Sunday 24 February 2008

Join our campaign to end US 'extradition on demand'

Join our campaign to end US 'extradition on demand'

By Damian Reece, Head of Business
Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 23/02/2008


Which issue unites voices as diverse as civil liberties campaigners and big business? The Lib Dems and the Tories? Hedge-fund managers, private equity and directors of public companies, not to mention thousands of Telegraph readers?

  • Natwest Three sentenced to 37 months each
  • NatWest Three plea bargain deal approved
  • Read more by Damian Reece
  • The answer is extradition, and the shocking lack of protection for UK citizens when faced with the aggressive regime of America under the Bush presidency.

    Yesterday the NatWest three were finally sentenced, highlighting once again the appalling injustice and risks we run under the present lopsided extradition arrangements the UK suffers with the US.

    Our open letter first published in summer of 2006, was the rallying call for a campaign backed by the likes of Shami Chakrabarti, the leading human rights campaigner, Richard Lambert, the voice of British business, Digby Jones, now a member of the Government and Labour peer, and a host of top names from the country's corporate elite. You can view the letter and signatures at telegraph.co.uk.

    We urged Reid to halt that extradition, not to stop the case (we always urged they should be tried, but tried here) but to correct the mistake of a previous home secretary and preserve Britain's ancient tradition of transparent justice.

    Too many similar cases have also highlighted how exposed we are thanks to our government's failure. American authorities can arrive in the UK and demand your extradition any time. You will have no ability to challenge the move or question US evidence against you. Perhaps worst of all, there will not be any consideration of which country is most suitable to hear your case. If America wants to put you on trial in a US court, having already forced you to spend time in a US jail with limited legal representation, it can. You are at risk of American "extradition on demand".

    Maybe with a new president in the White House the UK Government might feel emboldened to improve our lot, but with Labour in such disarray at home it seems unlikely.

    It is time to take the matter into your own hands. Add your name to our campaign by clicking on my comment online at www.telegraph.co.uk/business and posting your views to help us change a manifestly unfair extradition arrangement with America.

    Private equity emerges from hibernation

    Are mergers and acquisitions back? Reed Elsevier's decision on Thursday to sell its business magazines division will help prove if M&A activity is recovering. Before last summer, a business such as Reed Business Information would have had a queue of debt-funded private equity bidders lining up for it.

  • Reed Elsevier snaps up ChoicePoint for $4bn
  • But the intervening credit crunch has since caused a funding drought, prompting the view that Reed has got its timing wrong, and selling now is a mistake. Reed was spectacularly fortunate to complete its previous deal, the $5bn (£2.5bn) sale of Harcourt, the education publisher, at the end of July, before banks withdrew credit on a massive scale. Within days deals of any size were off the agenda. The question now is whether the banks will be willing to fund bids for a magazines business still planted very firmly in the print age. The omens aren't as bad as people might think. Emap recently sold a business information company to a private equity consortium including Apax, investing alongside the Guardian Media Group, for £1bn. Businesses such as Reed's have plenty of assets with operational potential and people are always willing to pay for the cash flows they produce.

    But the wider deal market is showing signs of life. Small deals such as Pret a Manger are getting done, with private equity involvement, while there are signs of a bidding war breaking out over Biffa, the waste management company, again involving private equity in the form of Terra Firma.

    As we know, corporates have had a busy few months at the top end with bids for Rio Tinto and Scottish & Newcastle coming in from trade rivals.

    With the UK banking season revealing our lending institutions in reasonable health after the traumas of 2007, the creatures of the private equity world are showing signs of emerging from their hibernation.

  • damian.reece@telegraph.co.uk
  • Wednesday 20 February 2008

    Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism | Amnesty International

    Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism

    Lotfi Raissi, February 2006

    © Amnesty International.

    20 February 2008

    A flight instructor wrongly accused of training the hijackers of planes used in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA won his appeal at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 14 February 2008.

    The Home Secretary must now reconsider Lotfi Raissi’s claim for compensation, in the light of evidence that he was wrongly kept in detention, as a result of “serious defaults” by the UK police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

    Lotfi Raissi has never been charged with any offence related to terrorism. Nonetheless, he spent five months in Belmarsh high security prison while the USA tried to have him extradited.

    The extradition request from the US was based on a number of minor charges entirely unconnected with terrorism. The Court of Appeal concluded that the real reason for the request, however, was not to bring Lotfi Raissi to trial on these charges, but to secure his "presence in the US for the purpose of investigating [the attacks of 11 September]."

    The Court of Appeal found that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted "amounted to an abuse of process" and that they had been "used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law."

    Lotfi Raissi spoke to Amnesty International in 2006 about his suffering and struggle for justice: "I’ve been framed as a notorious terrorist until I have to go to court, each time, until I clear my name… What I want to happen is a widely publicised apology, to clear my name and to try to fix all the wrong-doing. I want my life back."
    The UK government has indicated that it will now consider whether to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lotfi Raissi is still waiting for his apology.
    Background

    Lofti Raissi is a UK resident of Algerian origin. He was arrested on 21 September 2001 on suspicion of involvement in "terrorist" activities in relation to the recent attacks in the US. The arrests were made on the basis of information supplied to the UK authorities by the US administration.

