A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and US targets.

Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

He intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos", prosecutors said.

Barot, 34, also allegedly plotted to cause explosions at several US financial buildings "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible".

Synchronised

Prosecuting QC Edmund Lawson said plans had been found by police on a computer after Barot was arrested in August 2004.

The plans were for attacks on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York and the Prudential buildings in Newark, New Jersey.

"These being plans...to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," said Mr Lawson.

The defendant also plotted to blow up three limousines "packed" with gas cylinders and explosives in underground car parks in the UK, the court heard.

Mr Lawson said the plot - known as the Gas Limos Project - was to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK.

Sentence

Other bombings being planned included a so-called "dirty bomb project".

Mr Lawson said this plot was designed to achieve "a number of further and collateral objectives such as to cause injury, fear, terror and chaos".

According to expert evidence, if the radiation (dirty bomb) project had been carried out, it would have been unlikely to cause deaths, but was designed to affect about 500 people, he said.

The Crown could not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired, he said.

Barot had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes.

The judge ordered all these charges to lie on file following his guilty plea to conspiracy to murder.

Mr Lawson said that by pleading guilty, Barot made "no admission with regard to the involvement of any of his seven co-defendants in the conspiracy".

Seven other men are due to face trial next year.

Barot will be sentenced at a later date.

A Briton arrested amid a massive U.S. security alert two years ago admitted in a London court on Thursday to plotting to blow up financial targets in the United States and carry out "dirty bomb" attacks in Britain.

Dhiren Barot, a Muslim convert, admitted to plotting to blow up the headquarters of the New York Stock Exchange, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Citigroup and Prudential in Washington, New Jersey and New York.

"Explosions at these premises were clearly designed to kill as many people as possible," said prosecuting lawyer Edmund Lawson.

Amid tight security at Woolwich Crown Court in South London, Barot pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and prosecutors outlined the details of his confession. Barot, looking relaxed and typing on a lap-top, spoke only to affirm his guilt.

Apart from the U.S. plot, he planned to hit British targets in a conspiracy called the "Gas Limos Project", which "involved parking three limos with gas cylinders with explosives and detonating them in underground car parks," Lawson said.

And he admitted another plan to detonate at least one "dirty bomb" contaminated with radiological material in Britain. The prosecution said Barot claimed the dirty bomb was not designed to kill but "rather to cause injury, fear, terror and chaos".

Under Britain's tight media laws, the judge ordered that further details of the conspiracy not be reported to prevent prejudicing the trials of any future defendants.

The plans did not seem to have reached an advanced stage. The prosecution said it accepted Barot's assertion that no funding, vehicles or bomb making equipment had been in place.

"We are happy to confirm that because it's a true statement of fact," said Lawson.

MASSIVE ALERT

Barot was arrested by British police in August 2004 after a massive security alert in the United States.

The U.S. Homeland Security Advisory level was raised to "high", police with assault rifles were posted at possible targets, barricades were erected and traffic into Manhattan via bridges and tunnels were restricted.

The very public U.S. response to the case in 2004 -- just weeks before a presidential election -- attracted criticism.

Because three years had passed since Barot had visited his potential targets, and he was under tight British surveillance at the time, some Democrats accused the Republican-led administration of overstating the immediacy of the threat.

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, now chairman of the Democratic Party, said at the time.

U.S. officials said then that they believed the plot was in an advanced stage, an assertion apparently contradicted by the British prosecutors on Thursday.

The case of a New York attorney convicted of aiding terrorism has prompted debate among U.S. lawyers about whether the Bush administration wants to scare them away from representing terrorist defendants.

Lynne Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of helping a client smuggle messages to militant followers and is to be sentenced on Monday. She faces more than 15 years in prison.

"Her case is an example of the way in which the government is equating individuals who represent terrorists with terrorists themselves -- that language of 'if you're not with us you're against us'," said Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"It's a scare tactic," she said. "It is worrisome that attorneys might become less able to represent out of fear of being prosecuted."

But Fordham University Law Professor James Cohen says Stewart "unquestionably broke the law" and the case would not deter other lawyers representing terrorism-related suspects.

Tagged as both heroine and radical leftist, Stewart, 67, is the only U.S. lawyer to be indicted on terrorism charges.

Since her 2002 indictment, she has spoken at rallies, endured a seven-month trial, been convicted, undergone treatment for cancer and become the subject of a documentary called "Who's Afraid of Lynne Stewart?"

Stewart says the case was brought as a message to lawyers.

"This case also has a bigger meaning - about how the Bush administration uses every opportunity to wave a terrorism flag and frighten people into subservience," she told Reuters in a telephone interview.

A Department of Justice spokesman declined comment.

AFTER SEPT. 11

Stewart was convicted of helping her imprisoned client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, to contact the Islamic Group, which the government lists as a terrorist organization, with messages prosecutors said could have ignited violence in Egypt.

