Al-Qaeda "terrorists" released

[oggbashan]

Nine of the twelve men arrested in the UK on suspicion of setting up a terrorist cell and plotting an attack have been released without charge.

They are likely to be deported back to Pakistan for "national security reasons" but also for being here as "students" who weren't doing a recognised course so had entered the UK under false pretences.

One 18 year old was released after 3 days. He is also likely to be deported back to Pakistan.

Two are still being held but have not been charged.

Isn't that a better advertisement for democracy and the rule of law than sending suspected terrorists to GITMO for years?

Og

 

[ishtat]

Ogg. Is it possible UK press reports on this issue have been subject to a 'D' notice?**

In Oz this has been reported as a total balls up by British security services.
From what has been reported here, obviously free of 'D notices' is that:-

1 the information on this group was originally obtained from American and Pakistani sources.

2 The operation to arrest them was carried out prematurely because a senior officer (Quick) carelessly revealed the facts to a photographer.

3 The original plan was to keep them under surveillance until they actually did something criminal. However the British police having blown their cover, the operation had to be brought forward BUT without any substantive charges.

4 It has also been reported here that US intelligence officials are furious with the Brits.

Any comments?

**A 'D' notice is a means by which the UK government censors the UK press on matters it considers to be of national security importance. Political embarrassment is sometimes interpreted in this light.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Ogg. Is it possible UK press reports on this issue have been subject to a 'D' notice?**

In Oz this has been reported as a total balls up by British security services.
From what has been reported here, obviously free of 'D notices' is that:-


**A 'D' notice is a means by which the UK government censors the UK press on matters it considers to be of national security importance. Political embarrassment is sometimes interpreted in this light.

D notices or not, exactly the same thing has been reported here. I don't think the serious newspapers respect the D notices any more - the Independent and the Guardian no longer attend unattributable briefings anyway, so it's hard to see what sanction the government could bring against them.

 

[R. Richard]

Nine of the twelve men arrested in the UK on suspicion of setting up a terrorist cell and plotting an attack have been released without charge.

They are likely to be deported back to Pakistan for "national security reasons" but also for being here as "students" who weren't doing a recognised course so had entered the UK under false pretences.

One 18 year old was released after 3 days. He is also likely to be deported back to Pakistan.

Two are still being held but have not been charged.

Isn't that a better advertisement for democracy and the rule of law than sending suspected terrorists to GITMO for years?

Og

The people deported will now go back to Pakistan and brief others as to what mistakes they made, how to correct the mistakes and also possibly brief other would be terrorists on new tactics that might work.

Og, the UK is running a training school for terrorists. They don't intend to, but that's what they're doing. [The situation is somewhat different, but would eventually have the same results as when the Roman Empire started accepting and training outsiders in their Legions.]

Yes, releasing the terrorists is a 'good advertisement' for democracy. However, it's an idiot move that undermines UK security and also puts at least much of the rest of the free world at risk. JMNTHO.

 

[oggbashan]

The Security Services of the UK, US, or any other democratic country, are almost always in a lose/lose situation.

If they act too soon they prevent the terrorist attack but lack the essential proof for a criminal conviction. They are blamed for failing to convict.

If they act too late they might not prevent the attack and people will die. Then the Security Services will be blamed for knowing about the attackers and not preventing the attack.

However in the UK the principle is always that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If they are suspected of plotting an attack, and are foreign nationals in the UK with dubious documentation, they can be deported. If they are UK nationals then all that can be done is conduct expensive survelliance until court-worthy proof is obtained.

If the survelliance gives a reasonable certainty that terrorist acts are planned the individuals can be watched, sometimes for months or years, until that certainty becomes proveable, enough for a conviction.

Revealing documents to the media might have been the trigger for an early set of raids, but a planned attack might have been prevented.

However those arrested may have done nothing more than talk big about what they might do, and actually had no more intention of doing anything - as much intention as I have when writing incest to actually practice incest.

Whatever happened is still better than confining suspects without trial, without hope or expectation of release, outside your territory because what you are doing would be illegal in your own country, taking people to countries that have a much more lax view on what torture is - when it isn't clear whether the suspect actually did or intended to do anything.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

How sad that the 'innocenty until proven guilty' principle was not applied to the Principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There will be dancing in the streets of Oakland and Berkley.

