The Bugging of Babar Ahmad
Craig Murray | 06.02.2008 00:36 | Terror War
Having been a member of the Senior Civil Service for six years, I can assure you of two things:
a) The logging and tracking system for MPs' - let alone shadow cabinet members' - letters arriving into No 10 is very tight. It is not possible David Davis' letter was lost and unrecorded. Nor do I see any reason to doubt that Mr Davis sent it.
b) There are some very right wing people in the security services. It is essential for our democracy that they are not allowed to interfere with our lawmakers.
a) The logging and tracking system for MPs' - let alone shadow cabinet members' - letters arriving into No 10 is very tight. It is not possible David Davis' letter was lost and unrecorded. Nor do I see any reason to doubt that Mr Davis sent it.
b) There are some very right wing people in the security services. It is essential for our democracy that they are not allowed to interfere with our lawmakers.
Jack Straw has gone for the usual government whitewash ploy of choosing a safe conservative judge to mount a long inquiry. In fact, if Straw had any interest in the truth he could find out in a couple of hours if Sadiq Khan MP was bugged, particularly as the individual who allegedly did the bugging has come forward. It looks like this may well lead back to the appalling Sir Ian Blair yet again.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2252618,00.html
But one thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is the position of poor Babar Ahmad, whose wife and father I have had the privilege to meet. Ahmad has been in jail for many years, without a single shred of evidence against him being produced to any judge, ever. It is unclear what exactly he is supposed to have done. It relates apparently to websites supporting the Taliban and Chechen separatists, though supporting in what sense has never been spelt out.
Babar Ahmad denies any connection to any such websites anyway, and I repeat again that no evidence of any kind has ever been produced, nor do the police have any. That is why they have been bugging him for years. The bugging has produced no result either.
Ahmad is being held under the appalling 2002 extradition agreement with the US, which places the UK in the position of a vassal state. Provided the forms are filled in properly, the UK has to extradite its nationals to the US without any evidence being produced by the US that there is even a prima facie case to answer. Astonishingly, our lackey government signed up to this with no reciprocity - we have to extradite our citizens to the US, but the US will not extradite its citizens here without a hearing of evidence by a US court. This is one of the more startling proofs of the abandonment of UK autonomy by Blair that morphed the "Special relationship" into one of master and servant.
The other interesting angle being ignored is, of course, that the results of bugging could not have been used in court here either. Commentators are generally puzzled by the government's refusal to make bugging material admissible as evidence in court, and tend to take the view that this is a last vestige of liberalism.
In fact this is the opposite. Bugging material is in fact used in court, sanitised as "intelligence", and given in tiny out of context clips to judges in camera to justify continued detention without trial or control orders. It is also used at the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal, a de facto terrorism court. Brian Barder's account of his resignation from that little known body is interesting.
http://www.barder.com/ephems/348
The defence and the "suspect" are not shown the "intelligence" or even given any hint what they are supposed to have done.
So the government's objection to the use of bugging material in court is that it would, 99 times out of 100, help the defence. Rather than giving one or two apparently damning sentences out of context as "intelligence", they would have to make full disclosure of all the transcripts to defence lawyers. As in the case of Babar Ahmad, the fact that years of covert surveillance revealed no bomb or terrorist plots, (which I know for sure) and may have revealed anti-terrorist views (which is speculation), would help the defence.
The same is true, incidentally, of the so-called liquid bomb plotters, some of whom were also bugged for over a year, revealing no plot to bomb up airplanes. Not helpful to have all that in court if you are trying to hype the terrorist threat.
This is not speculation. Remember I was on the inside of this "War on Terror". I know.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2252618,00.html But one thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is the position of poor Babar Ahmad, whose wife and father I have had the privilege to meet. Ahmad has been in jail for many years, without a single shred of evidence against him being produced to any judge, ever. It is unclear what exactly he is supposed to have done. It relates apparently to websites supporting the Taliban and Chechen separatists, though supporting in what sense has never been spelt out.
Babar Ahmad denies any connection to any such websites anyway, and I repeat again that no evidence of any kind has ever been produced, nor do the police have any. That is why they have been bugging him for years. The bugging has produced no result either.
