Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Contents 1 Accuracy of government statements 2 Could the bombings have been prevented? 3 Controversy regarding responsibility 4 Alleged destruction of evidence 5 The 13th bomb 6 Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs 7 Notes

[edit] Accuracy of government statements

The conservative PP government was accused of falsely blaming ETA for the attacks. The very day of the attacks, police officials informed the Government that explosives usually used by ETA were found at the blast sites, which along with other suspicious circumstances led the PP to suspect ETA involvement. Although there was no direct or indirect evidence from the investigation of the bombing pointing to ETA involvement,^[1] the group had been caught with a large amount of explosives some months previously, which looked like preparations for a big strike.^[2] But according to a report of the ESISC (The European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center) the very same morning of the bombings the Spanish Intelligence Services and Policy had concluded that the author of the massacre was an Islamist terrorist group, but they had been ordered by the government to deny the Islamist lead and insist that the ETA was the only suspect,^[3] although this same source also states that there is no precedent of collaboration of international islamists with non-Muslims,^[4] and there were two non-Muslims (and police confidents) involved in the Madrid attacks.^[5][6]

The government sent messages to all Spanish embassies abroad ordering that they upheld the ETA version. President José María Aznar even called a number of newspaper directors personally to ask for their support of this version.^[7]

The extremely tense political atmosphere in Spain over the previous term of office opened a hole for a situation that the attacks turned into a chasm, bringing the conservative government to the very edge of it just three days before the elections. On one hand, José María Aznar was aggressively opposed to any dialogue with ETA, and based most of his campaign on the threat of terrorism (the 9/11 attacks in New York reinforced his view of the war against the terrorists). On the other hand, Aznar's friendship with U.S. president George W. Bush led him to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq against the view of the overwhelming majority of the population (resulting in the biggest demonstrations ever seen in Spain since the restoration of democracy in the late 1970s).^[8][9] This left Aznar in a complicated situation- if Basque terrorists were proven to be responsible for the massacre, it would favor the PP's campaign, but if an Islamic group appeared to cause the blast, people might blame him for earning himself (and Spain) enemies.

The Summary of the Judicial Enquiry concluded that the decision to attack Madrid was taken after, and as a result of, the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, The New Yorker claimed the decision was taken before 9-11^[10] according to an Italian police report.^[11]

[edit] Could the bombings have been prevented?

Some of the alleged Islamist perpetrators were reportedly under surveillance by the Spanish police since January 2003. According to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, 24 of the 29 alleged prepetrators were informers and/or controlled by the Spanish Police, Civil Guard and C.N.I. ("National Center of Intelligence") before the attacks.^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]} Two alleged perpetrators were Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants.^{[20][21][22][23][24][25]} Cellphones used in the bombings were unlocked in a shop owned by a former Spanish policeman^[26] who is not one of those accused in connection with the bombings.^[27]

Two of those accused of supplying explosives for the bombings have a conviction for a previous 2001 offense of trafficking with Goma-2 ECO,^[28] an offence that did not prevent Trashorras, described as "necessary cooperator"^[29] from again getting a job in a mine, thus gaining access to explosives and blast equipment again.^[30]

[edit] Controversy regarding responsibility

Thirteen - improvised explosive devices were reported to have been used by the Islamic militant group that was responsible for the bombing, all but three of which detonated. This group seems to have worked with a very tenuous connection with al-Qaeda but with the aim of acting on its behalf. Shortly after the bombings, the group was completely dismantled by the Spanish police and the core members died in an apparent suicide explosion when they were surrounded in the nearby city of Leganés.^[31]

The Madrid bombings have led to sharp political and social fracture in Spain. This result stands in sharp contrast to other large-scale terrorist attacks such as those in New York and London, which galvanized society and political forces towards unity.

