This is a cross post from Lucy Lips
****
Al Qaeda have had a real boost, today.
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative – but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.
Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Mitting said Mr Naseer was sending e-mails to a contact in Pakistan – and that the recipient was an “al-Qaeda operative”.
The e-mails were said to be at the heart of the plot and culminated in a message sent to Pakistan in April 2009 in which Mr Naseer said he had set a date to marry, something MI5 said was code for an attack date.
“We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom,” the judgement said.
It added: “Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported.”
The judge said Ahmad Faraz Khan had become a “knowing party” to the plan because he had “undergone a radical change in view” between leaving home and studying in the UK.
But in both cases, Mr Justice Mitting said it was impossible to return the men to Pakistan.“There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance,” said the judgement.
Turning to the three students who have already left the UK, Mr Justice Mitting said Abdul Wahab Khan and Tariq ur Rehman were committed Islamists who knew of Mr Naseer’s plan.
But don’t worry – the Government has everything in hand.
The home secretary, Theresa May, said: “We are disappointed that the court has ruled that Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan should not be deported to Pakistan, which we were seeking on national security grounds. As the court agreed, they are a security risk to the UK. We are now taking all possible measures to ensure they do not engage in terrorist activity.”
What a relief!
I expect that Manchester Stop the War Coalition will also be delighted by this result
North West 10 picket of Strangeways.
In a blaze of publicity, armed police swooped on 12 Pakistani Muslim students in Manchester and Liverpool on April 8th. The Prime Minister boasted of a major terror threat being foiled. In spite of no evidence being found and no charges being brought, 11 of the 12 are still being held in custody, awaiting deportation. Instead of an apology, they are being held in Category A prisons.
It is no coincident that these Pakistani students were picked up just as we see the acceleration of the war on terror into Pakistan. These raids are an extension of the war on Terror being fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Not only because of the unjust treatment they are suffering, not just because these actions are fuelling Islamophobia, but because this is yet again another example of an attack on all our civil liberties.
And, if it still exists, Respect will be overjoyed as well.
And of course, Asim Qureshi from Cageprisoners – who has spoken out against the arrests, detention and proposals to deport these jihadists – must be hugely chuffed. Ditto their “support group“.
Fantastic result. Well done Britain.
14 Comments
Whilst I generally agree with the main thrust of this piece, I cannot help but be concerned for the lives of the jihadi if deported. A central plank of liberalism is the belief that all members of society have rights to live in peace and safety – even those who regularly seek themselves to deprive others of these rights.
The issue of combating the illiberal, authoritarian, clerical fascist values and acts that these jihadi espouse cannot be allowed to degenerate into vengeful reactions (however sometimes understandable) up and including throwing these obscene jihadi to the lethal wolves of dictatorships and police states abroad.
Given that Abid Naseer has already been investigated and identified as at least an enabler for a proscribed international terrorist organisation – how about throwing the book at him, how about locking him up? Surely the cost to the tax-payer of incarcerating this odious individual is not outweighed by the disaster of releasing Naseer back into the al-Qaida pervaded atmosphere of modern Pakistan? For have no doubt about it, what has really happened is that Pakistan does not want him either.
Citizens and residents of this country have the human right to go about their lives without coming across dangerous maniacs who hate this country and want to kill its people.
There is nothing illiberal with that position. It is a basic human desire.
I don’t disagree with you, sufian. I hoped that I was clear that such people as wish to cause others harm should be detained – however deportation as a means of dealing with their threat is another issue.
David Hope (aka Lord Hope of Craighead) dealt with this problem in his ruling on Abu Qatada (pdf) — the strength of a liberal democracy is shown when it takes the rights of these sorts of fanatical freaks seriously. Such rulings do *not* show our weakness; if anything it shows just how depraved these morons really are.
I think the safety of the public trumps some smug self-congratulatory bollocks about our liberal judicial system being better than theirs. Who gives a flyer if innocents are at threat? But that’s just me. Call me illiberal, if it makes you feel any better. in the meantime, let’s all pat ourselves on the back while our children are in danger of being killed by them, shall we?
I’m not the least bit ashamed to hope for a vicious quirk of fate such that this man or some bastard just like him detonates a bomb that kills and maims Abu Qatada’s or Asim Qureishi’s family members, just to see if their moral resolve for their campaigns for the rights of terrorists can handle its own medicine, for a change.
Well made point, thabet.
Tevya takes a similar line over on the HP thread of the original piece.
Do get over yourself, sufian.
If you say so, Abu Faris.
This man Abid Naseer was a ringleader of a terrorist group working under the disguise of students from Pakistan. They knew that after executing their terror ‘project’ they would either be dead or would have to escape to either Pakistan or to some haven in the Middle East. These people are prepared to perpetrate their crimes and take any punishment necessary.
Instead of being remanded in prison, the judge heard the evidence and allowed these people to walk free. Instead of being sent to their country, they have been allowed to remain in this country and walk the streets with the rest of us but monitored with full surveillance at great cost to the British tax payer.
This is nothing to do with the superiority of our liberal values. This is an example of the utter failure of our judicial system.
No, sufian.
The fault is not with bad judges, nor is it with bad law. The fault is with bad government – because it is government who make the laws and at least influence the appointment of the judges.
Equally, the penalty better fit the crime – the issue of deportation as a counter-terrorist measure should not be confused with the issue of the basic human rights of all actors involved – both those of the victim and those of the aggressor.
I agree: it is deeply unsatisfactory that the legal situation would appear to be so. This is a dangerous, lethal man who needs to be firmly restrained; but, as things stand, we can only achieve this by running into issues of rights and questions of whether this man should have any.
These are fundamental questions that effect all of us – you tamper with them at your peril. If you deprive or strip another of rights, you imperil quite plausibly your own future access to rights by others. Liberalism is the assumption that we are all born with certain rights and that these are fundamentally inalienable – they are immune to even future conduct: whatever is done does not erode them. These are liberal premises – and, rather than just sneering, sufian, why don’t you challenge them?
This man and his buddies came to the UK to commit a terrorist act not to ask for asylum from security authorities in Pakistan or its corrupt penury system. They are known al-qaeda operatives with motive and means and they should be deported to the country of their origin because they pose a threat to our national security. What is illiberal about that?
‘If you don’t want to do the time in that country don’t do the crime in this country’ is the simple premise here.
Some would argue Abid Naseer is well within his human rights to commit “defensive jihad” in this country.
That’s why Asim Qureshi of Cageprisoners calls for their support. And Bunglawala would like to think they’re simply innocent victims of blind justice:
http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/883-terror-suspect-pakistani-students-win-fight-against-deportation:
“That no actual terror-related charges have ever been brought forth against these men in a court of law brings in to question why the government has dishonourably sought to smear them further by seeking their deportation.”
Yeah, why smear jihadis with deportation when they were acting within their rights!
No, effendi – as you know perfectly well, the sort of rights I was mentioning do not include such obvious straw-men as the “right” to attack or harm others. And even if you could show any such “right” in reality, effendi (which necessarily you cannot), it still would not dispose of the inalienable human rights of both the victims and the aggressors. You are either for human rights, or you are not.
hello Abu Faris, I wasn’t actually addressing you but, incidentally, I do agree with you on this:
“it still would not dispose of the inalienable human rights of both the victims and the aggressors”
And that’s exactly the point the senior echelons of Amnesty International could do with understanding.
I could not agree with you more, Effendi. I rather objected to such important matters being used in personal vendettas, in point of fact. That was all.
Goodnight.