    He was released after seven days’ questioning and immediately re-arrested on the basis of a warrant requesting his extradition to the US. He was then detained for five months in Belmarsh Prison.
    In April 2002, a judge ordered his release, stating that the court had received "no evidence at all" to support the allegation that he was involved in "terrorism" – a finding now repeated by the Court of Appeal. He has been fighting for compensation and for a public apology since then.


    Brown must act on US rendition flights, say MPs

    Brown must act on US rendition flights, say MPs | UK news | The Guardian
    This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday May 21 2007 on p7 of the UK news and analysis section. It was last updated at 09:54 on May 23 2007.
    The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday May 23 2007

    a letter from the director of Justice to the transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, about "extraordinary rendition" was said to have referred to a conclusion of the UN's joint committee on human rights when in fact it quoted the UK parliamentary committee of the same name. This has been corrected.Gordon Brown's government must introduce effective controls over extraordinary rendition - the practice whereby the US covertly transports detainees to places where they risk being tortured - an all-party group of MPs urges today.

    Britain's records on rendition are wholly inadequate, says the parliamentary rendition group chaired by Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP for Chichester.

    "Questions have been raised about 170 possible CIA rendition flights through the UK," the group says. "The government does not appear to have independent records to indicate whether these were or were not rendition flights."

    The group says the government's refusal to fully and openly address the issue of rendition creates a climate of confusion, which hampers effective action against terrorism.

    Under the proposals announced today, states would declare it their duty to prevent their territory from being used to facilitate the transfer of detainees to where there was a real risk of torture.

    Every transfer of a detained person would require written permission. The government transferring detainees would have to state the final destination and detail what legal safeguards existed.

    "A fundamental distinction between extradition and rendition is that in cases of extradition, safeguards are provided by the holding of a hearing prior to the individual's transfer," Mr Tyrie said. He added that the measures to control rendition should be included in the promised counter-terrorism bill, which has yet to be published.

    Roger Smith, the director of Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, says in a letter to Douglas Alexander, the transport secretary, that the UK parliamentary joint committee on human rights has concluded there is a reasonable suspicion that aircraft passing through the UK may have been carrying suspects to countries where they risked being tortured.

    He said the European parliament had deplored member states' lack of "procedures aimed at verifying whether civilian aircraft were being used for purposes incompatible with internationally established human rights standards".

    Mr Tyrie said: "For nearly two years, we have been calling for the government to stop turning a blind eye to this disgraceful practice and stop pretending that everything is all right. The truth is that the government does not know whether they are complicit and therefore neither can we."

    He added: "This is an acid test for Gordon Brown. The incoming PM has told us that 'mistakes have been made' and he is trying to distance himself from the catastrophe of the Bush/Blair foreign policy. By implementing this measure, Gordon Brown can show that he is serious about setting aside that policy.

    "He can tell us that he will not condone kidnap, denial of civil liberties, and a risk of torture."

    Pilot wrongly accused of training 9/11 hijackers wins appeal

    In his judgment, Lord Justice Hooper said the public labelling of Mr Raissi "as a terrorist by the authorities in this country, and particularly by the CPS, over a period of many months has had and continues to have, so it is said, a devastating effect on his life and on his health"

    read more | digg story

    Illegal Extraditions to the US! Some MP's are Unhappy







    Extraition


    On 31 March 2003, the Home Secretary had flown to Washington to sign a
    new Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK. On the surface, it appeared
    to be a little bit of administration and not very newsworthy. The
    consequences would ruin many ordinary people’s lives.

    The treaty removes the requirement on the US to provide evidence when
    requesting the extradition of people from the UK. In effect, all the US
    has to do is fill in a form and then, bang, you’d be flown off to
    America to stand trial, whether or not there is a shred of evidence
    against you. We signed away our right to be protected by British law,
    and hardly anyone noticed.

    Under the terms of the Treaty, the US no longer needs to provide
    evidence to support an extradition request for a UK subject. However,
    if the UK wishes to extradite someone from the US, it must still
    satisfy an American court of exactly the same evidential burden as
    under the previous Treaty, that of ‘probable cause’. Since this
    provision is written into the US constitution, it is not something that
    the US could ever have given up. The Treaty gave away our rights of
    protection to a country who would never, could never, extend the same
    courtesy to us. In the face of US demands, our government simply rolled
    over and waved their legs in the air.

