Commentary: Security agencies must work together

WHAT can we do to avoid a Madrid massacre on the streets of our cities? One first thought is that the Madrid attack showed that Tony Blair's speech on the real threat of terrorism at Sedgefield last Friday week was not, perhaps, over the top.

For me, after years countering terrorism in the intelligence agencies and later in my work countering the laundering of terrorist cash, Mr Blair's speech was not a rhetorically excessive speech but a model of coolly analysed fact and common-sense policy.

The Madrid massacre wasn't a coincidence which beefed up an excuse for the war in Iraq, it was a flat confirmation-of what he and President Bush have been telling us since 9/11.

Used to our newfound peace after the defeat of communism and the Irish ceasefire, we have become complacent. We have allowed a multitude of conspiracy theories to obscure our view of al Qaeda and its activities in Bali, Kenya, Casablanca and now, probably, Madrid.

As a result, the intelligence agencies have been forced to concentrate on answering every new allegation about puffing the intelligence to support the war. But intelligenceagencies are only as good as the information they can get and the integrity with which they analyse and disclose it.

So when intelligence warns us, as Eliza Manningham Buller, director general of MI5, did recently, that an attack on London is not a question of if, but when, we had better believe it.

Fortunately, the Government did not take its eye off the ball and financed MI5 to hire a thousand more officers. More surveillance, increased human intelligence and analytical capability must give extra wattage to the light they shine on the sewers of terrorism.

But more than that is required. Al Qaeda finances dozens of different, unlinked cells whose method of attack ranges from the use of aircraft as explosives to suicide bombers, and whose targets cover the globe. As a result intelligence has to be found in countries as varied as America, Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

This means that the disclosure of intelligence between agencies within or across borders raises problems of who will see it and whether it will be leaked. It can result in the disclosure being delayed --and a delay can mean the difference between life and death.

In the UK alone, even including the Home Secretary'snew Serious Organised-Crime Agency, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, the Inland Revenue and 42 police forces are all involved in fighting terrorism and all want intelligence.

It is obvious that the fewer agencies that need to deal with sensitive information the easier it is to disseminate it. Ultimately the most effective way to handle this information is to have an international security agency, where raw information from around the world can be safely circulated and acted upon in the shortest time.

And that is not all. National laws and court procedures are not adequate to try terrorists. Cross-border prosecutions are a nightmare, resulting in gaps through which suspect terrorists can slip to freedom. The 9/11 suspect Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted by the German courts after the prosecution was refused transcripts of a terrorist interrogation by the US authorities.

The only sensible solution is to extend the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to international terrorism. As in the French system, an examining judge would direct the investigation and handle the secret information in a way that avoids the problems in the Mzoudi case. Moreover, the suspect terrorists could be held for up to three years, their rights supervised by the court. This avoids the need for internment and detention without trial.

The Americans don't subscribe to the International-Criminal Court. They are afraid that their soldiers or politicians may be prosecuted in the court for war crimes. Thus, the work of the court is effectively emasculated. But it invites mistrust in US democracy when Americans can kill or capture foreigners and take them to secret trial and not have their own personnel subject to international supervision.

Like the Americans, we protect our sovereignty fiercely. But protecting our sovereignty is futile if by doing so we don't get the co-operation we need to defeat those who wish to see us divided.

David Bickford is former legal director to MI5 and MI6. His novel, The Face of Tomorrow, is published in May.