Ahmad is being held under the appalling 2002 extradition agreement with the US, which places the UK in the position of a vassal state. Provided the forms are filled in properly, the UK has to extradite its nationals to the US without any evidence being produced by the US that there is even a prima facie case to answer. Astonishingly, our lackey government signed up to this with no reciprocity - we have to extradite our citizens to the US, but the US will not extradite its citizens here without a hearing of evidence by a US court. This is one of the more startling proofs of the abandonment of UK autonomy by Blair that morphed the "Special relationship" into one of master and servant.
The other interesting angle being ignored is, of course, that the results of bugging could not have been used in court here either. Commentators are generally puzzled by the government's refusal to make bugging material admissible as evidence in court, and tend to take the view that this is a last vestige of liberalism.
In fact this is the opposite. Bugging material is in fact used in court, sanitised as "intelligence", and given in tiny out of context clips to judges in camera to justify continued detention without trial or control orders. It is also used at the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal, a de facto terrorism court. Brian Barder's account of his resignation from that little known body is interesting.
http://www.barder.com/ephems/348 The defence and the "suspect" are not shown the "intelligence" or even given any hint what they are supposed to have done.
So the government's objection to the use of bugging material in court is that it would, 99 times out of 100, help the defence. Rather than giving one or two apparently damning sentences out of context as "intelligence", they would have to make full disclosure of all the transcripts to defence lawyers. As in the case of Babar Ahmad, the fact that years of covert surveillance revealed no bomb or terrorist plots, (which I know for sure) and may have revealed anti-terrorist views (which is speculation), would help the defence.
The same is true, incidentally, of the so-called liquid bomb plotters, some of whom were also bugged for over a year, revealing no plot to bomb up airplanes. Not helpful to have all that in court if you are trying to hype the terrorist threat.
This is not speculation. Remember I was on the inside of this "War on Terror". I know.
Craig Murray
Homepage:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2008/02/the_bugging_of.html
Additions
PRESS RELEASE: Reaction by Family to Police Bugging of MP's Visit.
06.02.2008 01:03
Sunday 3rd February 2008
After Babar's traumatic abuse at the hands of the police and the subsequent cover-up campaign by the authorities including the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission, it does not surprise us that “dirty dealings” like this were being authorised in the prison. Behind the squeaky clean images there is a lot of hidden corruption which only surfaces in cases like Babar's. It seems as though they were clutching at straws and desperate to find something to pin on him as they have been unsuccessful in doing so prior to this. Hence Babar has never been charged with a crime and was in fact released in December 2003 by the authorities. The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has also given written confirmation that there is insufficient evidence to charge Babar in this country.
It is outrageous however that the authorities then felt the need to bug an innocent welfare visit by his MP. These are privileged visits between a constituent and his MP which you would expect to be respected with confidentiality. We would like an investigation to be carried out to get to the bottom of this kind of misconduct.
We have left no stone unturned and will continue to fight for justice. Babar is a British citizen who should be afforded a fair trial in this country. He likes football, he enjoys fish and chips, he has English white friends etc. He has been targeted by the system because he happens to be a Muslim. The family have fought a rigorous campaign to fight the unfair treaty which is shipping Britons like Babar and the Natwest 3 to the U.S without ever having a chance to see or challenge the evidence said to be against them. Naturally people would say families always stand by each other, but the reality is that we have had national and international support from all backgrounds and communities. These include people from villages in Wales to cities in Scotland , including support from as far away as New Zealand . The feeling shared by everyone is that of frustration. We had petitions, MP lobbying campaigns and demonstrations, etc. All this fell on deaf ears and left people feeling further frustration and disappointment at the unjust system.
Babar was brutally assaulted and abused in December 2003, having received over 70 injuries to his body by anti-terrorist police officers. The IPCC and Metropolitan police investigation was a complete farce. They just wanted to be seen to be investigating the assault and abuse, but in reality they had already decided to do their utmost to sweep this matter under the carpet. We will take the civil case against the Metropolitan police as far as possible until justice is served. No police officer has ever been suspended or charged with the brutal attack.