    It’s harder to stay out of the way of the US Justice system than you
    might think. Because of the nature of electronic mail servers, sending
    an email to your friend suggesting a quick pint will probably be routed
    through at least one US server. By arranging an after work drink you
    have inadvertently entered US jurisdiction and made that meeting a
    potential conspiracy organised on US soil. An overzealous US prosecutor
    could take the email, along with a spurious allegation that you went to
    the pub to discuss terrorism, and get a grand jury indictment within
    hours. He could then request your extradition, and far from defending
    you against this idiotic and allegation, the British Government would
    arrest you and put you on the next plane to the USA. You could produce
    mountains of evidence that the nearest you came to discussing terrorism
    was hoping that Tottenham thrash the Arsenal next week, but a British
    Judge would be powerless to do anything about it.




    Emails That Show The US Extraditions True Unfairness From Brian Howes




    From: pag [pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]


    To: 'Brian Howes'; 'John Mcleod'

    Subject: FW: Howes. Brian


    Here is the government’s response to my requests







    From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
    Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:34 AM
    To: pag
    Subject: RE: Howes. Brian


    Pat:


    1. I have been told that the children are being cared for by family members, a grandparent or grandparents as I recall. There is more to the childcare story but it is somewhat vague in my mind and I do not want to misstate it.


    2. As you may be aware your client has been publishing everything he can get his hands on regarding this case in an effort to build some sort of underground or public support. We are simply not interested in your client “spinning” any further information about his case in a slanted or outright untruthful way. He should also be aware that through his internet antics he is building a wealth of data we can use to impeach him and possibly any defense you may put forth on his behalf. Among other reasons, in an effort to minimize the “drama” your client is trying to churn up I will not provide discovery until after he is arraigned pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.


    3. There is no proposed plea agreement at this time so there is no need to review discovery to ethically assess and recommend a plea agreement. My previous email regarding resolution of the case was simply an encouragement for your client and the co-defendant to move along the extradition and then enter a mutually acceptable plea agreement once extradited. In other words, extradition then plea, not a negotiated extradition-plea package. That was my response to your assertion of a desire to resolve the emotional stress the defendants are undoubtedly suffering. I will not resolve the case simply because of the emotional stress this case and its delays may be causing. I will only resolve it based upon a truthful, knowing and intelligent plea based upon a proper factual basis. As we both know that cannot happen until after you review the discovery, and as I have said discovery will not be forthcoming until after arraignment which cannot happen until after extradition.


    4. It does not appear to me to be in the government’s interest to negotiate a swifter extradition by providing discovery and a proposed plea agreement when it appears that all delays have run their course and the order of extradition is eminent. As a point of negotiation strategy, we would in essence be providing almost everything in exchange for nothing.


    5. I appreciate your diligent efforts on behalf of your client. I always enjoy working on cases with you because of your high degree of competence and your diligent approach to effectively representing your clients. I am confident that we will be able to either resolve this case by plea agreement or trial in an expeditious manner once your client appears before a District Judge here.



    Glenn B. McCormick


    Deputy Chief, OCDETF


    Dist. of Arizona


    (602)514-7669






    From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
    Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 7:19 AM
    To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
    Cc: Nick.Green@dhs.gov; Pfister, Mary Beth (USANAC); 'Patricia A Gitre'
    Subject: RE: Howes. Brian


    What have you been told about the children? What is the proposed plea agreement?


    In order for me to effectively and ethically review a proposed plea agreement, I need the discovery which I have requested? My client is willing to work on resolving this matter but I cannot advise him without knowing somewhat what the government has. At this point, I only have the indictment. Are you willing to provide me the discovery?



    Please let me know.



    Pat









    From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
    Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:10 AM
    To: pag
    Cc: Nick.Green@dhs.gov; Pfister, Mary Beth (USANAC)
    Subject: RE: Howes. Brian


    Pat,


    I am continuing to make inquiries of interested parties regarding your proposal. However, at this point the answer is likely to be no. The issue regarding the children is contrary to what I have been told. I have no information retarding Shank’s well being. I am sure this must be very difficult for her. My suggestion is that if they want to get this resolved they should concede extradition and enter mutually acceptable contingent plea agreements here. Their antics in the UK have protracted this and ultimately may be responsible for her claimed deteriorating mental condition.


    Glenn.




    From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:45 PM
    To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
    Cc: Pat
    Subject: RE: Howes. Brian


    My client is willing to be extradited if you will not extradite his wife. She is becoming very depressed and almost suicidal. They do not have anyone to take the 4 children. He is willing to come here and face the charges.






    From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
    Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:18 PM
    To: pag
    Subject: RE: Howes. Brian


    I am sorry Pat. It is my case now. I am currently having trouble keeping up with my active cases, due to all the turnover in the office, much less the cases like this one that are a bit off on the horizon still. What sort of resolution are you thinking of?


    Glenn.




    From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:44 AM
    To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
    Cc: 'Patricia A Gitre'
    Subject: Howes. Brian


    Glenn:



    I left you two messages regarding this case. If you are not handling this case, can you tell me who is and let him/her know that I would like to discuss the case. My client would like to talk about resolution before the extradition proceeding.