 

[amicus]

Oggbashan:

"...Whatever happened is still better than confining suspects without trial, without hope or expectation of release, outside your territory because what you are doing would be illegal in your own country, taking people to countries that have a much more lax view on what torture is - when it isn't clear whether the suspect actually did or intended to do anything..."

~~~

Apples and Walnuts, Ogg, and you know it.

Anything you can fabricate to attack Coalition forces for daring to liberate 50 million people in the Middle East.

Britains lack of intelligence procedures to investigate immigrants under visa rights, and the desperate need of former colonial students and laborers, that led to welcoming these Pakistani, would be terrorists, is due to the lackadaisical attitude towards terrorists even after being burned by an act of sabotage.

There will be more terrorist attacks by Islamic Radicals and more innocent people will be killed, thanks to you and your American counterparts.

The Brits couldn't see the writing on the wall in the 1930's and paid dearly.

DeJavu, eh? And my Sig line,of course...

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

How sad that the 'innocenty until proven guilty' principle was not applied to the Principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet.

What does this have to do with anything? You're referencing something from over 400 years ago.

 

[oggbashan]

How sad that the 'innocenty until proven guilty' principle was not applied to the Principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet.

By the standards of the time Garnet was tried in open court and convicted by what in that time passed for a fair trial.

If he had been tried on the lesser charge of treason instead of High Treason the evidence should have been sufficient to convict him. He, and some others, were plotting regime change.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

All 12 have now been released from police custody.

The 11 Pakistani nationals are being held by the Borders Agency pending deportation. The one UK citizen has been released without charge.

Amicus, I am not attacking coalition forces. I am attacking the then covert acts of the US administration outside Iraq and Afghanistan because those acts were making more enemies. If any British authorities had acted in such a way during World War 2 they would have been charged and probably convicted of "Acts giving comfort and support to the enemy".

The acts of the previous US administration are still causing considerable embarrassment to the UK government who are accused of knowingly supporting and facilitating extraordinary rendition and complicit in the use of what is unequivocably regarded as torture in English Law, whatever US lawyers might argue.

That embarrassment is damaging our security services and damaging our relations with many countries around the world. As the country that produced Magna Carta and parliamentary democracy, that hurts.

The US cannot claim to be the standard-bearers for freedom and democracy while its agents behave like thugs with the government's knowledge and explicit consent.

Your country and mine should be better than that.

Og

 

[amicus]

Nice partisan speech, Ogg, you surely do practice politics to the utmost, but that is all it is, rhetoric and politics.

Since I proffered beforehand that interrogation procedures were approved by both Congress and the Court, it is indeed, America and American's you are harshly criticizing, and, as an American, I object to that, especially since you are merely propagandizing the issue.

This may come as news to you, but western coalition forces are engaged in a war unlike any before. We are up against an enemy with no moral reservations in killing innocent civilians as with September 11, 2001, where nearly 3,000 civilians were murdered.

That same enemy has committed atrocities around the world, always on civilians and innocent bystanders.

Intelligence communities in every civilized country in the world are fully involved in locating, tracking and trying to predict where the next terror episode will take place.

I make a connection between the anti war contingent and the pacifist element in accusing those soft on crime and reluctant to act even after a crime has been committed and I include those who oppose pre-emptive actions to stop a terror act before it happens.

It does not trouble me in the least that you accuse my Country as you do; and when another terror act occurs on your soil, and it will, and it might have been prevented by more stringent procedures concerning surveillance, capture and interrogation of terror suspects, perhaps you will leave your moldy ideology and support those who act to defend you.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus,

Have you forgotten the IRA so soon?

We have more experience of terrorist attacks than the US. We have far more experience of attacks on our innocent civilians than the US - during World War Two when my nearest city was virtually destroyed overnight, and even during World War 1 when my parents' family homes were destroyed by bombs randomly dropped by a Zeppelin.

What I am attacking and will continue to attack is the policy that breeds more terrorists.

Some former IRA terrorists are now part of the government of Northern Ireland. The time will come when the US has to deal with those it now calls terrorists. That isn't new. The US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. The US supported the Taleban against Russia.

Today's terrorist may be tomorrow's valued ally.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

By the standards of the time Garnet was tried in open court and convicted by what in that time passed for a fair trial.

If he had been tried on the lesser charge of treason instead of High Treason the evidence should have been sufficient to convict him. He, and some others, were plotting regime change.

Og

I must disagree. Even for the times, the trial was a farce.

From Wiki:
Garnet was clearly guilty of misprision of treason, an offence which exposed him to perpetual imprisonment and forfeiture of his property. (English law had no exemption for a religious figure whose actions permitted the execution of a preventable crime.) Strangely enough, however, the government passed over Garnet's incriminating conversation with Greenway, and relied entirely on the strong circumstantial evidence to support the charge of high treason. Garnet's trial, like most in those days, was not governed by modern rules of evidence and was influenced by the political situation. The case against Garnet was bolstered by general political bias against the Jesuits as a whole, who were viewed as having been complicit in former plots against the government.

He did himself no favours by giving indirect and misleading statements, and his adherence to the doctrine of equivocation [see: Doctrine of mental reservation]. Garnet claimed that equivocation was only permitted in cases of necessary defence from injustice, or of obtaining some good of great importance when there is no danger of harm to others. His deceptions to the council were justifiable on the basis that if he had been as forthcoming as his interrogators demanded, he would have implicated many other Catholics and friendly Anglicans who would shortly have found themselves in great danger. Furthermore, the council's own conduct towards him, and others imprisoned along with him, had included eavesdropping, coersion, forgery, perjury, fraud, and torture. Finally, the prosecution's attempt to force Garnet to incriminate himself was opposed to the spirit and tradition of English law.

His verdict a foregone conclusion, Garnet was declared guilty. Despite the irregular character of the trial he accepted his sentence without complaint. Garnet fervently denied any active part in the plot, and maintained to the last that he had never approved of it. The king, who was concerned lest public opinion view Garnet as a martyr, allowed him to be tortured but once. On May 3, 1606, Garnet was taken on a hurdle to St. Peter's Churchyard where he addressed the assembled crowd: defending the character of Lady Anne Vaux, and refuting those who'd come, on the basis of a false rumor planted by the government, to see him recant his Catholicism. He died with dignity, and when his severed head was displayed, the crowd, rather than shouting "God save the king!" grew ugly and turned on the executioners, forcing them to flee in haste.

 

[amicus]

"...What I am attacking and will continue to attack is the policy that breeds more terrorists...."

