Three Years Of Life Taken On The Basis Of Rumour

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
A

Ardross

Guest
Sorry mate we locked you up for 3 years without trial in a high security prison when you were guilty of nothing

terror' detainee goes free


David Blunkett said detaining 'D' was no longer justified
A foreign national held under the government's emergency anti-terrorism powers since 2001 has been released.
Home Secretary David Blunkett said the weight of evidence no longer justified detaining the Algerian, known as "D".

The man had been in the high-security Woodhill jail near Milton Keynes since 17 December 2001.

His solicitor Natalia Garcia said her client was "choked" at the surprise decision to free him.

"He feels he's been locked up for three years just on a whim.

"No reason has been given why he was arrested and detained in the first place. It's mind-boggling."

She added that her client's life had been "decimated" and they would be considering a compensation claim.

Detention upheld

It was understood that the man - who cannot be deported because of the risk that he would be in danger in his country of origin - would now receive discretionary leave to remain in the UK.

"D" was among the first eight foreign nationals to be held without charge or trial under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act, introduced after 11 September.

The man was held under a certificate issued by Mr Blunkett and lost a landmark appeal against his imprisonment in October 2003. His detention was again upheld in July.


In the October hearing, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission described the man as a "practised and accomplished liar".

Any further activities that are assessed to be a threat to national security could lead to him being certified again

David Blunkett
His attempts to distance himself from other terror suspects and assertion that he had nothing to do with the GIA (Groupe Islamique Armee, or Armed Islamic Group) could not be believed, it said.

The commission heard that the Algerian arrived in the UK illegally in May 1998 and applied for asylum in March 1999. His application was refused in February 2001.

In 1994 he was arrested and prosecuted in France for membership of the GIA

Mr Blunkett said in a statement on Monday: "In revoking D's certificate I have made clear that any further activities that are assessed to be a threat to national security could lead to him being certified again."

The Home Office would give no further information, saying: "We do not reveal details of individual cases nor details of any closed evidence".

A spokeswoman said: "The Home Secretary has always been clear that if new information came to light or if there were changes in any circumstances, he would act upon those."

Mark Oaten, home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "If this individual was so dangerous that he had to be locked up for nearly three years, how can it be safe to release him now?

"This case makes the government's policy of detention without trial look even shakier than it did before."

Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty International, called for an end to internment.

She said: "We've consistently opposed locking people up without charge or trial under this deeply unfair legislation."

'Terrorist links'

Mr Blunkett last year told the commission that 'D' was an "active supporter" of the GIA and his activities had included procuring "terrorist-related equipment".

He had been involved in fraud to fund terrorist activities and had links with Abu Qatada, the extremist Muslim cleric suspected of links to al Qaeda, he said.

Of 17 people detained under anti-terror laws, 11 will remain in jail after D's release.

One has been freed on appeal, one released to house arrest, and one detained under other powers. Two have chosen to leave the UK.
 
Oh, come on, Ardross! In France, ten years ago, it's known he belonged to, supported, believed in, and upheld the ethics of an extreme Islamist group. Four years later, he arrives somehow (?) in the UK, illegally. Why illegally? He claims asylum - and who didn't, then? - and a long, long time later, it's refused. We assess him as a clever liar. He should, of course, have been immediately repatriated to his country of origin, but we're so bloody namby-pamby here, oh, no. Let's not send him back to Algeria because the government there will possibly wish to spend a few pleasant hours interrogating him about his prior whereabouts and activities.

So he's detained, fed, watered, given clean clothing and bedding, but in the end we still know he's had, close to his heart, strong feelings for a radical group, which is anti-Western, and armed. Now he'd like to be compensated, please, for the appalling cruelty visited upon him by being detained through a slightly crucial period in Islamic/Western relations, but ooh, no, not sent home where his safety - HIS safety - might be jeopardized.

I fully expect to see him awarded at least £50,000 for loss of earnings, trauma, anxiety, a nice Council flat, plus a little seed money to get him started in business. Trading under the name of Bombs-U-Like, probably.
 
I can't helping feeling that one or two terrorist attacks in close proximity to Ardross's home or place of work might prompt him to reappraise his idealistic view on this subject.

In principle I agree with Ardross, in practice I want my family as safe as possible from the threat of terrorism.

Blunkett isn't locking up everyone who might be a terrorist because he gets some bizarre pleasure out of detaining people - he's doing it to try and make the citizens of this country safer.
 
Sometimes Ian I think you should consider what you say before you personalise threads , it is a pretty cheap line of argument . I was in Manchester visiting friends the morning of the big IRA bomb . Fortunately we decided not to go into town at the last moment.

