British Terrorists Convicted in Bomb Plot
An Associated Press article that ran in the Washington Post today has reported that five members of Al-Qaida were arrested for planning to bomb a nightclub, and Biritsh power plants and a company doing work in Iraq. All five men were British citizens, and were determined to be linked to Al-Qaida and convicted of the crime after a year of deliberation in what has become Britain's largest terror case. The men were linked to a 2005 bombing of a London subway car, and surveilance on one man revealed his intentions were terroristic. The link between the plotters and the actual bombers was kept secret to ensure a fair trial. These revelations go against what was said by the British government in 2005, which was that the attacks were perceived as unknown and unpredicted. All five men were sentenced to life in prison. Recorded conversations revealed the men conspiring to terrorism. Piecing together the plot took effort, but eventually happened.
The lead is very long, and gives some details I feel are kinda superfluous, like the targets for instance. However, it does reveal all the necessary details of the article. From here there is more information given about the suspects how the intelligence arrived at their conclusions. The article flows from point to point, going from the suspects descriptions to connecting them to the 2005 subway attack to discussing the British government's intelligence surrounding that issue, then to the trial and sentences that the men received. Britain's counter-terrorism chief is quoted directly and receives full attribution, commenting on the mens' link to Al-Qaida. The article ends with a quote from the MI5 chief, who says that his men will regret not preventing the 2005 bombings.
Coverage of the story on a UK website called The Argus is tailored much more specifically to residents of the UK. The lead feels week because it just focuses on one man being convicted for some reason, instead of the fact that there were 4 others convicted with him. This detail is mentioned later on. More specific locations familiar to British readers are mentioned, including where the terrorists hail from and what their planned targets were. Details about those being convicted are given again, along with the fact that they denied the charges. No direct attribution is used, with quotes all being paraphrased for the most part. It ends with the detail that the jury were out for a record number of days.
I prefer the coverage given by the Associated Press article in the Washington Post, because there's more specific detail about the link between the incident and the bombings in 2005, not to mention more attribution and direct quotes from those in positions of authority. The other article didn't seem to give the same level of information, and the lead feels like it doesn't tell the whole storyi mmediately anyway, which was odd.