    Thanks



    Pat





    Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs

    Thursday, February 14, 2008




    Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs






    ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he's gone!
    MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
    ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
    MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
    ROPER I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god.
    MORE (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god . . . . (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle . . . I don't know where he is nor what he wants.
    ROPER My god wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!
    MORE (Dryly) Are you sure that's God? He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God- And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law!
    Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons)


    Once again, England’s senior judges, headed by the Master of the Rolls no less, have called the executive to order, this time for abuse of process. The judgement announced today was couched in strong terms.

    Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, “completely exonerated” Mr Raissi of any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

    • The extradition proceedings were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11... We consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence, amounted to an abuse of process.

    • The authorities, the court concluded, had abused the legal process to keep Mr Raissi in prison for almost six months while the FBI conducted inquiries about him.

    • The Appeal Court studied the evidence and the detail of the court hearings and concluded that both the CPS and Scotland Yard had presented false evidence to the court hearing the extradition proceedings.

    • Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary came in for scathing criticism from senior judges for making false allegations and withholding evidence from the courts in the case of Lotfi Raissi.

    • the British authorities used a US extradition warrant “as a device to circumvent the rule of English law” by detaining him for almost six months in Belmarsh prison. (The Times)


    The British government has thus been found to have abused the judicial process and the police and crown prosecution service to have conspired with the American security services to stitch up an innocent man. We are used to this sort of behaviour from Burma, Zimbabwe or the USA. We are less used to it in the UK.

    Until 2003, no one could be extradited from this country unless and until it had been demonstrated in an English Court that there was a case to answer. Then the law was changed by a Prime Minister who had taken long term residence in Dubya’s colon. From then on, if the USA wanted someone, all they had to do was ask. The one bit of luck that Lotfi Raissi had was that his case started before this appalling piece of legislation. Had his case started a little later, he would have long ago disappeared to Cuba and his own little room in Chateau Halliburton.

    How could this happen in the UK?

    Part of the problem is the Crown Prosecution Service, a notoriously shambolic and inefficient organisation, detested by real barristers. To return to one of NHS BLOG DOCTORS recurring themes, the CPS is a classic example of the state dumbing down. It is a haven for legal quacktitioners who would not survive at the independent bar and who do not have the training or the courage to stand up to the executive. As always, you get what you pay for.

    We must not allow the Molochs - the Blairs, the Bushes, the Chaneys, the Rumselds - to take over. If we dismantle our laws to catch terrorists, the terrorists will have won. We will be left with nothing. In the final analysis, we are not fighting terrorists. We are fighting to preserve the rule of law.

    Labels: , , , ,


    © Copyright NHS BLOG DOCTOR

    8 Blogger Comments:



    The Blair legacy, eh? Now, about "Once again, England’s senior judges,...": I do hope that these ones don't copy More and torture Protestants at home.


    By Anonymous dearieme, at Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:45:00 PM



    A man of his age.


    Well, these days I think I would burn the A of C before the Muslims but, come on Dearieme, the rhetoric is Bolt's not More's.

    But I agree with it. Most of all, this is all about civilised people living within the law. Which should apply to all.

    John

    By Anonymous DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:09:00 AM




    Oi, Doc, how about this?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514340&in_page_id=1770

    By Anonymous dearieme, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:31:00 AM



    Just read that deariemen


    Don't belief it. A GP making a diagnosis. A correct diagnosis. Never heard of that before. Is it fictional do you think?

    J

    By Anonymous DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:21:00 AM



    If the CPS or the police present false evidence the judges should hold them in contempt of court, and sling them in prison.


    By Blogger Tim, at Friday, February 15, 2008 1:02:00 PM



    I've found myself instinctively starting posts with "it's all so depressing" recently. How depressing is that?


    But back on topic, I was a bitter cynic before this government but now we can write a magnus nefarious opus entirely constructed with corrupt Labour initiatives. Now, I am a fully subscribed omnihater who's ideals have been tortured into a twisted version of some dystopian Judge Dredd type future and the Necromnicon.

    Crime: Dragging the country into a vacuous hole of valueless slogans, lack of personal responsibility, gross financial irresponsibility, personal enrichment, persecution... it goes on and on.

    Sentence: Banishing to the Seventh reaches of Hell whilst they're forcibly made to atone for their sins by suddenly having a conscience and reviewing their infinite evil ways. They deserve so much worse!!

    Arrrrrgh! Now where's that book...

    By Anonymous totallybushed, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:04:00 PM



    The UK also supports the International Criminal Court and the EU arrest warrant. You have voluntarily surrendered just about all of your national sovereignty.


    Also, someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo- it's a prisoner of war camp only.

    By Anonymous ZT, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:22:00 AM



    someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo


    first, I agree they (probably) wouldn't be sent to Gitmo; the people who've been extradited under this Treaty have been subject to standard US judicial process, and I imagine a candidate for Gitmo would be 'extraordinarily rendered'.

    Second,

    - it's a prisoner of war camp only.

    I thought the US Administration still refused to give the Gitmo detainees POW status? They are surely still called 'unlawful com batants' or 'battlefield detainees' (however remote they were when 'captured' from a battlefield or combat, and whether or not they'd ever really been near either. (The refusal to give POW status relates to the Geneva Conventions: civilians are covered, POWs are covered, but initially, anyway, it was thought these people might not be; there is now a judicial ruling thst say they are.)

