UK terror suspects lose extradition battle (to US)

[muriel_volestrangler]

Lawyers for Haroon Rashid Aswat and Babar Ahmad argued that, despite US assurances to the contrary, there was "a real risk" that the men would be mistreated, or tried and sentenced as enemy combatants if sent to America.

Dismissing their appeal, Lord Justice Laws, sitting in London with Mr Justice Walker, said the allegation that the US might violate undertakings given to the UK "would require proof of a quality entirely lacking here".

Apart from the regular lying, broken undertakings, and so on, of the Bush regime so far, that is.

Mr Fitzgerald said the men were in danger of being indefinitely detained at Guantánamo Bay under a military order applying to foreign citizens, or tried and sentenced by a military commission as enemy combatants in what would amount to "a flagrant denial of justice" and European human rights laws. He said they also faced the risk of extraordinary rendition - the process of removing terrorist suspects to third countries for interrogation - and being held in solitary confinement.
...
Mr Ahmad is a cousin of Mohammed Noor Khan, described by the pressure group Human Rights Watch as a "ghost detainee". He is believed to be in joint US-Pakistan custody, with no access to legal counsel. Mr Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2004 and accused of sending messages for Osama bin Laden. Mr Khan "has simply disappeared", according to the two men's lawyers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1960712,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

I wouldn't turn anyone over to the US justice system since the abolition of habeas corpus for non-citizens, let alone people accused of somewhat dubious 'terrorist' crimes. I see no prospect of a fair trial for either of them - one accused of plotting (ie no actual harm seems to have been done) by someone who made a deal (under duress?), and another who apparently raised money in the UK for Chechens and the Taliban - why is he being sent to the US?

[Kagemusha]

1. Because Chechens is one thing but $ for Taliban = illeal in the US

And you won't get far arguing that terrorists should be allowed to do actual harm before being charged but plotting's totally legal - it most certainly is not. Now, whether the person in question is guilty of a conspiracy charge, I have no idea. But you're talking like you can't imagine why there'd be any reason to extradite the two at all.

No, the good reason to not extradite is precisely the argument they raised: their rights as human beings under the American system of justice are forfeit under the Bush Administration.

[mallard]

2. I also don't get how that gives the US jurisdiction

If it's because the money was in US dollars, then we'd have to go after Panamanians, Marshall Islanders or anyone else using the currency in crimes around the world.

Bush & Co desperately want to arrange a terror trial as a next episode to the soon to be terminated Saddam series.

Intent to wage war without just cause seems to escape their 'dragnet'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. The standard of evidence doesn't seem very high

and that's the basic problem with the new US-UK extradition treaty - the US doesn't have to show any evidence at all to the UK (though the UK must show evidence to get someone extradited to the US - because the US constitution requires that, while this is a situation where a UK goverment can throw away its citizens' rights if it feels like it). It seems to me that a case where the evidence consists of a claim by a prisoner (who got time off for this) that there was a conspiracy, but nothing actually happened, would be unlikely to get a conviction in a proper court - but that hasn't been tested yet in the UK, thanks to the extradition treaty, and the new rules in the US mean it needn't be tested there either - Bush can just lock him up. And as Mallard says, there seems to be a matter of jurisdiction for the other guy.

[Kagemusha]

5. Far be it from me to suggest the US has a strong case.

I just found the claims a little too broad-brushed - conspiracy IS a crime, and for legitimate reasons, no matter how illegitimate prosecutions under it may be via idiot prosecutors. A stance that no one should be convicted for plotting terrorism but not carrying it out, ever, is not a good position, in law or in politics. But far be it from me to suggest the US has a strong case here. History does not speak kindly to the strength of US terrorism cases.

Take that lawyer being paid $2m for being wrongly identified as a suspect in the Madrid train bombings on the basis of sloppy forensics.

[intaglio]

4. The battle is NOT over

They are seeking to appeal to the House of Lords - on the grounds that the US will violate their human rights.