Spain's political division is exemplified by the accusation of members of the Partido Popular and several conservative media outlets regarding who was responsible for the bombings and whether the attacks were for political gain.^[32] Some of these sources initially supported the hypothesis that ETA was behind the attacks. These groups have focused their investigation on unexplained details and inconsistencies in the Summary report and expressed skepticism about the truthfulness and neutrality of the evidence presented.

Since the bombings, the chief opposition party, PP, together with the conservative media forces in Spain, have overtly argued the possibility that the Socialist party, the police, the Spanish, French, and Moroccan secret services, and, of course, ETA, had a role in organizing the bombings.^[33]

Not all conservative media outlets are involved in this campaign. There is a distinct difference between those who believe that the PSOE used it for political gain (as it had access to information, either through France or through links to the Police, used to criticize the government in the aftermath of the bombings), and those who believe a consortium of the ETA, some groups in the State Security Forces (possibly related to the GAL), the Moroccan secret services, and the Socialist Party (PSOE) may have had a role either in organizing the bombings or blocking official investigation.^[34] The first group includes the Newspaper ABC, while the second group includes the Radio Station COPE and newspapers La Razón and El Mundo.^[35] This second group claims the official version is more than questionable and that the truth is still unknown. They have coupled such claims with doubts about the legitimacy of the current government, which they oppose ideologically.

An attempt to link ETA to the bombings occurred in May 2006, when El Mundo published on its front page that a business card of the Basque firm Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC) had been found in the van used by the terrorists. This piece of evidence, discovered by policemen who found the van, was not found in the numerous police reports.^[36] El Mundo's rationale was that Mondragón had no relationship with ETA but it could point to ETA, just as the Qur'anic cassette pointed to Islamic extremists.

The Spanish police later asserted that it was not a business card, but the cover of a music CD of the popular Spanish 80s rock group "Orquesta Mondragón".^[37] The CD with its case was found in a pile of various other music CDs. The rear of the cover had apparently been used by the legitimate proprietor to warn people when he parked in the middle of the street, since it had a handwritten message that read "I am coming back immediately".^[38] Nevertheless, El Mundo continued to insist on the existence of an MCC card in the van.^[39]

The Spanish police also asserted that a card from "Gráficas Bilbaínas" ("Bilbao printing", a printing shop located in Madrid) found in the van was the source of the alleged confusion.^[40]

[edit] Alleged destruction of evidence

Some critics of the indictment (for instance the public clerks' Spanish Union "Manos Limpias") allege that the passenger cars destroyed by the explosions were destroyed to hide evidence, and the corpses found in the Leganés flat were buried without autopsy.

Those allegations have been dismissed by the Spanish Supreme Court ("Tribunal Supremo"). The Spanish institution denied the accusations and even prosecuted the "Manos Limpias" union for false accusations^[41]

[edit] The 13th bomb

The clues in the 13th bomb allowed the police to arrest the first alleged perpetrators on Saturday, 13 March, when three Moroccans (Jamal Zougam, Mohamed Chaoui and Mohamed Bekkaliand) and two Indian citizens were arrested [6].

The 13th bomb has been called "the bomb that dismounted the PP version about ETA" [7]

The 13th bomb is also known to Spanish sources as "Mochila de Vallecas" (Backpack from Vallecas), due to the fact that its discovery was announced in the Vallecas Police Station in the morning of march 12th.

The 13th bomb validity as an exhibit is disputed. The next topics are under discussion:

• Whether the bomb was really in the trains. In the morning of the bombings, the trains were double checked by the EOD policemen to be sure that no unexploded devices were there. The 13th bomb was not found then. The only EOD policeman that had memories of handling a heavy (the 13th bomb weighed around 24 pounds) bag in that morning in El Pozo station asserted positively that the heavy bag he handled in the train station was not the bag of the 13th bomb. [8] [9]

• Whether that exhibit has a chain of custody.

