Babar Ahmad Extradition: ‘RIP British Justice’ – But What About Those British Intelligence ‘Informants’ ?

Patrick Henningsen 21st Century Wire Editorial Comment ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON Five UK-based terror suspects went down in the dock yesterday as the Old Bailey ruled that all will be extradited to the US, after a failed last-minute appeals were rejected in the British High Court late yesterday. Of the group of British men held without trial and set to be extradited to the US under terrorism charges, at least one, and possibly more have already been outed in the media as informants for British Intelligence, with possible links to US intelligence as well. Person of interest number six, Haroon Rasheed Aswat, will await proceedings as his case is still under review. It should be noted here that Aswat was outed following 7/7, when he was linked to the alleged bombers. Aside from his known exploits, allowed to travel freely around the US after 9/11, in the first two weeks following the 7 July 2005 bombings, police sources initially revealed to the British Press that Aswat made at least 20 mobile phone calls to two of the suspected bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, one just hours before the event. On 29 July 2005, during an interview with Fox News, a former US prosecutor and ranking intelligence agent, John Loftus, stated that Aswat was a ‘double agent’ (also meaning paid informant), backed by Britain’s MI6. Loftus stated that British Intelligence did in fact intervened to protect Aswat while he was trying to evade capture following 7/7. Aswat’s association with Finsbury Park Mosque links him directly to Abu Hamza, the infamous hook-handed Egyptian cleric who served as the UK tabloid media’s face of terrorism since 2002. Both were close associates and both were British Intelligence informants who happened to be active in recruiting young radical Muslims in the UK. Aswat’s connection to the accused 7/7 bombers has never been properly scrutinized in a British court of law, leaving many unanswered questions as to where the actual red line in the gray world of government-sponsored terror ‘informants’. Hamza has also been connected to British Intelligence. A confirmation by the London Guardian places Hamza in regular contact with MI5: “Reda Hassaine was a former MI5 operative who infiltrated the mosque. He says Hamza was allowed to operate by the security services as long as he did not threaten Britain’s national security. A senior French intelligence chief told the Guardian in 2006 that for years, Britain had failed to take action against him despite being given evidence that he had extensive involvement in terrorism, including recruiting men for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.” Besides Aswat and Hamza, could any of these others on this latest extradition list be past informants too? Moreover, are these two top operatives, Aswat and Hamza, being used through this latest High Court case by the British legal establishment in order to sell this ‘bundle of extraditions’ quickly and quietly – without too many questions being asked about the employment of Aswat and Hamza? Certainly, more needs to be know about Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al-Fawwaz – but one thing is certain now – the establishment are using their own informants to fast track an unconstitutional and sovereignty-killing illegal precedent which is attempting to justify being held without trial and then extradited to a known torture regime – the US, for any person that the state deems suitable. In legal terms, this amounts to a ‘flattening’ of the justice system, opening the door for more similar extrajudicial proceeding not requiring evidence or trial in the future. With such a significant legal precedent at stake in this instance, then shouldn’t British Intelligence’s relationship – be it formal or informal, with both Aswat and Hamza be declared in the interest of the British public? Where they paid by the British government? If so, how much? As a MI5 informant, what exactly was Aswat’s actual involvement – documented or anecdotal, in the London 7/7 bombings? Is this in the public interest to know (that’s not a trick question by the way)? Question: why can’t these British citizens be tried here in Britain? Answer: because at least some of them would be acquitted for lack of evidence, and others would have to answer as government informants. It appears that the British legal system has painted itself into a corner with ‘indefinite detention’, and now the only way out is to ship the problem overseas – in this case, to the United States. You can almost guarantee that they will wait even longer for a fair trial in the US. Watch and see. It’s doubtful that either the government or the legal establishment will be willing to answer such a question – making this legal ‘no go’ area the axle currently turning what looks like a state-sponsored miscarriage of British constitutional justice – and the nullification of British sovereignty – thus, opening the door for the US to snatch and person they say is involved in matters of interest to “US national security”. ….

Babar Ahmad Extradition Reaction: ‘RIP British Justice’ 

Huff Post The decision to extradite Babar Ahmad to the US to face terror charges has been condemned as “shameful” and “disappointing” by family and friends as justice campaigners renewed their calls for extradition arrangements with America to be reviewed. Computer expert Ahmad, who has been in jail without trial since 2004 while fighting extradition, is accused of being involved in a website which encouraged terrorism and which, while operated from London, was hosted in the US. In a statement, Ahmad who has pleaded to be charged and tried in Britain, said: “By exposing the fallacy of the UK’s extradition arrangements with the US, I leave with my head held high having won the moral victory.” Karl Watkin, the British businessman who has been campaigning to have the men tried in British rather the USA, said he was not “suprised” by the verdict but condemned the UK legal system. Mr Watkin said he was “extremely frustrated but not at all surprised” by the judges’ decision. “I have no regrets over pursuing a private prosecution – it was the right thing to do,” he said. “No ifs, no buts – British citizens should be tried in Britain for crimes perpetrated in Britain and in circumstances where the evidence is found in Britain. “What’s more, I know tens of thousands of principled British people agree with me. Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan wanted their removal stopped so that they could challenge a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to allow Mr Watkin to bring private prosecutions against them in the UK. Mr Watkin went on: “Allowing the US to expand its extraterritorial reach by claiming jurisdiction over internet servers is undermining British and international justice. “Servers are commonly cloud-based – which is where the UK’s judicial and government leaders have their heads today. “British extradition law urgently needs updating to assert jurisdiction over the territory in which cyber crime is physically committed. “No matter how much the public and their representative MPs protest at today’s outrage, no British court will ever try these two suspects. “RIP British justice.” Babar Ahmad’s father Ashfaq said: “After over 40 years of paying taxes in this country, I am appalled that the system has let me down in a manner more befitting of a third world country than one of the world’s oldest democracies. “We will never abandon our struggle for justice and the truth will eventually emerge of what will be forever remembered as a shameful chapter in the history of Britain.” Read more ….