    By Anonymous jayann, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:57:00 PM

    'I lost my career, my life and my dignity'


    'I lost my career, my life and my dignity'


    Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that Lotfi Raissi could claim compensation for his arrest and imprisonment after being wrongly accused of training 9/11 pilots. Here, in his first interview since the landmark decision, he tells of his prison hell, nervous collapse and the terrible toll his ordeal has had on his personal and professional life




















    This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 17 2008 on p26 of the Focus section. It was last updated at 23:19 on February 16 2008.



    Lotfi Raissi seemed destined to become one of the most reviled men in history. A pilot who had trained in the US before moving to England, he was the first person to be accused in connection with the 11 September attacks. He was alleged to be one of its chief ringleaders, teaching the 9/11 terrorists how to fly and crash planes into buildings. It's hard to think of a more damaging accusation. Harder still when Raissi, whose chubby face and small, smiling eyes makes him seem younger than his 33 years, was wholly innocent.


    But this did not stop him spending almost five months in Belmarsh high-security prison in south-east London after the American authorities told their British counterparts of Raissi's 'involvement' in the worst terrorist attack in US history. 'It was appalling,' Raissi said yesterday as he tried to live a normal family life, meeting his brother for a family lunch followed by watching the Manchester United-Arsenal FA Cup tie. 'I was guilty until I proved my innocence.'

    Last week, three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled he should be allowed to renew his bid for compensation from the government, overturning a decision by the High Court last year. 'I had faith in the judiciary system,' Raissi said. 'Thank God justice is what I got.'

    However, it is clear that his wounds are still open. He says he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and his general health is not good. He has been seeing a doctor for the past two weeks because of high blood pressure. 'I haven't slept properly for the past seven years,' he said.

    To understand how damaging the accusations were against Raissi, it is necessary to understand his background. 'My family back home in Algeria have been fighting terrorism for the past 15 years,' he said. 'My uncle is chief of an anti-terrorist branch. We abhor terrorism in any shape or form in our family. This is very damaging for us.'

    The reference to 'us' is a telling one. Raissi is angry not for what happened to him but because of the shame it brought on his family. Their dignity, he says, has been taken away.

    He recalls the day he was arrested by British police: 21 September 2001. He was dragged out of his house naked at three o'clock in the morning. There was banging, shouting, swarms of police. His wife, Sonia, and his brother, Mohammed, were also arrested but released four days later.

    'It was a kidnapping; they could have just sent me some questions and I would have been glad to answer all the questions at a police station,' he said. 'I didn't even have the chance to read the warrant. There were guns everywhere.'

    But his nightmare was only just beginning. He was taken to Paddington Green high security police station, which is used to house terrorist suspects. There was evidence - a great deal of evidence, the authorities implied - that would prove his guilt.

    'It was very confusing,' Raissi said with a gentle understatement that is characteristic of how he views the tortuous events of the past six years. 'They were saying I was involved in 9/11; they were blaming me for everything to do with 9/11. They said, "You prepared those hijackers". I love football, I love dancing, I love going out - my life is so different from those who flew the planes. I just didn't understand what they were talking about.'

    It didn't take long before the 'evidence' - false claims that he was linked to five of the hijackers - to drip through into the media. Even before he was arrested, journalists had mysteriously turned up outside his door asking questions.

    From Paddington Green he was moved to Belmarsh, his nadir. The notorious London prison is used to house some of the most dangerous criminals in Britain. Raissi, with his gentle manners and humble persona, did not stand much of a chance in the febrile atmosphere that followed 9/11. Society wanted vengeance. The feeling permeated through the prison's walls.

    'I feared for my life in court and inside prison,' he said. 'They moved me from the high security unit after three or four days and sent me to the normal wing, where I wasn't safe. I suffered racism and discrimination. I got stabbed twice by other prisoners and no one investigated.'

    Why was he stabbed? 'Everyone had become a judge and a jury,' he says with the sort of resignation which suggests he knows he will never be reconciled with what happened behind the prison walls. The psychological pressures of being accused of one of the most reviled crimes in history soon took their toll: 'I had two nervous breakdowns. One in prison, one when I came out. My brother has been suffering, too.'

    In bringing his claim for compensation, Raissi argues that he was arrested chiefly because he was Algerian, Muslim and Arab, an airline pilot - someone who effectively ticked the boxes of an identikit terrorist.

    'I was arrested because of my profile,' he said. 'Why didn't they arrest the instructors who actually trained the terrorists?'

    The Court of Appeal's judgment on Raissi's arrest, and the refusal to grant him bail, was damning. 'Viewed objectively, it appears to us to be likely that the extradition proceedings were used for an ulterior purpose, namely to secure the appellant's detention in custody in order to allow time for the US authorities to provide evidence of a terrorist offence,' the three judges hearing his case concluded.

