I spent over two decades in counterterrorism and I’m still involved in many ways, so here are my views on what I see has happened over the past 24-36 hours in the UK:

Five British men in their twenties were arrested on Sunday near RAF Fairford on suspicion of explosives offences a terrorist act. On Monday they were released on police bail.

That’s not what the terrorism clock looks like when the investigators are still in charge of it.

Under ordinary UK criminal law a suspect can be held for 24 hours, stretched to 36 by a superintendent, and to 96 hours by a magistrate.

But under section 41 of the Terrorism Act the first hold is 48 hours, not 24 hours. A judge can then extend it, in stages, up to 14 days without a charge. If the case merits it, it can even be pushed to 28 days. That 14-day cap exists for exactly this kind of file of vans, an airbase the United States uses, a possible foreign hand, explosives (if there were any) and interviews that are not finished on the first night.

Counter-terrorism police said the inquiry isn’t over. They said conditions apply. They said a state link has not been ruled out. Those sentences he said only make sense if the evidence trail was still live. A live trail is why Parliament built the two-week window.

But watching the guy read out the statement showed me in his body language, tone and eye movements that releasing those five men was NOT his or his department’s decision.

Walking five men after roughly a day is what you do with a pub fight, not with a suspected terrorist attack on a bomber base.

I’ve sat in enough interrogation rooms to know the difference between a custody clock and a political ceiling. Nobody had to shout an order down a phone. Someone in the political building above the investigators decided that charging British nationals on Monday, with Iran already denying it, Washington watching the runway, and a Labour conference where the main topics of discussion were prioritizing Palestinian and other refugees settling in the UK, was uglier than bail and a holding statement.

The law allowed them to keep the door shut. Yet the door opened anyway in half of the most minimum time.

That’s the story. That for me is the only story here. Not “they were innocent.” Not “the case collapsed.” The statute was not exhausted, but the appetite was.

The real question is who, and most importantly, why?