We are asking for a trial on British soil where he stands a much better chance of preparing his defence properly and receiving a fair trial in comparison to the U.S. No Briton should be extradited to the U.S. without the right to a fair trial in the UK and being able to challenge the evidence against them first.
The full article concerning the bugging of Sadiq Khan MP's visit to see Babar Ahmad can be found at the following link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3295393.ece
For further information:
Free Babar Ahmad Campaign
Telephone: 07963537779
Email:
info@freebabarahmad.com
Photographs of Injuries Inflicted by Police during arrest in December 2003
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/injuryphotos.php
After Babar's traumatic abuse at the hands of the police and the subsequent cover-up campaign by the authorities including the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission, it does not surprise us that “dirty dealings” like this were being authorised in the prison. Behind the squeaky clean images there is a lot of hidden corruption which only surfaces in cases like Babar's. It seems as though they were clutching at straws and desperate to find something to pin on him as they have been unsuccessful in doing so prior to this. Hence Babar has never been charged with a crime and was in fact released in December 2003 by the authorities. The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has also given written confirmation that there is insufficient evidence to charge Babar in this country.
It is outrageous however that the authorities then felt the need to bug an innocent welfare visit by his MP. These are privileged visits between a constituent and his MP which you would expect to be respected with confidentiality. We would like an investigation to be carried out to get to the bottom of this kind of misconduct.
We have left no stone unturned and will continue to fight for justice. Babar is a British citizen who should be afforded a fair trial in this country. He likes football, he enjoys fish and chips, he has English white friends etc. He has been targeted by the system because he happens to be a Muslim. The family have fought a rigorous campaign to fight the unfair treaty which is shipping Britons like Babar and the Natwest 3 to the U.S without ever having a chance to see or challenge the evidence said to be against them. Naturally people would say families always stand by each other, but the reality is that we have had national and international support from all backgrounds and communities. These include people from villages in Wales to cities in Scotland , including support from as far away as New Zealand . The feeling shared by everyone is that of frustration. We had petitions, MP lobbying campaigns and demonstrations, etc. All this fell on deaf ears and left people feeling further frustration and disappointment at the unjust system.
Babar was brutally assaulted and abused in December 2003, having received over 70 injuries to his body by anti-terrorist police officers. The IPCC and Metropolitan police investigation was a complete farce. They just wanted to be seen to be investigating the assault and abuse, but in reality they had already decided to do their utmost to sweep this matter under the carpet. We will take the civil case against the Metropolitan police as far as possible until justice is served. No police officer has ever been suspended or charged with the brutal attack.
We are asking for a trial on British soil where he stands a much better chance of preparing his defence properly and receiving a fair trial in comparison to the U.S. No Briton should be extradited to the U.S. without the right to a fair trial in the UK and being able to challenge the evidence against them first.
The full article concerning the bugging of Sadiq Khan MP's visit to see Babar Ahmad can be found at the following link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3295393.ece For further information:
Free Babar Ahmad Campaign
Telephone: 07963537779
Email:
info@freebabarahmad.com Photographs of Injuries Inflicted by Police during arrest in December 2003
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/injuryphotos.php
Free Babar Ahmad Campaign
Homepage:
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/press40.php
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Local copper: Met secret police requested MP bugging
06.02.2008 02:19
Mark Kearney, a former sergeant in the Thames Valley force, was assigned as an intelligence officer at Woodhill when the eavesdropping occurred, in 2005 and 2006. This means that he was working for the force Special Branch, traditionally tasked with intelligence-gathering.
Since that time he has been charged with leaking confidential information to a local newspaper, in a case apparently unrelated to the bugging of Mr Khan. His statements on the Khan-Ahmad surveillance came in a document prepared as part of his legal defence, which has been seen by BBC political reporter Nick Robinson.
Robinson quotes Kearney as saying the Metropolitan police had requested "that we covertly record a social visit between a terrorist detainee and a member of Parliament... Sadiq Khan, the member for Tooting, and indeed the constituent MP for the suspected terrorist... I did record the visit but have never felt it was justified in these circumstances."
