Commentary: A matter of intelligence

File: Security forces on alter in T&T during emergency

When the state of emergency ended in Trinidad & Tobago 17 people who had been detained on suspicion of either being involved in an assassination plot or attempts to destabilise the country and cause chaos were freed.

It was clear to everybody then that the reason for letting them go without charge was that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges and the state had to act in accordance with the rule of law, which protects the rights of citizens.

So I am a little confused about the big fuss in the media these days about the assassination plot against Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and three senior ministers.

On Sunday the Express newspaper carried a top story in which it quoted police as saying the plot was not real, that it was based on hearsay.

What is confusing about the reporting on the matter is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of something critically important. Intelligence. That's something all governments rely on with respect to national security.

What happened in Trinidad & Tobago in November 2011 was that security personnel received what they said was specific intelligence suggesting that there was indeed a plot to kill the prime minister and her three ministers on November 24 and that certain people were involved in the planning and execution of the plot.

That does not mean and did not mean that the police had clear evidence on which to charge people with treason. However it meant that there was a sound reason for the authorities to act. And they did, by detaining suspects under the mechanism available through the emergency regulations.

When the emergency ended the 17 detainees walked free because the police did not have enough evidence to make a case against the men. And that's what we are reading about - that the police investigation has not found proof of a plot. But to say that the threat was not real is wrong because existence of a plot and proof are two different things.

Yes, the police did not have evidence so the men walked free. However, that does not change one critical fact - that the authorities said they had CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE pointing to an assassination plot. And in the interest of national security the authorities had to act. Look at what happened in 1990 when the authorities failed to act on intelligence that pointed an an attempt to overthrow the government!

One may argue that it was an an over-reaction as the opposition leader and others have suggested. But neither he nor the critics were present at the security briefing at which details of the alleged plot were discussed. And for the specific reason of protecting national security those details had to remain secret.

Let us not mix up two fundamental issues: One is intelligence gathering and reporting and the other is policing.

Intelligence reports are sometimes wrong (as the case of the US reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq). They are sometimes based on a hunch or a rumour. That's the nature of the beast.

However, in the interest of national security, the authorities must take these reports seriously and governments act based on what they learn from intelligence sources. The police, on the other hand, act on the basis of proof and real hard evidence.

In Canada, when the state learned that a group of 17 men were planning to blow up strategic buildings in Toronto and Ottawa and kill the Prime Minister no one questioned whether there was clear evidence. Indeed there was none at the time. It was based on rumour and hearsay.

SO the Canadian security services went beyond what the T&T personnel did; they planted a spy among the suspects, who helped them plan a series of terrorist attacks. They USED A SPY TO CREATE the evidence so they could make a case and put away the suspected plotters. That's called entrapment, which is illegal.

The security services didn't go that route in Trinidad & Tobago. They could have followed the same pattern and fabricate the evidence through this method of entrapment. Then the police would have had 'evidence', people would be charged and convicted, as happened in Canada.

Instead the Trinidad & Tobago authorities did the right thing. They respected the rules and set the men free when they could not find the evidence to lay specific charges.

It does not mean that there was no plot and neither does it mean there is no plot today. What is means is that so far no one has found the smoking gun. And that's why the police are continuing to investigate. It's the INTELLIGENT thing to do.

Jai Parasram | Toronto - 10 Jan 2012