 'Mohamed if you do not work for us we will tell any foreign country you try to travel to that you are a suspected terrorist.'"
Mohamed Aden, 25, a community youth worker from Camden, was also approached by someone disguised as a postman in August last year. He alleges an agent told him: "We're going to make your travelling harder for you if you don't co-operate."
None of the six men, who work with disadvantaged youths at the Kentish Town Community Organisation (KTCO), has ever been arrested for terrorism or a terrorism-related offence.
They have repeatedly complained about their treatment to the police and to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which oversees the work of the Security Services.
In a letter to Lord Justice Mummery, who heads the tribunal, Sharhabeel Lone, the chairman of the KTCO, said: "The only thing these young people have in common is that they studied Arabic abroad and are of Somali origin. They are not involved in any terrorist activity whatsoever, nor have they ever been, and the security services are well aware of this."
Mr Sharhabeel added: "These incidents smack of racism, Islamophobia and all that undermines social cohesion. Threatening British citizens, harassing them in their own country, alienating young people who have committed no crime other than practising a particular faith and being a different colour is a recipe for disaster.
"These disgraceful incidents have undermined 10 years of hard work and severely impacted social cohesion in Camden. Targeting young people that are role models for all young people in our country in such a disparaging way demonstrates a total lack of understanding of on-the-ground reality and can only be counter-productive.
"When people are terrorised by the very same body that is meant to protect them, sowing fear, suspicion and division, we are on a slippery slope to an Orwellian society."
Frank Dobson said: "To identify real suspects from the Muslim communities MI5 must use informers. But it seems that from what I have seen some of their methods may be counter-productive."
Last night MI5 and the police refused to discuss the men's complaints with The Independent. But on its website, MI5 says it is untrue that the Security Service harasses Muslims.
The organisation says: "We do not investigate any individuals on the grounds of ethnicity or religious beliefs. Countering the threat from international terrorists, including those who claim to be acting for Islam, is the Security Service's highest priority.
"We know that attacks are being considered and planned for the UK by al-Qai'da and associated networks. International terrorists in this country threaten us directly through violence and indirectly through supporting violence overseas."
It adds: "Muslims are often themselves the victims of this violence – the series of terrorist attacks in Casablanca in May 2003 and Riyadh in May and November 2003 illustrate this.
"The service also employs staff of all religions, including Muslims. We are committed to recruiting a diverse range of staff from all backgrounds so that we can benefit from their different perspectives and experience."
MI5 and me: Three statements
Mahdi Hashi: 'I told him: this is blackmail'
Last month, 19-year-old Mahdi Hashi arrived at Gatwick airport to take a plane to visit his sick grandmother in Djibouti, but as he was checking in he was stopped by two plainclothes officers. One of the officers identified himself as Richard and said he was working for MI5.
Mr Hashi said: "He warned me not to get on the flight. He said 'Whatever happens to you outside the UK is not our responsibility'. I was absolutely shocked." The agent handed Mr Hashi a piece of paper with his name and telephone contact details and asked him to call him.
"The whole time he tried to make it seem like he was looking after me. And just before I left them at my boarding gate I remember 'Richard' telling me 'It's your choice, mate, to get on that flight but I advise you not to,' and then he winked at me."
When Mr Hashi arrived at Djibouti airport he was stopped at passport control. He was then held in a room for 16 hours before being deported back to the UK. He claims the Somali security officers told him that their orders came from London. More than 24 hours after he first left the UK he arrived back at Heathrow and was detained again.
"I was taken to pick up my luggage and then into a very discreet room. 'Richard' walked in with a Costa bag with food which he said was for me, my breakfast. He said it was them who sent me back because I was a terror suspect." Mr Hashi, a volunteer youth leader at Kentish Town Community Organisation in north London, alleges that the officer made it clear that his "suspect" status and travel restrictions would only be lifted if he agreed to co-operate with MI5. "I told him 'This is blatant blackmail'; he said 'No, it's just proving your innocence. By co-operating with us we know you're not guilty.'
"He said I could go and that he'd like to meet me another time, preferably after [May] Monday Bank Holiday. I looked at him and said 'I don't ever want to see you or hear from you again. You've ruined my holiday, upset my family, and you nearly gave my sick grandmother in Somalia a heart attack'."
Adydarus Elmi: 'MI5 agent threatened my family'
When the 23-year-old cinema worker from north London arrived at Chicago's O'Hare airport with his pregnant wife, they were separated, questioned and deported back to Britain.
Three days later Mr Elmi was contacted on his mobile phone and asked to attend Charing Cross police station to discuss problems he was having with his travel documents. "I met a man and a woman," he said. "She said her name was Katherine and that she worked for MI5. I didn't know what MI5 was."
For two-and-a-half hours Mr Elmi faced questions. "I felt I was being lured into working for MI5." The contact did not stop there. Over the following weeks he claims "Katherine" harassed him with dozens of phone calls.
"She would regularly call my mother's home asking to speak to me," he said. "And she would constantly call my mobile."
In one disturbing call the agent telephoned his home at 7am to congratulate him on the birth of his baby girl. His wife was still seven months pregnant and the couple had expressly told the hospital that they did not want to know the sex of their child.
"Katherine tried to threaten me by saying – and it still runs through my mind now – 'Remember, this won't be the last time we ever meet", and then during our last conversation explained: 'If you do not want anything to happen to your family you will co-operate'."
Mohamed Nur
Mohamed Nur, 25, first came into contact with MI5 early one morning in August 2008 when his doorbell rang. Looking through his spyhole in Camden, north London, he saw a man with a red bag who said he was a postman.
When Mr Nur opened the door the man told him that he was in fact a policeman and that he and his colleague wanted to talk to him. When they sat down the second man produced ID and said that he worked for MI5.
The agent told Mr Nur that they suspected him of being an Islamic extremist. "I immediately said 'And where did you get such an idea?' He replied, 'I am not permitted to discuss our sources'. I said that I have never done anything extreme."
Mr Nur claims he was then threatened by the officer. "The MI5 agent said, 'Mohamed, if you do not work for us we will tell any foreign country you try to travel to that you are a suspected terrorist'."
They asked him what travel plans he had. Mr Nur said he might visit Sweden next year for a football tournament. The agent told him he would contact him within the next three days.
"I am not interested in meeting you ever." Mr Nur replied. As they left, the agent said to at least consider the approach, as it was in his best interests.

I popped in to the Amnesty Media Awards last night where I had the privilege of meeting the parents and sister of Tom Hurndall. Tom, a photojournalism student, was shot by a sniper from the Israeli Defense Forces while escorting children away from gunfire in Gaza in April 2003. A film about his family's struggle to find out what happened to their son was nominated for the Television Documentary and Drama award.
Tom's mother Jocelyn explained to me the trouble the filmmakers had gone to in order to ensure the film was an accurate depiction of Tom's story. Tom wanted to make some kind of a difference to the world, she said, and to be remembered, and she clearly felt this film would help to do that. The family's gentle poise was extremely humbling.
I had read about Tom's death and the conviction for manslaughter of Taysir Hayb, the sniper who shot Tom, but headlines inevitably drift to the back of one's mind over time. Remembering Tom's story again forced me to stop and think again about the photographers, like Tom and Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, who pay the ultimate price in order to tell a story. It puts pictures of flowers into a sharp perspective.