Mr Ahmad is being held at Woodhill pending appeal against extradition to the US, where prosecutors want to try him on terror-related charges. It is alleged that Mr Ahmad ran a US-hosted website promoting terrorism.
Mr Khan is said to have been childhood friends with Mr Ahmad, and to have offered him legal advice in the past. Before entering parliament, Mr Khan was a high-profile human rights lawyer who had tangled with the Metropolitan police many times.
It appears that the then-Sergeant Kearney at least, and perhaps his superiors, considered that Mr Khan's visit to Mr Ahmad was "social" and not one between lawyer and client, thus permitting them to ignore the privileged nature of such conversations and record it secretly.
The so-called "Wilson doctrine" preventing eavesdropping on MPs might still apply to a conversation between Mr Khan and his constituent. However, in his speech to Parliament yesterday Justice Secretary Jack Straw appeared to suggest that this protection did not apply to police bugging authorised by chief constables; only to ministerially-authorised operations by the intelligence and security services.
Whether or not the Wilson doctrine applies is a slippery issue, as it is an executive order by successive governments rather than a point of law and its details are sketchy, only usually confirmed in answers to Parliamentary questions.
Whatever the outcome on that score, Mr Kearney appears to suggest that the Met was specifically targeting Mr Khan. This was probably not just the ordinary Met, but the secretive specially-empowered Counter Terrorism Command (SO15), created in 2006 by merging the former SO13 national anti-terror force and Met Special Branch.
SO15 work all across the UK and even beyond, not just in London, and operate hand in glove with the intelligence and security services - the spooks - who are unequivocally forbidden to listen in on MPs.
It's possible to speculate, then, that the use of Thames Valley special branch to do the bugging might have been a way for SO15 and their shadowy colleagues to get round the Wilson doctrine. The Beeb's Nick Robinson reports that sources have told him of views within the Met that Khan was of "significant interest" or even "subversive".
It has also emerged overnight that officials at the Home and Justice departments were aware of the case as early as last December, but apparently failed to inform their ministers. The Tories claim to have told the government about it by post some time ago, too, but the Brown administration has denied receiving any such letter.
Lewis Page
Homepage:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/mp_bugging_khan_ahmad_met_terror_so15_implicated/
Alternative medicine needed
06.02.2008 10:07
The term traitor is not there used in a Nationalist sense. It is the betrayal of everything the Labour Party stood for that makes all the participants in New Labour traitors, We are seeing the triumph of global fascism enabled by the smokescreen put up by anti fascists chasing their toy fascists in the BNP. Anti fascists should be hammering at Jack Straw and David Blunkett, and also at the Politician who started the rot in the social fabric, Dear Margaret selling off British resources cheap to foreigners while doubling the National Debt.
The key lesson is Never trust a left wing Politician, Do you remember the young Blunkett and Straw?
If there is evidence against anyone they should be tried in a British Court. The whole structure of US justice is discredited by the Supreme Court ruling on the Chads in Florida that put Mr Bush in the White House.
Meanwhile there should be sufficient taxes on the Rich to restore the National Wealth to what it was before Thatcher, and to rebuild the Gold Reserves Brown sold off cheap to the Rich New Labour backers. They have made Socialism impossible in the UK, can you find an alternative?
In the USA they have to ge back a long way and take out of the Constitution what the Hamiltonians put there.
Outsider
The future for our justice system and fish and chips
06.02.2008 12:34
"He likes football, he enjoys fish and chips, he has English white friends etc"
It is nice to know that if I met Babar Ahmed in the local chippy I could have pleasant conversation with him, but this statement leaves me feeling uncomfortable. What if Babar Ahmed did not speak good English, did not like fish and chips, and did not have such great social skills? Would that make this any less of a miscarriage of justice? I think such statements are divisive because culturally it exacerbates this 'us' and 'them' mentality. This may evoke more sympathy from culturally ignorant white people, but is it not more important to shout out that it is okay to be different from the status quo?
Mike D