    But the judges were most scathing about the role of the British authorities. 'We consider that there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the police and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] were responsible for serious defaults.' It is difficult to imagine a more damning assessment.

    The ruling also shone an uncomfortable spotlight on the way Britain and the United States trade intelligence and raised troubling questions about the two countries' relationship when it comes to fighting terrorism. Why did Britain listen to the US? Why was it so eager to arrest Raissi, when even the American authorities had urged Britain only to make 'discreet' inquiries into his background.

    The justification for Raissi's arrest was at best spurious, even accepting - as the Court of Appeal did last week - that the weeks following 9/ 11 were turbulent ones.

    Even the US, it seems, soon realised that Raissi was unlikely to be the man they were looking for. A couple of months after he was arrested, intelligence sources told the Washington Post that 'we put him in the category of maybe or maybe not, leaning towards probably not. Our goal is to get him back here and talk to him to find out more.' Raissi was still held for almost three further months after this statement was made.

    What triggered the Americans' original interest in him is equally bewildering. He had spent a period at a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona and when his student visa had expired he returned to Algeria before moving to London.

    Travel records appeared to show that in June 2001 he was in Las Vegas when Ziad Jarrah - one of the hijackers of Flight 93, the plane that crashed after passengers stormed the cockpit - was also in the gambling city.

    It was suggested that the FBI had discovered Raissi's name in a rental vehicle hired by Salem al Hazmi, one of the five terrorists who hijacked Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. It was also claimed that a video existed of Raissi celebrating with Hani Hanjour, another of the Flight 77 hijackers. Telephone records apparently corroborated claims he had called four of the hijackers.

    But none of the claims was true and the US authorities and the CPS were unable to produce any evidence to back up their allegations.

    'It was media propaganda,' Raissi said. 'They said I was in a videotape with one of the hijackers that flew the aeroplane. The reality was the person in the video was my cousin and doesn't have anything to do with terrorism.'

    Ultimately, American officials were forced to make a provisional request for his extradition on the grounds that he had lied on his pilot's licence by not revealing he had undergone knee surgery, an allegation that in itself was later proved false.

    In April 2003 Raissi was formally released on all charges. Six months later he announced he was suing the FBI and the US Department of Justice for $10m for ruining his life. He was forced to drop the civil action after a recent change in the law barred individuals from suing sovereign states.

    But it is the British, rather than the US authorities, who Raissi really wants to pursue through the courts. 'Where is the sovereignty of the UK government? They have to come up with evidence. There was no evidence. They didn't provide anything to the judge. That's why there was no case to answer - it was a serious default by the police and the CPS. I'm shocked.'

    His claim for compensation against the UK government was dismissed in the High Court last year. But he was determined to continue his legal fight, not for money, he says, but to clear his name.

    'People talk about the compensation. It's nothing to do with it. I lost my life, I lost my career. There was a stage when I lost my dignity - that is unacceptable when we live in the civilised world. It's a matter of principle. I want my life back; I want to clear my name and that of my family and to have a normal life.

    'I was 27 when I got arrested, now I'm 33. I was going in and out of court for seven years fighting this case - I didn't have a life. If they don't give me an apology it will be the same fight over the next three or four years.'

    Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has 14 days to decide whether she will fight Raissi's case to go for compensation. 'The government should fix this problem,' he said, his voice rising slightly to express his bewilderment at the idea the authorities could countenance such an idea. 'I am completely exonerated. The only thing I expect is a widely publicised apology. If they appeal the decision it will be a sham. They will be wasting taxpayers' money.'

    Raissi is not the only one to have suffered as a result of his ordeal. His wife lost her job at Air France. His brother's wife lost her job at Heathrow, too. The strain has damaged his relationship with his wife. 'Even with my marriage I struggle very much. Every part of my life I struggled with. It is an agony.'

    Today, Raissi relies on the financial support of friends and family to get by. Initially when he came out of prison and had no work he refused all benefits. 'I'm not working, I'm blacklisted from all airline jobs. I'm framed as a terrorist.'

    Even now, despite being completely exonerated, he is banned from flying anywhere but Algeria because his American extradition warrant is still outstanding.

    'We hope Raissi's complete exoneration will mean the US authorities will withdraw the warrant as a matter of urgency,' said Jules Carey, his lawyer from Tuckers solicitors.

    Carey also wants to see urgent action from the British authorities. 'Last week's judgment should not only cause the Home Secretary to review the use of

    provisional extradition warrants but also prompt the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to overhaul their systems to avoid miscarriage of justice in the future,' Carey said.

    Given everything he has been through, it would seem natural if Raissi had become a bitter man, consumed with enmity towards those who locked him away without any credible evidence. But the truth is more complicated, even cathartic.

    'I learnt to forgive, I learnt patience,' he said. 'But it has been damaging to my life and my dignity - that is something I will never forgive.'

    During the six years he fought to clear his name, he would be approached by strangers at the coffee shop near his home in Chiswick, west London.