~~~

You may have created your own terrorists in Ireland in the religious war and struggle for independence there, but very lame of you to repeat the mantra of the left in terms of America creating Islamic terrorists.

Islam is a feudal religion that is diasporically recreating the Crusades and has declared war, Jihad, on the western, 'infidel' world.

Just as the Spanish brought Catholicism to South America and Christians in general set out to 'save the world' with missionaries, and still does, Muslims are converting both Christians and, 'heathens' in every country in the world.

No external input is required to 'breed more terrorists', it is the stated intent of the Muslim world to conquer the world. Just as Christians burned heretics at the stake, Muslims throw suicide bombers at those they hate.

It is strange that once Imperial Britain has now adopted a provincial attitude about others who would conquer and colonize.

"Bravo Two Zero", if memory serves, is an episode of British Commando's captured and interrogated and the suffering and death they witnessed and survived.

All rational men who value freedom detest being required to respond with the use of lethal force when they are attacked. War is not the desired tool to maintain freedom and is a solution of last resort. But then you know that. Your squeamishness concerning non lethal interrogation is all political, Ogg, it has nothing to do with the basic values of a nation that acts to defend itself.

I say again, with emphasis, you do a great disservice to your nation and mine with your petty feminine bickering over self defense.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus, you have lost the plot yet again.

Muslims and Islam have not declared Jihad on the Western World. It is not their declared aim to conquer the world.

How can it be? They are as fragmented and divided as Christians are. There is no such thing as a single Muslim or Islamic entity.

It is not "muslims" who throw suicide bombers but misguided and misled people who have been indoctrinated to regard others as the enemy. Who are the most likely to be killed in suicide bomb attacks in Iraq? Other muslims. Muslims were killed on 9/11. People from many countries and several faiths were killed alongside US citizens on that day.

Recent US interrogation policy has been as effective with deterring the increase of terrorists as it would have been to pour fertilizer instead of weedkiller on weeds. It has NOTHING to do with defence of your country and mine but a lot to do with political gesturing and to be seen to be tough on terror. It contradicts the basic constitution of your country and mine to abuse people who have been convicted of nothing.

I consider your attack on Muslims, many of whom are allies of the US, as rendering you beneath contempt. I will not respond to any more of your posts and just leave you to fester in your benighted ignorance.

Og

 

[ishtat]

In an excess of eagerness to attribute as much political capital to their own opinions/prejudices, posters have not observed one important fact. The UK has about 3 million Muslim citizens largely 2nd generation migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh. (France and Germany have similar Muslim populations but migrants from different regions).3 to 5 years ago these terrorists would have been home grown Muslim Brits. The fact that they had to be imported speaks well of the efforts made to prevent terrorism arising from within the resident population. As the financial crisis in UK worsens and poverty develops within the Muslim population it will be difficult to prevent more terrorists arising from within the UK resident population.

