It is probable and unfortunate that the 100k signatures were very largely Musilms and the left. The wider UK society is not involved in this in any way however dangerous this threat to civil liberties has become because they are far more concerned with what they see as the threat from extreme Islam. To a great extent Ahmed and supporters have got themselves into this position.

100,000 signatures in Britain. That’s a lot of people who are concerned about Babar Ahmed. Or maybe they’re more concerned about the general principle of extraditing people to face – possibly rough justice – overseas.
But if he really did run the jihadist website ”Azzam.com” and it was as pro Al Qaeda and the Taleban as they say, then I do wonder why he has so much support.

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/03/18/why-gary-mckinnon-and-babar-ahmad-are-not-the-same/

I doubt if Garry Glitter would get 100,000 signatures to prevent his deportation to the US on sex crime charges, even if the evidence was as tenuous as that in this case, so I do wonder why Babar Ahmed recieves sympathy to this degree.

He has been in prison since 2004.

Supporters of the petition say that whatever his alleged crimes – Ahmad should be put on trial in the UK than extradited to the USA.

Agreed. The problem for the UK authorities is that they say there is insufficient evidence to charge him.

When I looked a few days ago, the main return of capital punishment petition had not quite reached 23,000. The main abolitionist one had reached 30,000.

A very pleasing outcome as far as I am concerned. But not such good news for Paul Staines and his rather vile website, Guido Fawkes.

I doubt if Garry Glitter would get 100,000 signatures to prevent his deportation to the US on sex crime charges, even if the evidence was as tenuous as that in this case, so I do wonder why Babar Ahmed recieves sympathy to this degree.

1. Gary Glitter is a convicted paedophile

2. Babar Ahmed has not even been charged with any crime by UK authorities yet he has been in UK ‘custody’ for seven years.

Quite, quite different.

”2. Babar Ahmed has not even been charged with any crime by UK authorities yet he has been in UK ‘custody’ for seven years.”

If he was behind the website I mentioned, that would still be very damning.
He either was or he wasn’t, regardless of that being a criminal offence in this country.
I couldn’t really care one way or the other, but if he was involved with the site, it’s the 100,000 signatures that are really the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1823045.stm

Azzam.com posts a “farewell message” on its site, a statement kept online in case the site is closed down.

“The war in Afghanistan is the beginning of a long war that will last several years, perhaps decades and eventually end with victory for the believers and a good outcome for the Muslim Ummah [community],” the message reads.

It goes on to urge Muslims to maintain their commitment to a jihad or holy struggle against the West.

Of course that might just come under freedom of speech, but it’s not so good that the person behind it would have so much support in the UK.

@damon – Harry’s Place in ‘Muslims should be treated differently to others’ shocker.

That idiocy fails to address a simple point – the supporters of neither campaign are saying the two are innocent people… only that they be tried in countries where they are citizens.
If the case against Ahmad is so water-tight, why keep him in prison for 7 years without trial? Answer that question pal.

I just put the Harry’s Place up there as a point of reference. I don’t particularly like them at all. In general I don’t support this extradition process before charges are made and reviewed by courts in this country to see if they have merrit.
There was a horrible case I heard of the other day when a young English guy spoke of his ten months in a Greek prison after being extradited from the UK – for something he was later found not guilty of.

But I (as usual) think that this case can be broadened out too, to take in other aspects.
If Ahmad was behind that website, then that makes him very different to someone going looking for evidence of UFOs. It just does.
As for the case itself. I personally don’t care that much. But that’s just me.
I also don’t care about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed either. I except that that’s quite illiberal of me, but I’m not very liberal about Guantanamo etc. As it is now in 2011.
It’s only a couple of hundred people.

5. ukliberty

2. Babar Ahmed has not even been charged with any crime by UK authorities yet he has been in UK ‘custody’ for seven years. Quite, quite different.

Something he can fix very quickly. He can drop his appeal and go to America. The choice is his. The only real problem here is that the system grinds so slow that this open-and-shut case can have dragged on for seven years. Seven minutes would be more reasonable. But of course the legal system is run by and hence for the benefit of lawyers. All of whom are being paid a fortune by the tax payers to play their silly games.

8. Sunny Hundal

Harry’s Place in ‘Muslims should be treated differently to others’ shocker.

You mean ‘Harry’s Place in “Islamists should be treated differently to non-Islamists” shocker? Yes. Quite.

That idiocy fails to address a simple point – the supporters of neither campaign are saying the two are innocent people… only that they be tried in countries where they are citizens.