    'They had heard about my case and would come up and say to me: "Hopefully this miscarriage of justice will be overturned." I am very grateful for their support. My life in London is something I cherish very much. I love England.' By way of emphasising his anglicisation he adds with evident pride: 'I'm a big fan of Man United.'

    But then Raissi says something else, something that should serve as much as a warning as an observation. 'I always say Britain is a civilised country with beautiful people. I really cherish the customs, the way of life here. But after 9/11 things changed.'

    Innocent Men


    2 June 2006 Police arrested 23-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar and 20-year-old Abul Koyair after raiding their home in Forest Gate, east London. Mr Kahar was shot in the shoulder during the raid. Both were later released without charge. On the brothers' request the police issued an apology for the hurt they had caused, but insisted that, based on intelligence received, they had 'no choice but to mount a robust operation, which required a fast armed response'.

    26 July 2007 Five students, Irfan Raja, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Akbar Butt and Usman Malik, were jailed for downloading and sharing extremist literature. The convictions were quashed in the Court of Appeal last week, with the judge concluding there was no proof of terrorist intent.

    21 January 2008 Six Pakistani men were arrested at Gatwick on suspicion of terrorist activity. They were later released after it emerged that they were all relatives or supporters of Chaudhry Shujat Hussain, a Musharraf lieutenant. A statement was swiftly released, apologising for the incident and 'any personal distress that was caused to the individuals concerned'.
    Compiled by Holly Bentley

    British judges condemn police lies after 9/11 attacks that ruined pilot's life

    Strange Justice

    Saturday, February 16, 2008



    British judges condemn police lies after 9/11 attacks that ruined pilot's life

    Six years of fighting for justice left Lotfi Raissi an emotional and physical wreck and his marriage close to ruin. But yesterday, the Algerian pilot falsely accused of training the September 11 terrorists heard, finally, that he was “completely exonerated” of any part in the attacks on the twin towers.

    As Mr Raissi pored over the Court of Appeal’s densely worded judgment, the lengths to which the authorities had bent the rules to detain him in the febrile days after September 11 became clear. Three of Britain’s most senior judges condemned the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for abusing the court process, presenting false allegations and not disclosing evidence.

    But it was not until page 44, paragraph 154, line 17 that Mr Raissi’s eyes settled upon the words he had been praying for. The judges ruled that the charge that he was a terrorist and had trained the September 11 hijackers was one of which he should be “completely exonerated”. His only “crime” was to learn his skills at the same Florida flying school as two of the hijackers.

    Mr Raissi’s eyes filled with tears and he “wept with relief”. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday he told The Times: “I’ve regained my dignity, it feels as if I can breathe and I am free again. The judges have said there were serious faults and an abuse of process in my case and that has restored my faith in British justice. I knew this day would come.”

    The judges also ordered the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to reconsider the repeated refusal to compensate Mr Raissi for locking him in Belmarsh prison for six months and accusing him of the murders of thousands of people. Solicitors for Mr Raissi, 33, are expected to lodge a claim for compensation which — taking into account his loss of a career as an airline pilot, wrongful imprisonment and damage to his health — is expected to exceed 2 million pounds.

    But it will take more than money to repair Mr Raissi’s damaged life. His mental and physical health have deteriorated, his marriage to his French wife, Sonia, has suffered and his childhood dream of being a pilot is shattered for ever.

    After the September 11 attacks a frightened world waited, dreading the next atrocity. Across the Atlantic, the FBI, the CIA and every law enforcement agency were chasing leads on the background of the 19 terrorists who had hijacked the four airliners. In Phoneix, Arizona, they came across a flight school called Sawyer Aviation where Hani Hanjour — who crashed an airliner into the Pentagon — had trained. The school was popular with Middle Eastern trainees and one of those at Sawyer at the same time as Hanjour was Mr Raissi. He had, checks quickly established, left the US and was now living in Britain. On September 17, a letter from the legal attache at the US Embassy in London was delivered to Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch. “The FBI request that this matter be handled as expeditiously and discreetly as possible,” the letter said. The words “expeditiously” and “discreetly” were typed in bold.

    Ten days later Scotland Yard executed its response to the American request. Armed officers smashed down the door of Mr Raissi’s flat in Colnbrook, Berkshire, not far from Heathrow, and arrested him and his wife at gunpoint. The media hailed the arrest in Britain of the first suspects in the global hunt for the men who planned the worst terrorist attacks ever seen. An extradition warrant was issued for Mr Raissi on a “holding charge” that he had failed to disclose a theft conviction on his US immigration application. But in the courts, British lawyers representing the US Government made much more serious allegations.

    Mr Raissi, they said, was the “lead instructor” for the hijackers. The courts were told there was evidence that he falsified flight logs to hide the fact he trained Hanjour. Videotape had been found of Hanjour and Mr Raissi together. A notebook said to belong to Abu Doha, a major terrorist suspect, that had been found in London contained Mr Raissi’s phone number. One by one, over the course of ten court hearings, Mr Raissi’s solicitor proved that the allegations and the evidence to support them were false, if not fabricated.

