The worrying aftermath of a terrorist attack

The latest terrorist attack in London is another appalling example of how vulnerable we are in a big city to determined fanatics who decide to commit acts of hatred in broad daylight. What is inevitable is that with two people dead and three others wounded, all victims of 28-year-old Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist released early on licence from his prison sentence a year ago, serious questions are being asked: why was he released on licence, was he under surveillance by MI5 and the police, if not why not, was he part of a broader radicalised group, why did he target those attending the special conference on the rehabilitation of prisoners at the Fishmongers' Hall, near London Bridge, how did he manage to take into the conference two large knives and a fake suicide belt without being security-checked, had he been planning this attack for a long time, had he duped the authorities by pretending that he was a new man determined to cast off his terrorist past, and, lastly, did the police have no choice but to shoot him dead even though he had been restrained by heroic members of the public before they arrived? The aftermath of a terrorist attack is always uncomfortable for the security authorities because it is difficult to avoid asking these questions. MI5 has expanded its workforce significantly in recent years but, as I have pointed out in the past, it is never possible to follow every terrorist suspect or terrorism supporter. Every day priorities have to be made. In the case of Usman Khan he had been released in December last year and as far as is known he was trying to put his past beind him. Or at least, he appeared to be interested in rehabilitation and had not been spotted engaging in anything suspicious. But he was a known terrorist. He had been part of a gang which plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange. So surely he was on some form of watch list even if he was not regarded as high-risk? It may have looked like he was trying to lead a normal life but one has to ask: can a person like Usman Khan who had mingled with other terrorist-minded individuals in the past ever be a normal person with normal ambitions and hopes? Would there not always have been a dark corner in his mind, and after serving time in prison might there not have been a growing urge for revenge? Should MI5 and the police take this sort of possibility into account when selecting which individuals to watch and follow and which to put in a lower-risk category? Unless MI5 and the police have seriously messed up and ignored signs that were clearly available, I don't think they should be blamed for failing to mount 24-hour surveillance on Usman Khan. That would be unjust. But unquestionably very serious questions have to be asked about the justice system which allows a man like this to be released early when a judge in his original trial stated that he posed a danger to the public. How right he was and how wrong were those who decided that it was ok to free him on licence. That's where the blame lies in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. But Usman Khan, shot dead by the police because, I assume, they judged him still to be a threat to life, is the only one to blame for this latest appalling slaughter on our streets.