Sorry but if Baba Ahmad’s supporters are not arguing his is innocent (and we know they are not, they are arguing justification), they have no case. It has been a long time since anyone’s legal jurisdiction was confined to a single country. As it happens I think it ought to be, but others do not. Britain will try sex offenders if they abuse children in Thailand. Still if you think that people ought to be only tried for the crimes they commit in a country in that country, perhaps you will care to condemn the attempt to extradite Pinochet to Spain? Where he did not commit any crimes at all.

If the case against Ahmad is so water-tight, why keep him in prison for 7 years without trial? Answer that question pal.

Simple. He is insisting on fighting extradition. As long as he fights, he needs to be heard in a Court of Law and hence, given the nature of the allegations and the fact that he is a flight risk, he needs to be kept in custody. He can leave Britain’s prison system any time he likes – he can drop his appeals. He is putting himself in a British cell. He can choose to leave.

Sorry but if Baba Ahmad’s supporters are not arguing his is innocent (and we know they are not, they are arguing justification), they have no case.

So in other words you’ve decided to act as judge and jury before hearing the case. Yeah. Thanks. No wonder you like Harry’s Place.

10. Sunny Hundal

So in other words you’ve decided to act as judge and jury before hearing the case. Yeah. Thanks. No wonder you like Harry’s Place.

I don’t much like Harry’s Place. But no, I am not acting as judge and jury either. I have some limited experience of his supporters, and while I shouldn’t speak for all of them, all the ones I know argue justification, not innocence.

I also notice that you admit that his supporters are not arguing innocence.

7. Sunny Hundal

That idiocy fails to address a simple point – the supporters of neither campaign are saying the two are innocent people…

How precisely is agreeing with you acting as judge and jury?

Sunny the Islamist loving, cowardly, censor!

If you read the short discussion with Gareth Pierce at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee you’ll see the objection to the Babar (not Baba) Ahmad extradition. Pierce says “almost in its entirety, the US extradition case is based on the evidence taken from his house, his workplace and through investigations by the Metropolitan Police here”. David Winnick MP responds ” That is serious matter, is it not? If the evidence collected by the police didn’t lead to any charge against your client but nevertheless that evidence, which was not the subject of a prosecution, was sent to the United States, and all that followed, that is a serious matter? “. All the “evidence” against Ahmad comes from Britain, but opportunistically the Americans are trying to use it to put him on trial there.The extradition is just “jurisdiction shopping” – the Met didn’t think the evidence they had linking Babar Ahmad to the Islamist “Azzam” website pointed to anything illegal – or worth a prosecution anyway : Running websites that said Chechen, Bosnian and Afghan fighters were the good guys isn’t neccessarily something that can be prosecuted in the UK –(or we would have to arrest anyone with a copy of the James Bond film “The living daylights” ). But the Americans are arguing that because the website ran through a US server, they will put him on trial there – because they are happier to try an opportunistic prosecution, and have much looser laws than us. Ahmad could decide not to fight the extradition, but why should a Brit willingly go to the US for “crimes” that were committed in the UK, investigated in the UK , but led to no prosecution here ?

Solomon Hughes, good and fair points. What frustrates me though is the nature of debate on sites like this where OPs are written in a way that seems to make even slight disagreement or opening the debate up – apparently unwelcome.

So in legal and justice terms, it looks like Babar Ahmad is getting a rough deal.
But why do a hundred thousand people care so much is the point I raised?
Is it just the legal points you brought up? Then why should it be a cause that was taken up by the muslim community in such a big way? There are surely misgivings about his character which would normally be enough to put people off getting behind such a person.
Like Imran Khan pointed out in post #1.

But the OP gives the impression that 100,000 signatures being reached is something positive, because this was just about an unjust extradition by the USA.
And that it would be the same if it was Nick Griffin fighting extradition in similar circumstances.
But of course it wouldn’t be. Only a fraction of the people who have supported this guy would do the same to stop a heavy handed extradition of Nick Griffin to the US.
So it’s something else that’s going on.

Where are the complaints about heavy handed and political bail conditions being handed out to the likes of Tommy Robinson of the EDL? Banning people from even looking at certain websites or travelling to a city? It should be the same really, but I can’t see anyone getting 100,000 signatures for any ”injustice” done to racists.

damon, what you appear to be suggesting is that people are inconsistent about whom they tend to support.

Lawks, I think I need a lie down, that’s incredible news.