Abdel-Rahman was found guilty in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets in a plot prosecutors said included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Stewart's supporters say the government has taken a harsh approach to anyone deemed to be aiding terrorism regardless of any clear link to such activity.

"There is no question ... that the government's view of her conduct was markedly different seen through the lens of a post-September 11 era," said one of her attorneys, Jill Shellow-Lavine. "Her case sets a horrible precedent."

Lawyer Edward Wilford, who has represented several terrorism defendants, said many post-September 11 cases "are not about actual acts of terrorism being planned or having occurred but rather are designated to raise the specter of terrorism in the United States."

Heather Tasker, a spokeswoman for the New York U.S. Attorney's Office, declined comment beyond noting that the government's sentencing memo denied Stewart's case had a "chilling effect" on attorneys.

At the time, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Stewart's conviction sent "a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals."

Stewart said she was initially "flabbergasted" at being indicted, but now "regretted a certain level of carelessness" in reading a statement issued by the cleric to a Reuters reporter in Cairo.

"But to think I was going to be indicted as part of a conspiracy to aid terrorism never crossed my mind," she said.

A London man today pleaded guilty to plotting to murder people in terrorist attacks on Britain and the US, with targets including the World Bank in Washington.

Dhiren Barot planned to use a radioactive so-called dirty bomb in one of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK, with the intention of causing "fear, terror and chaos".

He intended to strike British targets in a conspiracy known as the gas limos project, packing three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonating them in underground car parks.

Woolwich crown court heard that the 34-year-old, who was arrested in 2004, planned to cause blasts in Washington, New York and Newark.

The proposed attacks were to have taken place between 2000 and 2004, and were in conspiracy with other "unknown" people.

Edmund Lawson, QC, told the court Barot plotted to attack the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York, and the Prudential building in Newark.

"These being plans ... to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," Mr Lawson said.

Details of the gas limos project were found on Barot's computer, and were the "main cornerstone" of a series of attacks in the UK, the court heard.

The so-called dirty bomb plot was however, unlikely to kill anyone, Mr Lawson told the court. "The radiation project was designed, among other things, to affect some 500 people," he added.

"The expert evidence, from a witness described as EU, is that the radiation project, if carried through, would have been unlikely by itself to cause death as opposed to causing considerable fear, panic and social destruction."

Ian Macdonald QC, representing Barot, said the radiation plot had not been intended to kill.

The prosecution said Indian-born Barot's plans were not at an advanced stage - he had no funding, vehicles or bomb-making equipment.

He entered his guilty plea this morning, but reporting restrictions were only lifted by Mr Justice Butterfield this afternoon.

He faces 12 other charges, including one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes, and will be sentenced at a later date.

Heathrow airport's terminal three is a "very easy target" for a terrorist attack that could result in numerous deaths, an independent air security expert has warned MPs.

Professor Alan Hatcher, of the private International School for Security and Explosives Education, said changing car parking arrangements and traffic direction through the area could reduce the risk.

He argued that anti-terror measures could have unforeseen consequences, potentially increasing the number of casualties in an incident.

Prof Hatcher was giving evidence to the Commons select committee inquiry on transport security, which also heard police and aviation industry representatives clash on whether taxpayers or passengers should foot the bill for extra security measures.

"The movement of vehicles around Heathrow is phenomenal and, if we could define a better transport plan, this may alleviate some direct threats," he said. "Terminal three is currently a very easy target for a simple terrorist attack ... even a small device would result in large scale loss of life.

"As a result of our well-meaning security practices, we now see hundreds of people in lines that coil around each other. A well placed suitcase containing several kilograms of explosive left in the line would result in catastrophic fatalities and injuries."

Prof Hatcher urged the authorities to rely less on high-tech responses and focus instead on support for frontline staff. "In the main, these people are paid very poorly, they do not always have a structured career path and this can lead to a very high turnover of staff," he said.

Mike Todd, who deals with transport security issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, called for a policing levy to be added to the cost of air tickets.

"I don't think it's right that so many people near airports have to pay for policing and security. Fifty pence on each passenger would pay for the price of policing," Mr Todd, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said.

In his submission to the committee, he warned that the risk assessment process involving the police and the aviation industry "lacks dynamism, accountability and resilience".

He said it suffered from a lack of investment and had a "bias towards cost saving at the expense of security outcomes".

However, British Airways said the regime was too strict and that the government should pay for the extra safety measures needed on British flights.

"BA believes there is over-regulation in the UK when compared with security regimes existing in both Europe and the US in particular," the airline said in its submission. "This compromises the competitive position of the UK's airlines and airports."

However, it added that it believed Britain required the highest standards of security anywhere in the world, bar Israel.

"The higher level of threat faced by UK aviation can be attributed to government policy ... additional [safety] measures, imposed by individual countries as a result of an increased threat due to nationality, must be government funded," it said.