Do You Know That Lee Rigby murder could have been prevented,

 

Rigby had been returning home on 22 May 2013 at the end of a shift at an army recruiting office at the Tower of London when he was hit by a car driven by Adebolajo in Woolwich, south London.
The two killers then attacked him with knives.
The committee inquiry was set up to investigate the role of intelligence agencies who had the two men under surveillance. The report says the two men appeared between them in seven different agency investigations but were for the most part regarded as low-level subjects of interest.
“There were errors in these operations, where processes were not followed, decisions not recorded, or delays encountered. However we do not consider that any of these errors, taken individually, were significant enough to have made a difference,” the report says.
“Adebolajo was a high priority for MI5 during two operations: they put significant effort into investigating him and employed a broad range of intrusive techniques. None of these revealed any evidence of attack planning,” the committee says.
“By contrast, Michael Adebowale was never more than a low level SoI and the Agencies took appropriate action based on the rigorous threshold set down in law: they had not received any intelligence that Adebowale was planning an attack and, based on that evidence, more intrusive action would not have been justified.”
The committee says that at any time MI5 is investigating several thousand individuals who are linked to Islamist activities in the UK.
The main thrust of the criticism is aimed at the internet company.
“The one issue which we have learned of which, in our view, could have been decisive only came to light after the attack. This was an online exchange in December 2012 between Adebowale and an extremist overseas, in which Adebowale expressed his intent to murder a soldier in the most graphic and emotive manner. This was highly significant. Had MI5 had access to this exchange at the time, Adebowale would have become a top priority. There is then a significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack.”
The report says that it is highly unlikely that the agencies could have discovered this exchange before the attack.
“What is clear is that the one party which could have made a difference was the company on whose system the exchange took place. However, this company does not regard themselves as under any obligation to ensure that they identify such threats, or to report them to the authorities. We find this unacceptable: however unintentionally, they are providing a safe haven for terrorists,” the committee says.
The finding echoes a recent column in the Financial Times by the new head of the surveillance agency GCHQ Robert Hannigan in which he too criticised internet companies for not doing enough to monitor jihadi activity on their websites.
The committee says that none of the major US internet companies approached as part of the investigation proactively monitor and review suspicious content on their systems.
“We also found that none of them regard themselves as compelled to comply with UK warrants obtained under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Therefore, even if MI5 had sought information – under a warrant – before the attack, the company might not have responded. They appear to accept no responsibility for the services they provide. This is of very serious concern: the capability of the Agencies to access the communications of their targets is essential to their ability to detect and prevent terrorist threats in the UK,” the committee says.
The report appears to ignore the existence of various US-British mechanisms through which the UK agencies can get access to data held by the US companies.