Editorial: Lingering questions of security

Opinion

News that a pilot with links to the 9/11 terrorists had been summarily expelled from New Zealand will serve as a timely reminder of the pressing need to be on guard against global terrorism even at this distance from the world's trouble spots. Most people will rightly think that the expulsion of Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali was a job well done and a case of good riddance.

However, Ali leaves behind him a number of burning questions, not least of which is how did he managed to get into the country in the first place? Especially when his name appears in the United States' 9/11 Commission report linked to the pilot who notoriously crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon in 2001.

There have been various explanations but thus far the only official one is that he used a variation of his name when applying for entry. This is all very well but his passport states his full name accurately but for one letter - his first name is given as Raed instead of Rayed.

If this is enough to fool the system then it suggests the system is at fault. Which is not to say, however, that the system needs a complete overhaul, only some fine tuning. When all is said and done, Ali was identified - whether through the efforts of our own intelligence agencies or their friends in other countries - and dealt with expeditiously.

This much is reassuring but what is less reassuring is the Government's reluctance to explain in what way Ali was a threat to national security. As happened in the long-running and expensive Zaoui case, the Government cites security reasons for withholding information. Although there is thankfully no possibility of similar labyrinthine legal manoeuvrings in the Ali case, the question nevertheless remains.

It may well be that his association with the 9/11 pilot and evidence of fundamentalist leanings are enough and, if that is right, then the Government should say so. Immigration Minister David Cunliffe, however, has been implying that there is a lot more to it and, paradoxically, a lot less.

For instance, the reasons he originally gave for Ali being a security threat when the Herald broke the story were not just his links to the 9/11 terrorists but the nature of his activities in the United States and New Zealand. As the common link between his life here and there is the attendance at flying school, this strongly implies that - like the 9/11 pilots - he was learning to fly in order to wreak havoc on his enemies.

And yet Mr Cunliffe later stated that at no point was there any specific risk to New Zealanders during Ali's time in this country. And just to deepen the paradox he told National Radio: "What I will say is that we don't have any evidence of a specific terrorist threat by the gentleman in New Zealand nor are we saying he was undertaking terrorist activities."

The minister's resort to the fig leaf of "national security" to avoid saying anything of substance coupled with his paradoxical claims that there is no threat can serve only to heighten confusion and speculation.

If the nature of this "threat" is the suspicion engendered by his past links with the 9/11 men and nothing more, then the Government should say so directly. If there is something more to it - for instance a threat not to New Zealand but another country - then the Government should spell that out as well.