The discussion to which Solomon @ 13 refers can be found here, along with other evidence:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmhaff/644/11011801.htm

I think equating Tommy Robinson’s bail conditions with seven years in prison seems a bit eccentric. One of the reasons the Babar Ahmad case gets attention is that is part of a wider erosion of legal rights as part of the “war on terror”. You could always rely on somebody to pipe up that even if Guantanamo was wrong, its inmates were all still bad people (which actually wasn’t true – some were very good people) . Which seems to me to be rather wilfully missing the point. There are also other “war on terror” aspects to the Babar Ahmad case which make it worrying – for example the Police’s admission that they bugged his meeting with his MP. Or the nature of his arrest (Ahmad won a civil case alleging Police brutality, but the officers were acquitted in a criminal prosecution) – I was in court during his civil case against the arresting officers, when the Police tried to persuade the judge they had lost sackfuls of complaints against the TSG, and it really was an embarrassingly bad attempt at a cover up. These other aspects don’t directly speak to the central “charges” – but they do suggest something is seriously wrong in the affair.

@Solomon, it reminds me a bit of the case of Lofti Raissi (although the elements are not the same).

http://ukliberty.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/proud-to-be-british/

Solomon,

There are also other “war on terror” aspects to the Babar Ahmad case which make it worrying – for example the Police’s admission that they bugged his meeting with his MP.

Did you know that they said they didn’t know Sadiq Khan was an MP (when Khan started visiting Ahmad he wasn’t an MP; he subsequently won a seat)?

I thought it was rather odd that the authorities didn’t know our MPs, or that kind of little detail about the people they are surveilling…

Firstly I’m no fan of the police. You just have to look at that video of them smashing up that mini with baseball bats to see how they can behave. They could well have roughed up Ahmad and abused his koran or whatever it was.

The Tommy Robinson thing wasn’t a direct comparrison. That is obviously far less severe …. but at the lower end, if you let the police get away with harrassing protesters, with their filming and photographing everyone who turns up on demonstrations, and routinely searching people’s houses and taking away thier computers for analysis, when they are only being arrested for public order offences, then quite soon you have got the police repressing political movements. And the police don’t care if it’s the EDL, UAF or Eco Warriors. My point was that you don’t hear many people sticking up for the rights of the EDL. I have done so on Sunny’s other website ”Pickled Politics”, and just been banned by one of his moderators and called an EDL supporter.

As for the ”war on terror”. Do we have such a thing in the UK?
I’m not agreeing with his extradition, I just wondered why so many people cared.
Why so many muslim people cared, and I thought that was an issue that really was an important one. You don’t have to be an EDL supporter to think that there is a certain ammount of denail within the muslim community when it comes to support for anti western Islamist violence …. and is shown in the support that the likes of Cageprisoners get at the East London Mosque, where they held a fun raising event recently. Cageprisoners support the jihadists against the West.
It might not be illegal, but it’s pretty dodgy all the same.
That’s why it’s important to clarify whether the 100,000 signatures are to be seen in a positive light or not. I don’t think they should be.

17. Solomon Hughes

One of the reasons the Babar Ahmad case gets attention is that is part of a wider erosion of legal rights as part of the “war on terror”.

What erosion of rights? We have always extradited people to other countries. We have always given them a legal hearing first. We have often kept them in prison while awaiting extradition. So what has changed here?

There are also other “war on terror” aspects to the Babar Ahmad case which make it worrying – for example the Police’s admission that they bugged his meeting with his MP.

Why is this of any concern to you at all? We know the police bug people. We know that it is not usually admissible in Court. So the net result is that the police may or may not have learnt something about this case – and nothing else. None of it could be used adversely in a court. So what is the big deal?

Or the nature of his arrest (Ahmad won a civil case alleging Police brutality, but the officers were acquitted in a criminal prosecution)

The shameful thing there is that a jury sided with Ahmad over what seemed a perfectly reasonable arrest. But either way, the police were acquitted at the criminal trial. No crime occurred. So, again, what is the big deal?

I think the bottom line here is that if a critical mass of activists mobilise over an issue they can often generate enough misinformation for the usual parade of useful idiots to join in. But that does not mean there is anything wrong with the original process or the original charges. Ahmad can dispel all these problems by going to the US and facing trial there.

13. Solomon Hughes

All the “evidence” against Ahmad comes from Britain, but opportunistically the Americans are trying to use it to put him on trial there.

All the evidence against Pinochet came from Chile but that did not stop the Spanish trying to put him on trial. I assume you now condemn them for doing so?

The extradition is just “jurisdiction shopping”

As with Pinochet in Spain. Which I assume you know condemn?

the Met didn’t think the evidence they had linking Babar Ahmad to the Islamist “Azzam” website pointed to anything illegal – or worth a prosecution anyway

Good for them. But the Americans did. Just because he did not commit a crime as it stood in British law at the time does not mean he did not commit a crime as it stood in American law at the time. The Americans want him. They seem to have a reasonable case against him. He should go and face charges there.

