Yesterday Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were convicted of the murder of Lee Rigby, the British soldier whom they struck with a car and attacked with knives in Woolwich, South London, in May.
According to the Telegraph, Adebolajo's defence team claimed he had been approached by the security services "earlier this year". An episode of the BBC's Panorama broadcast on Thursday asks if the security services and others missed opportunities to stop Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebolawe and prevent Lee's death.
The details of MI5's contact with Adebolajo are disputed, but he was known to the authorities. In 2010 Kenyan police detained Adebolajo as he allegedly attempted to travel to Somalia to fight for the Islamist insurgent group al-Shabaab. The Kenyans claim that British authorities ignored their warnings about the threat Adebolajo posed. Adebolajo's family says that it was on his return that MI5 approached him.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is investigating MI5's dealings with the two killers. The question central to the Committee’s investigations will be whether the security service should have identified the threat Adebolajo posed, and if so, whether he should have been stopped.
But is this a reasonable expectation to have of MI5 and Britain’s other security agencies? When it comes to it: "What should we expect of our spies?"
Lee Rigby verdict: What should we expect of our spies?
Read Gregory F Treverton's piece on assessing the success of the security services
December 20, 2013
Murdered fusilier Lee Rigby
In 2011, Gregory Treverton, author of "Intelligence for an Age of Terror" and a senior US intelligence specialist, wrote for Prospect in the wake of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and asked precisely this question. In the light of yesterday's events, both his article and the question it addresses deserve close consideration.