• • A Spanish police report concluded that the bomb could be manipulated by unidentified persons in Ifema ("pudo ser manipulada por personas no identificadas en el Ifema"). Ifema is the Madrid exhibition center where objects found in the trains were temporarily stored.
  • DNA from a unidentified male was found in the bag.[10]

On the other hand, Spanish policemen asserted that the chain of custody is unbroken [11]

[12] [13], and PP leader, Mariano Rajoy, asserted in March 2006 that he had no doubts about this exhibit [14].

In December 2006 "El Mundo" published that one of the policeman in the Vallecas Police Station during the alleged discovery of the 13th bomb was under investigation due to his alleged participation in a plot to sell illegal Goma 2-ECO and in the assassination of a petty thief [15].

[edit] Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs

On July 11th 2006 the Spanish newspaper El Mundo published this headline:

No era Goma-2 ECO: El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas^[42]

It was not Goma-2 ECO: The explosive that detonated on 11 March was different from the explosive that the islamists had

El Mundo argues that:

• During the official hearings of 7 July 2004 on the Madrid bombings, the chief of the bomb disposal team (TEDAX), Juan Jesús Sánchez Manzano, emphatically asserted that there was nitroglycerine in the remains of the explosion, and that all dynamites contain such substance. Mr. Sánchez Manzano said:

...logramos encontrar restos de nitroglicerina, y la nitroglicerina es el componente de todas las dinamitas

...we managed to find traces of nitroglycerine, and nitroglycerine is a component of all forms of dynamite

Testimony in the Spanish Congressional file^[43][44]

• In response to a question from a member of the commission on whether he was an expert on explosives, Sánchez Manzano replied:

En explosivos, no; soy un experto en desactivación de explosivos^[45]

In explosives no; I am an expert in the deactivation of explosives

• Nitroglycerine is, definitely, not a component^[46][47] of the only explosive (Goma-2 ECO) that the alleged Islamist perpetrators had. Goma-2 ECO was the explosive found in the only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains.

¿es la nitroglicerina un componente de la Goma 2 ECO? Rotundamente, no.

Is nitroglycerine a component of the Goma 2 ECO?. Positively, not.^[42]

El Mundo founder and manager, Pedro J. Ramírez, has said about this issue:

No estamos ante una entrega más de los misterios, de los agujeros, de los enigmas del 11-M ... Hemos llegado a un punto absolutamente crítico ... Todo el Sumario está construido sobre la base de que lo que estalló en los trenes era Goma 2 ECO ... Si ahí pone Nitroglicerina, el Sumario del 11-M se ha venido abajo.

Excerpts taken from the first fifth of the COPE radio program.^[48]

This is not just a new chapter to the mysteries, the shady issues, the enigmas about 11-M ... We have reached an absolutely critical point ... All the "Sumario" [i.e., the explanation of facts provided by the Spanish Judiciary] is based upon Goma 2 ECO exploding in the trains ... If you can read there "nitroglicerine", the entire "Sumario" goes down (there is the original scientific police reports, missing from the "Sumario").

Full context quote.^[49]

Nevertheless, on July 17th 2006, Mr. Sánchez Manzano stated before the investigating judge that he had mistakenly used the word "nitroglycerine" because of its historical connection with dynamite.^[50]

That day, El Mundo claimed that the news agencies EFE and Europa Press and the newspapers Gara and ABC also cited the presence of Nitroglycerine. ABC article cited by "El Mundo".^[51]

ABC article mentioning the presence of Nitroglycerine, cited by "El Mundo".^[52]

The 19 July 2006 digital edition of El Mundo contains a report on the appearance before the investigating judge, Juan del Olmo, of the inspector belonging to the bomb disposal squad (TEDAX) who was responsible for the preliminary reports on the explosives used in the bombings. This officer, head of the TEDAX investigation group and a graduate in Chemistry, stated before the judge that she was unable to determine the type of dynamite used in the bombs because it was not possible to obtain a test sample of sufficient size to study the composition of the explosive. She also declared that at no time did she ever mention the presence of nitroglycerine to any of her commanding officers - who include Mr. Sánchez Manzano.^[53]

[edit] Notes