I am disappointed with Krizon's response . First he was arrested and prosecuted - oops what happened to the word convicted . Second , namby pamby not to send someone back to certain death I don't think so Third on the Krizon rules poor Mr Raissi who was unfortunate enough to be a flying instructor and who a stipendiary magistrate said there was not a shred of evidence against would be locked up in Belmarsh were he not a British citizen without trial or in Guantanemo Bay the US own concentration camp . Fourth before anybody thinks being detained in prison without trial is a picnic being given clean clothing and bedding I advise them to try it ! Fifth is it suggests that any asylum seeker should now be locked up without trial . He is being given leave to remain - does that not suggest that there has been a big mistake !!!

What is being missed it seems is that it such cardinal principles as nobody should be imprisoned without trial that we are trying to defend . Locking people up without trial is doing the job of those who wish to destroy our way of life and as anybody who has the slightest knowledge of how internment " worked " in N Ireland it was the IRA's best recruiting sergeant .

It is not about idealism it is about defending what we are supposedly seeking to protect from our own rulers as much as those who seek to destroy us
 
I wish I'd kept it a bit snappier like you, Ian! Yes, before Arders accuses me of polishing up my swastika, OF COURSE it would be jolly nice to simply get a straight reply if you asked an illegal immigrant (with a nod from Interpol as to his past record), "I say, old chap, any chance you're one of those beastly johnnies who support those radical jihadi types?"

If only they'd play with a straight bat, detention would only be something visited upon the Lower Fifth. Trouble is, I think, none of these chappies went to Harrow or Eton, otherwise we'd know exactly who we were dealing with, what?
 
I am quite pleased to say I have never bought one, or an Express, Daily Star, News of the Screws, Sun, Mirror, Daily Worker, or Ironmonger's Weekly. I have bought the odd copy of The Sometimes, the Torygraph, the Grauniad, the Interminablydepent, the Oopserver (rated as god as the Grauniad for typos - one included gratis herewith), but haven't really been able to split the diff, so have remained both tabloid and broadsheet-free for several years.

It was only an occasional binge, not a serious habit, so I haven't had to have counselling or regular check-ups to see if I'm about to lapse into the Christian Science Monitor out of desperation.
 
Ardross,

Your revelation helps foster better undertanding - I'm glad you at least make your judgements from the perspective of someone who, like me and my wife, has been too close to comfort to these acts.

I've always had sympathy with those who thought Britain had no business being in Northern Ireland, but my sypmathy was tempered by the Docklands bomb which killed two newsagents whose kiosk I went into every day and might well have killed my wife (meaning my young son would never have been born) but for the fact that, for the first time in a year, she had a migraine on Friday afternoon and din't make her usual 6pm walk to the cash point 20 yards from where the 2,000 pound bomb went off.

I don't want to live in a police state, but I don't want me or mine to get blown up either and I'm prepared to see civil liberties take a back seat if it helps facilitate it.

For the next six months, we were all searched as we entered Canary Wharf.

To my astonishment, many of my colleagues whinged about it - I was glad to participate in a process which arguably stopped a bomb from being able to readily enter the building.

I'm more left-wing than most, but I'm also practical.

I know that, in the vast majority of cases, the allegedly oppressive state we're supposed to hate because of our politics, is acting with our wider interests at heart.

I've seen woolly-hatted liberals crying police brutality because they didn't have the common sense to get out of the way so the police could tell a rioter from an innocent bystander, I've seen workforces almost go out on strike because some bone idle individual had finally been dismissed from their post, and I get annoyed when civil libertarians seem to want us all to have the freedom to walk down the street and shoot someone - I'd rather have the freedom to walk down the street without the fear of being shot.
 
You can't hold people in prison indefinitely without having sufficient evidence to convict them of something in a court of law. I can't believe people object to that. I can understand the reasoning behind the anti-terrorism powers the government rightly have, but, as they say, with power comes responsibility.

The government had the responsibility to conduct a thorough and timely investigation to ensure that they had the ability to convict this man of a terrorism related crime or release him with an apology, after a reasonable period of time. I would consider 3 months far more reasonable than 3 years.

There are many dangerous people out who have committed heinous crimes of which the police are well aware, but have no evidence. We castigate the police if they are caught attempting to fit theses people up, and accept that the rule of criminal law is based on collecting sufficient evidence to convince a jury that they committed the crime beyond any reasonable doubt, yet you are prepared to abandon these thoroughly reasonable ideals because, in this case, it is to be applied to Johnny Foriegner, who has no bloody right to be here in the first place.

Just to allay Krizon's fears a tad. I have a scant memory of a case recently (not sure if it was England or Ireland) where a person had claimed compensation for wrongful imprisonment for a lengthy period. He was awarded a goodly amount, commensurate with his earning potential over the years - however he received a much reduced cheque in the post, as the state decided to charge him for his room and board while in prison. Obviously he was a little disappointed with this and went to the press, stating his intention to appeal, but I never heard the final outcome.
 
Back
Top