Two terrorist suspects today lost their High Court battle to avoid extradition to the U.S.. Lawyers for Haroon Rashid Aswat and Babar Ahmad argued that, despite U.S. assurances, 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".
Ahmad, a computer expert from Tooting, south London, is accused of running websites inciting murder and urging Muslims to fight a holy war and also to raise money for the Taliban.
Aswat, a British man arrested in Africa, faces trial on charges of plotting to set up a camp in Bly, Oregon, to train fighters for war in Afghanistan. He has been fighting extradition to the US since being arrested in Zambia and held in the UK.
At a recent hearing, Edward Fitzgerald QC, appearing for both men, asked two senior judges to halt extradition, arguing there was a danger that their human rights would be abused, despite diplomatic assurances from the US Government.
The QC told Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Walker, that the men also faced the risk of extraordinary rendition - the process of removing terrorist suspects to third countries for interrogation - and being held in solitary confinement.
He said they were in danger of being indefinitely detained at Guantanamo 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.
Mr Fitzgerald told the judges they should not rely on assurances given by the Americans that the men would be treated fairly.
The judges said they would take time to consider whether both men should be given permission to take their case to the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, for a final ruling.
They will announce their decision at a later date. Mr Fitzgerald argued that the case raised human rights issues of public importance which should go before the Law Lords.
Later, Ashfaq Ahmad, the father of 32-year-old Babar Ahmad, said: "We are very disappointed with the High Court verdict today.
"We are hopeful that the High Court will certify that a point of law of public importance on military detention and rendition has been raised and recommend this matter should go to the House of Lords."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws said the court was "acting on the faith that the United States will be true to the spirit and the letter" of diplomatic exchanges with the UK Government and obligations under the 1972 UK - USA Extradition Treaty.
He said: "The terms of this judgment express the legal expectations and understanding of the United Kingdom court.
"I apprehend that these will be well fulfilled and honoured when the appellants are extradited."
Ahmad and Aswat feared that they might be subjected to extraordinary rendition "with at least a substantial risk of torture in a third state, particularly if they are acquitted in the federal civilian court".
Diplomatic notes provided no assurance against this happening. The judge warned that, if that were to happen, "that would in my view be a plain violation at least of the spirit, and I would have thought the letter, of the 1972 Treaty, and - whatever one makes of the precise terms of the diplomatic notes - a gross breach of the trust subsisting between the US and the UK."
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) said in a statement that it was "deeply concerned" about the ramifications of today's decision.
The commission's chair, Massoud Shadjareh, stated: "Since Britain has some of the most comprehensive terrorism laws in the world, if there is any evidence against these men, they should be charged and tried in a British court.
"Without any evidence being produced, innocent British citizens will be subjected to an American criminal justice system which has done away with due process and legitimised torture in its war on terror."
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".
Ahmad, a computer expert from Tooting, south London, is accused of running websites inciting murder and urging Muslims to fight a holy war and also to raise money for the Taliban.
Aswat, a British man arrested in Africa, faces trial on charges of plotting to set up a camp in Bly, Oregon, to train fighters for war in Afghanistan. He has been fighting extradition to the US since being arrested in Zambia and held in the UK.
At a recent hearing, Edward Fitzgerald QC, appearing for both men, asked two senior judges to halt extradition, arguing there was a danger that their human rights would be abused, despite diplomatic assurances from the US Government.
The QC told Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Walker, that the men also faced the risk of extraordinary rendition - the process of removing terrorist suspects to third countries for interrogation - and being held in solitary confinement.
He said they were in danger of being indefinitely detained at Guantanamo 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.
Mr Fitzgerald told the judges they should not rely on assurances given by the Americans that the men would be treated fairly.
The judges said they would take time to consider whether both men should be given permission to take their case to the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, for a final ruling.
They will announce their decision at a later date. Mr Fitzgerald argued that the case raised human rights issues of public importance which should go before the Law Lords.
Later, Ashfaq Ahmad, the father of 32-year-old Babar Ahmad, said: "We are very disappointed with the High Court verdict today.
"We are hopeful that the High Court will certify that a point of law of public importance on military detention and rendition has been raised and recommend this matter should go to the House of Lords."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws said the court was "acting on the faith that the United States will be true to the spirit and the letter" of diplomatic exchanges with the UK Government and obligations under the 1972 UK - USA Extradition Treaty.
He said: "The terms of this judgment express the legal expectations and understanding of the United Kingdom court.
"I apprehend that these will be well fulfilled and honoured when the appellants are extradited."
Ahmad and Aswat feared that they might be subjected to extraordinary rendition "with at least a substantial risk of torture in a third state, particularly if they are acquitted in the federal civilian court".
Diplomatic notes provided no assurance against this happening. The judge warned that, if that were to happen, "that would in my view be a plain violation at least of the spirit, and I would have thought the letter, of the 1972 Treaty, and - whatever one makes of the precise terms of the diplomatic notes - a gross breach of the trust subsisting between the US and the UK."
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) said in a statement that it was "deeply concerned" about the ramifications of today's decision.
The commission's chair, Massoud Shadjareh, stated: "Since Britain has some of the most comprehensive terrorism laws in the world, if there is any evidence against these men, they should be charged and tried in a British court.
"Without any evidence being produced, innocent British citizens will be subjected to an American criminal justice system which has done away with due process and legitimised torture in its war on terror."
1 comment:
Lets hope they get a cellblock with Big Bubba...cue the bloody obvious jokes about them squealing like pigs etc.
Still two less jihadiscum on UK streets, so result for us here in the UK
Post a Comment