Now an aside related to Ami's comment. Americans directly financed terrorism in UK for 30 years. Carter, Reagan, Bush senior, and Clinton all refused to stop the flow of Funds to the terrorist IRA who murdered thousands of their fellow citizens in northern Ireland. These Presidents were all more concerned about the catholic vote.The IRA got 90% of its funds from that source (through groups like Noraid) yet none of these Presidents lifted a finger to stop it despite repeated requests.

Who put a stop to it and forced the IRA to negotiate? Time to choke on your cornflakes; it was of course Bush junior. Ain't facts inconvenient. I know it was after 9/11 but it was on his watch.

It will be interesting to observe whether Obama keeps a lid the funding of the IRA if his polls slip at home.

 

[amicus]

Thank you for the input, Ishtat, interesting...I think it was Patriot Games, the film from the Clancy book that addressed some of the financing of the IRA, but I have never heard of 'Americans' involvement other than Irish American fundraisers, or how Bush or any other President either helped or hindered the flow of those American dollars. Perhaps you could elucidate?

Amicus

 

[wmrs2]

Amicus,

Have you forgotten the IRA so soon?

We have more experience of terrorist attacks than the US. We have far more experience of attacks on our innocent civilians than the US - during World War Two when my nearest city was virtually destroyed overnight, and even during World War 1 when my parents' family homes were destroyed by bombs randomly dropped by a Zeppelin.

What I am attacking and will continue to attack is the policy that breeds more terrorists.

Some former IRA terrorists are now part of the government of Northern Ireland. The time will come when the US has to deal with those it now calls terrorists. That isn't new. The US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. The US supported the Taleban against Russia.

Today's terrorist may be tomorrow's valued ally.

Og

You defend and attack with faulty assumption and if your assumptions are proven false, you are responsible for the deaths of 1,000s of innocent people.

You assume facts not in evidence. You have no way of knowing that torture has anything to do with the recruitment of terrorist. I would say the failure to educate the Middle East when the British were in control there, had more to do with Middle Eastern terrorist recruitment than anything else.

Recruitment of terrorist is done while their children are of grade school age. Better child care is a better answer that the stupid political rhetoric that torture is the thing that causes more recruitment of terrorist.

Who do you think the US A should have supported, the Russians or the Taleban? Which one would have been our friend if we chose them to support? You see in a real world, political rhetoric does not work whereas in California torture did work to save 1000s of lives. I don't agree that we should have allowed these people to have suffered a WTC event based on support of a principle of no torture. What are all the moral relativist doing supporting principles that they say do not exist anyway?

 

[wmrs2]

Amicus, you have lost the plot yet again.

Muslims and Islam have not declared Jihad on the Western World. It is not their declared aim to conquer the world.

How can it be? They are as fragmented and divided as Christians are. There is no such thing as a single Muslim or Islamic entity.

It is not "muslims" who throw suicide bombers but misguided and misled people who have been indoctrinated to regard others as the enemy. Who are the most likely to be killed in suicide bomb attacks in Iraq? Other muslims. Muslims were killed on 9/11. People from many countries and several faiths were killed alongside US citizens on that day.

Recent US interrogation policy has been as effective with deterring the increase of terrorists as it would have been to pour fertilizer instead of weedkiller on weeds. It has NOTHING to do with defence of your country and mine but a lot to do with political gesturing and to be seen to be tough on terror. It contradicts the basic constitution of your country and mine to abuse people who have been convicted of nothing.

I consider your attack on Muslims, many of whom are allies of the US, as rendering you beneath contempt. I will not respond to any more of your posts and just leave you to fester in your benighted ignorance.

Og

It is their declared aim to dominate world with their religion. The way you split hairs, the USA and England come out on the short end of the hair.

It is Muslims who keep silent while other Muslims throw bombs. The fact that Muslims and Americans were killed on 9/11 does not make these people less dead. Also, most of teh Muslim world blamed the USA for 9/11 and danced in the streets of every Muslim capital at the success of the terrorist.

You say:It contradicts the basic constitution of your country and mine to abuse people who have been convicted of nothing. I want to know why you marched yourself down to my thread and joined the gang of terrorist who boasted they had come to destroy my thread? You talk a good political game but you live by low morals in the real world and if the chips are ever down, I hope you are on the side of the terrorist because you are certainly not on the side of innocent people. You are a terrorist!

 

[wmrs2]

Amicus,

Have you forgotten the IRA so soon?

We have more experience of terrorist attacks than the US. We have far more experience of attacks on our innocent civilians than the US - during World War Two when my nearest city was virtually destroyed overnight, and even during World War 1 when my parents' family homes were destroyed by bombs randomly dropped by a Zeppelin.