Running websites that said Chechen, Bosnian and Afghan fighters were the good guys isn’t neccessarily something that can be prosecuted in the UK

Which is irrelevant. Murdering British soldiers in Northern Ireland is not prosecutable in the Republic either. But if we ask nicely for suspected murderers they should send them over to face trial. They didn’t, but they should’ve.

But the Americans are arguing that because the website ran through a US server, they will put him on trial there – because they are happier to try an opportunistic prosecution, and have much looser laws than us.

So he committed an act that might be a crime on an American computer in America? Fine. He should go there. To say that America has looser laws is absurd. They do not. This prosecution is not opportunistic. Ahmad is alleged to have committed a crime in the US. He needs a proper legal procedure.

Ahmad could decide not to fight the extradition, but why should a Brit willingly go to the US for “crimes” that were committed in the UK, investigated in the UK , but led to no prosecution here ?

As with Pinochet. They were not committed in the UK. Ahmad was in the UK. The alleged crimes were committed in America. I am glad to see we are all on the same page over the fact that Ahmad could end this at any time by simply dropping his appeals. Maybe fighting it through the Courts makes sense for him. It does not make sense for us. It is expensive – millions of pounds by now – and pointless. We should have had a quick hearing within a week and given him a decision one way or the other. Given America’s legal protections, he is not under any risk if he goes to the US and so I think, clearly, to the US he should go.

Sunny

how does it help the reputation of Muslims with the wider UK community – when they are so active and united in support of a guy who has expressed anti-western, pro-violence views?

Wouldn’t the Muslim community, if they wanted to gain wider respect, be better off with a campaign against the attacks on churches in Nigeria this week ?

Or one saying say that Muslims should not kill Muslim Apostates – that Sharia law is unacceptable on that point.

Silence…

I’m afraid Sunny you have provided evidence again of your pro-Muslim bias.
Such that the extradition case you choose to support is this one.

Sunny

You choose this extradition case to support?
That proves again your pro-Muslim bias.

How does it help the reputation of Muslims within the wider UK community, when they are seen to be united in support of a guy who expresses pro-violence, anti-Western views?

If the Muslim community had campaigns for more necessary issues -that would win them credibility, eg

Campaign targeted at Muslims – that killing Apostates is wrong and that Sharia law should not be followed on this ;
– ongoing widespread to Muslims: campaign against honour killings and forced marriage;
– ongoing campaign aimed at Muslims: to condemn attacks on christians and other non-Muslims that occur regularly round the Islamic world; and

We should not be extraditing anyone to this Country of backward savages UNLESS the crime actually took place there.

This is up there with Gary McKinnon et al and another reason to despise the traitors of the Labour Party. A complete betrayal of British people and a complete capitulation of this so called ‘British Sovereignty’ that the Right are so eager to defend when it going to Europe. However, British citizens are being sold down the river to a Nation of fuckwits and nothing is said. Not too much outrage from the Left, either to be fair. Who the fuck writing and agreeing this treaty was a good idea?

have we taken a few steps back to the dark ages!

is this is age of reason justice?

i think not!

can we really imprison people with out NO TRIAL for years upon Years!

I get a chill down my spine when thinking about were we are now!

yet the majority of the media brainwashed public are too intune with x factor to really know whats going on!

I think that Mr Subtlety’s “Just because he did not commit a crime as it stood in British law at the time does not mean he did not commit a crime as it stood in American law at the time” does rather go to the heart of it , which is why the call is – try him in the UK or not at all. As for “To say that America has looser laws is absurd. They do not. This prosecution is not opportunistic.” that is just a lot of huff and puff. Of course the prosecution is opportunistic, anyone capable of a bit of subtlety can see that. And many of the differences between UK and US laws are indeed behind the extended legal proceedings – like the Americans offering guarantees about not sending Ahmad to Guantanamo, the worth of those guarantees, the possibility of Supermax imprisonment. Other legal differences worth noting include the meaning of “material support”, the use of paid informants and ‘supergrasses’ .

25. Jim

We should not be extraditing anyone to this Country of backward savages UNLESS the crime actually took place there./i>

Umm, Jim (a) that is no way to speak of Spain and (b) this crime did actually take place there. You are following the Ahmad story right? You know that the offense involved a website hosted by a computer in America, right?

sawsana

have we taken a few steps back to the dark ages!

Well Ahmad, from what he has said, certainly wanted us to. So good news there.

can we really imprison people with out NO TRIAL for years upon Years!

