DAILY MAIL (London)
February 5, 2008 Tuesday
1008 words
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument
<http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument
&orgId=574&topicId=25106&docId=l:739338841&isRss=true>
&orgId=574&topicId=25106&docId=l:739338841&isRss=true
TERRORISM AND THE TOOTING TWO
BY CHARLOTTE GILL CRIME CORRESPONDENT
THE CIVIL SERVANT'S SON THEY SAYWAS PLOTTING TO MURDER AMERICANS
COME summer, Babar Ahmad will have spent four years locked up in a British
jail.
Depending on who you believe, he is either a hardened Al Qaeda sympathiser
who sought to promote international jihad via the internet, or a
'soft-hearted teddy bear' who wouldn't hurt a soul.
But ever since his arrest under anti-terror laws in August 2004, the
33-year-old computer expert has been refused bail while battling extradition
to the U.S.
In October that year, a court in Connecticut charged Ahmad ñ the son of a
civil servant and a science teacher ñ with supporting terrorism and
conspiring to kill Americans abroad.
They claim that from his home in Tooting, South London, he ran several
websites registered in the U.S. state, recruiting fighters for jihad in
Afghanistan and Chechnya.
The authorities also allege that he set up a terror training camp in Arizona
and that he had classified documents detailing the movements of U.S. Navy
warships in the Gulf.
Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, said in 2004: 'We will
not rest until Mr Ahmad is given a fair trial in a federal courtroom in
Connecticut.
'This indictment is a significant development in our efforts to target those
who are alleged to equip and bankroll terrorists via the internet.'
But as British-born Ahmad waits for the extradition process to take its
course, his family and friends have run a vocal campaign to protest his
innocence.
They insist he is an educated, professional and law-abiding man who has
never been in trouble. His parents came to Britain from Pakistan in the
early sixties. His father Ashfaq, 71, became a civil servant.
The family set up home in Tooting and, like his three siblings, Ahmad
prospered at school and university in London where he gained a master's
degree in Engineering. After graduating he found work as an IT support
specialist at Imperial College, where he was still employed at the time of
his arrest in 2004. He is married to Maryam, a teacher.
Police first arrested Ahmad in December 2003 under the Terrorism Act,
although the police refuse to disclose why he was under suspicion.
Officers carried out searches of his house and computers. Documents were
removed for examination.
After being questioned for six days, he was released without charge.
He lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
claiming that he was physically abused by arresting officers.
He also accused police of concocting intelligence reports and 'desecrating'
his copy of the Koran by putting it on the floor when they searched his
home.
The IPCC investigation dismissed his case.
In August 2004, he was arrested again outside his workplace by Scotland Yard
officers on a U.S. extradition warrant.
He faces three terror charges ñ conspiracy to provide material to support
terrorists, namely the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen; providing
material to support terrorists; and conspiracy to kill in a foreign country
ñ all which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
There is also one charge of money laundering.
The U.S. claim that between 1997 and 2004, Ahmad created and used websites
and e-mails to offer expert advice to terror groups.
He allegedly provided everything from training, funding and false documents
to lodging, transport and military equipment to help the Taliban and
Mujahideen.
He is accused of offering his services through pro-jihad websites operated
through an internet service provider in Connecticut.
His e-mails are said to include discussions of shipments of gas masks,
night-vision goggles and safe routes into Afghanistan.
He also allegedly produced and distributed videos of fighters in Bosnia and
Chechnya to drum up new recruits and procure more funds.
The sites carried the message: 'Muslims must use every means at their
disposal to undertake military and physical training for jihad.'
They also published Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the U.S. in
1996 and extolled the virtues of martyrdom in the cause.
After his arrest, Ahmad was remanded in custody and has been unsuccessfully
fighting extradition ever since. There have been more than a dozen hearings
about his case.
He has been refused bail on the grounds that he might reoffend or fail to
appear again.
He is now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights after the House of
Lords rejected his case last year.
His lawyers argue that, despite U.S. assurances, there is a 'real risk' that
Ahmad will be mistreated if he is sent to America. There are fears he would
end up in Guantanamo Bay.
Ahmad's family want him to go on trial in the UK or in a neutral
international court.
His sister Sara said yesterday: 'My brother is a soft-hearted teddy bear,
not this dark, secretive, sinister person at a computer they are portraying
him as. When I was a little girl he would sleep on the floor of my bedroom
so that I wouldn't be afraid.
'All we are asking for is a fair trial and a right to see the evidence which
is against him.
'We are not frightened of a trial in the UK but we do not trust the American
system.'
WHAT THE SURVEILLANCE RULES SAY
STRICT laws surround every surveillance operation. But when the individual
in question is a MP, the rules become even more complex.
A police officer of superintendent rank or above is permitted to sign off
'directed' bugging operations, for example secret recording of a
conversation in a public place.
But if the surveillance level required is 'intrusive' ñ such as
eavesdropping or putting a bug in a suspect's car or home ñ authorisation
must be passed by a force's chief constableor, in the case of the
Metropolitan Police, an assistant commissioner.
If a bugging operation is taking place in a prison, no extra authorisation
is needed from the Prison Service or a minister.
Initially, officials indicated that the bugging of Mr Khan and Mr Ahmad was
'directed' surveillance, meaning a superintendent could have signed it off.
But yesterday Jack Straw confirmed the surveillance was 'intrusive' and
should have been authorised by a chief officer.
February 4, 2008
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