What I am attacking and will continue to attack is the policy that breeds more terrorists.

Some former IRA terrorists are now part of the government of Northern Ireland. The time will come when the US has to deal with those it now calls terrorists. That isn't new. The US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. The US supported the Taleban against Russia.

Today's terrorist may be tomorrow's valued ally.

Og

If the people of the USA are dumb enough to listen to the likes of you on national security, we will need help to defend against local terrorism. But I hope that liberalism in the USA is a passing fad here and not something our national strict adherence to logic will prevail.

I also want to remind you that trolling is a type of mental illness and an addiction to which you have fallen victim to.

 

[JamesSD]

Muslims and Islam have not declared Jihad on the Western World. It is not their declared aim to conquer the world.

How can it be? They are as fragmented and divided as Christians are. There is no such thing as a single Muslim or Islamic entity.

It is not "muslims" who throw suicide bombers but misguided and misled people who have been indoctrinated to regard others as the enemy. Who are the most likely to be killed in suicide bomb attacks in Iraq? Other muslims. Muslims were killed on 9/11. People from many countries and several faiths were killed alongside US citizens on that day.

Anyone who doesn't walk through the world with bizarre blinders on knows that the US is not at war with Islam. Terrorists, perhaps. Certain fringe, Islamist extremeists? Stretching the definition of "war", but in a less literal term, sure. Islam? No. We are allied with NATO, which includes Turkey a Muslim country helping us in the fight against terror. Former President George W Bush and his father, George HW Bush have extensive ties to the rulers of Saudi Arabia: A muslim country. As a nation, the US engages in free and normal trade with the vast majority of muslim countries.

Al Queada is a wounded dog. The bombings in Iraq which killed many innocent Iraqi citizens did NOT make them remotely popular with moderate or even somewhat anti-West muslims. There's good intel their fundraising structure is very weakened due both to a loss in popularity and aggressive pursuit by US agents and allies.

 

[amicus]

JamesSD...If I may...

I have an online friend in Egypt. A girl from a Christian family in a mostly Muslim world. She is afraid even to type her thoughts on the internet is fear of retribution. Count for me the number of Muslim friends in their home countries you can exchange thoughts with on the web.

Further, if I may, Islam is intolerant and dishes out inhumane punishment for those who stray from the Muslim concept of morals.

Wherever Muslims migrate they take their beliefs with them, not, in itself different, we still have Chinatowns and other Asian conclaves and even Spanish or Mexican areas where people practice the customs of the, 'old country'.

There is a stark contrast between how western society and Muslim societies treat women and even individuals. These differences will never be settled until one or the other becomes dominant. As in China where the free market has brought about challenge to State totalitarianism, so too will the influx of western ways bring change to traditional Muslim behavior.

Religion is a powerful tool of State and it continues to be even more so when State and Religion are one. Theocracies are a thing of the past and the Middle East is a boiling tempest ready to spill over and has, in fact, began to secure its roots and branch out across the world.

Perhaps it will degrade to armed combat first in Indonesia or perhaps in Africa and when the stakes are large, the world takes note and acts to protect its investments and interests.

There is an upcoming election, in June, I think I heard, in Iran, that too could provide the spark that will light the fire in the Middle East.

So...think as you may that the Islamic world is static and non threatening, I think otherwise.

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

Thank you for the input, Ishtat, interesting...I think it was Patriot Games, the film from the Clancy book that addressed some of the financing of the IRA, but I have never heard of 'Americans' involvement other than Irish American fundraisers, or how Bush or any other President either helped or hindered the flow of those American dollars. Perhaps you could elucidate?

Amicus

This is a reasonable summary of the imports made by the IRA. You will notice how a few well known names crop up. It's more difficult to identify that American (private) funds supported most of the non Libyan involvement except for the fact that most of the people involved in Noraid made no attempt to deny it.

The so called Good Friday agreement for peace in northern Ireland took place in 1999 before Bush 2 but there were huge problems with the arms control stemming from it until after 9/11. Then Bush stepped in and said no more money would be allowed from the US. This has been seen as a part payment for British support in Iraq by some commentators. Prior to Bush, Clinton was easily the most active supporter of the Irish against the English since President Johnson - Andrew Johnson that is.

It's difficult to find references to IRA funding on the internet because any search of IRA finance produces reams of detail about retirement products!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation

 

[shereads]

How sad that the 'innocenty until proven guilty' principle was not applied to the Principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet.

Come on. Seriously. That's a bit of a reach, even for you.

Oh, Og. What have you done?