People are routinely held for years awaiting trial. The Court system exists for the benefit of lawyers. Who get richer the longer they drag things out. Two years awaiting trial is no big deal these days. But the point is, Ahmad has not been held without a hearing before a judge. He has had many. At the cost of millions to the taxpayer.

Solomon Hughes

I think that Mr Subtlety’s “Just because he did not commit a crime as it stood in British law at the time does not mean he did not commit a crime as it stood in American law at the time” does rather go to the heart of it , which is why the call is – try him in the UK or not at all.

So on the whole Pinochet issue, you think once Pinochet steps foot in the UK, as he never committed a crime in Britain, he should be exempt from extradition to any country, including, I assume, Chile, to face any charges at all?

Interesting.

As for “To say that America has looser laws is absurd. They do not. This prosecution is not opportunistic.” that is just a lot of huff and puff. Of course the prosecution is opportunistic, anyone capable of a bit of subtlety can see that.

I think the only huff and puff here is yours. You can assert what nonsense you like, the fact is what I said is true. What is the opportunity here?

And many of the differences between UK and US laws are indeed behind the extended legal proceedings – like the Americans offering guarantees about not sending Ahmad to Guantanamo, the worth of those guarantees, the possibility of Supermax imprisonment. Other legal differences worth noting include the meaning of “material support”, the use of paid informants and ‘supergrasses’ .

Once Ahmad sets foot in the US, he cannot be sent to Guantanamo. He is entitled to due process. Britain uses Supermaxes too. They were invented in Australia, not in the US. We also use paid informants and supergrasses. So the differences are irrelevant.

SMFS @ 28

that is no way to speak of Spain

I a m talking about America. A Country who are stuck inm the middle ages.

You know that the offense involved a website hosted by a computer in America, right?

Arrest the computer, then.

No-one will be suprised to see a Sub human Tory taking the side of a backward Country like America. Okay the elected Obama, but at hearrt most of them are are nothing more more than red neck vermin.

Really Mr Subtlety you do not seem to know or understand what has happened in the Ahmad case – the issues of Guantanamo guarantees, their worth and Supermax were actually all part of extended legal discussion in the case – that’s why I mention them, because I think that it is useful to talk about what actually happens rather than just wibble on about hypotheticals.

Jim

> Okay the elected Obama, but at hearrt most of them are are nothing more more than red neck vermin.

That breaches the forum’s rules on xenophobia – right there.

There is an aspect of extradition cases that is rarely mentioned – £££££ ($$$$$)!

My big concern about extradition to the US is that, in the US, as I understand it, the accused has to pay their own legal costs regardless of the outcome of the trial.

This strikes me as a rather unfair system. The State has very deep pockets – much deeper than those of any private individual. Frankly, I find it disgusting that a person can essentially be driven to bankruptcy by a state in this way – The State makes the accusation, then demands that the accused pay out of their own pocket to defend themselves against that accusation.

For this reason if for no other Babar Ahmed should be tried here in the UK.

Incidentally, for those interested in how the American justice system works, google “Gary Tyler” – he has a Wikipedia entry.

It stinks!

Hope this hasn’t double posted – erratic comment system.

For those of you who are interested in how the American justice system works, look up the case of Gary Tyler – he has a Wikipedia entry.

It stinks!

30. Solomon Hughes

Really Mr Subtlety you do not seem to know or understand what has happened in the Ahmad case – the issues of Guantanamo guarantees, their worth and Supermax were actually all part of extended legal discussion in the case – that’s why I mention them, because I think that it is useful to talk about what actually happens rather than just wibble on about hypotheticals.

It is not what I don’t know, it is that it is irrelevant. Who cares? By all means, I am sure that some people want to waste a lot of time talking about irrelevant issues. Anything to delay the legal process. But that is what is causing Ahmad to be held in prison. Not the Americans, not the British, nothing. It is all self inflicted. There is nothing inherently wrong with SuperMaxes, Guantanamo is off the table, so it all amounts to a pointless waste of time for you even to discuss it.

The bottom line is he should have had a final hearing within a week of being taken into custody. He should have been freed or sent to America then. He can stop the process any time he likes by allowing the law to take its course. The only people who benefit from the clusterf**k are the lawyers.

That’s all there is to be said really.

@35 – “There is nothing inherently wrong with SuperMaxes”

Of course, for fans of prison rape like you.

Incidentally – what time zone are you in, Mr Subtlety ? All your comments seem to be posted at what would be, for a UK resident, the middle of the night. You wouldn’t be pontificating about how Brits should be willing to let themselves be extradited outside the UK , for acts that aren’t apparently criminal in the UK, while you are yourself from outside the UK ?