    The accurate flight log was produced and the flying instructor who testified that Mr Raissi and Hanjour had indeed hired the same plane, but at different times. The man in the video was shown to be Mr Raissi’s cousin. It took time, but the address book was clearly shown not to have belonged to Abu Doha.

    In February 2002, Mr Raissi was released from Belmarsh jail. But neither the British nor the American authorities were prepared to say they had been mistaken. He remained a suspected terrorist, unable to travel outside Britain except to Algeria.

    The appeal court, under the presidency of the Master of the Rolls, said that responsibility for many of the mistakes in the Raissi case lay in Britain. In its judgment that the “primary responsibility for the falsity” over the notebook lay with the Met and the CPS. The judges also found that the false claim about the flight logs could be blamed on either carelessness or incompetence by Scotland Yard. In a scathing passage of criticism, at the heart of their ruling, the judges said that the extradition proceedings had been abused as a means of keeping Mr Raissi in custody while inquiries were pursued in the US. The judges said: “We consider that the way in which extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence, amounted to an abuse of process.

    It had taken the distance of six years and fundamental shifts in attitudes to the events of the War on Terror for a court to look with forensic detachment at what had been done to Mr Raissi. But the appeal judges found that British police and prosecutors were directly responsible for the events that destroyed the young Algerian’s life. Justice, they told ministers, demanded that the Government compensate as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

    Guantánamo Britons’ Spanish extradition request: an update






    Yesterday Omar Deghayes and Jamil El-Banna, two of the three Britons freed from Guantánamo in December, returned to Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London for the third time since their release for an update on the progress -- or lack of it -- in the Spanish government’s request for their extradition, based on long-discredited allegations that were summarized in previous articles here ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/388337.html) and here ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389111.html).As I was unable to attend yesterday’s hearing -- and no major media outlet has seen fit to report on it -- I spoke to Jackie Chase from Brighton’s Save Omar campaign, who filled me in on the morning’s events.Speaking to a busy courtroom and an overflowing public gallery, Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Mr. Deghayes and Mr. El-Banna, submitted medical reports which analyzed in detail his clients’ precarious mental state. Although he made a point of sparing the court the details of their abuse in US custody, which had created their current problems, he explained that the reports revealed that both men were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    He also pointed out that a particular source of stress and mental anguish for the men derived from the electronic tagging devices that they have been obliged to wear since their return to the UK, which, he said, were causing them anxiety, because they were giving them flashbacks to their ordeal in the US prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, and specifically to their interrogations and the array of brutal techniques that were used on them during the run-up to their interrogations.


    Mr. Fitzgerald then asked for the tags to be removed, a request to which the prosecution graciously acquiesced. In their place, Mr. Deghayes and Mr. El-Banna are required to allow police representatives to visit them during the curfew hours that were also imposed on their return to the UK -- between 8 pm and 7 am -- to check that they are actually at home.


    As for the extradition request, the Crown Prosecution Service reported that there had been no response from the Spanish government since the last hearing in January. The judge set a deadline of April 13 for the Spanish to respond to the medical reports, and to issues previously raised by Mr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues; namely, that the Spanish authorities had failed to explain why they had filed the extradition request on the men’s return, when they had not pursued it vigorously during their long imprisonment in US custody; and that they had also failed to explain why they wished to pursue the case when both the British and American governments had concluded that there was no case against either man.


    In open discussions between the judge and the various lawyers, the prospect was raised that the Spanish government might drop its extradition request in the near future. If they respond by April 13, however, the formal extradition hearing will take place on May 15.


    It is to be hoped that the Spanish will indeed drop their request for the return of two innocent men who are struggling to rebuild their lives. As the case of Farid Hilali revealed last week, the European Arrest Warrant, introduced to facilitate extradition proceedings between EU member states, is proving itself sorely lacking in any mechanism whatsoever to prevent extraditions when the country making the request is acting on “evidence” that fails to stand up to impartial scrutiny. See the following links for more on Mr. Hilali’s story.

    http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2004/07/farid_hilali_in_court_unanswer.html

    http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2008/01/european_arrest_warrant_extradition_to_spain_law_lords_overturn_habeus_corpus_fo.html

    http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2008/02/farid_hilali_extradited_to_spain.html


    For more information on the British residents in Guantánamo, see my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison ( http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?page_id=17).




    Andy Worthington

    - e-mail: andy@andyworthington.co.uk

    - Homepage: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/

    UK-US extradition deal attacked


    UK-US extradition deal attacked








    Lotfi Raissi
    Mr Raissi's supporters say he was "lucky" to be arrested before 2003




    The UK's extradition laws have been attacked as "unfair" in the wake of the Appeal Court ruling that a wrongly accused pilot can claim compensation.
    If Lotfi Raissi were held under current rules he would have been extradited to the US, the Lib Dems and the human rights group Liberty have said.

    They have called for a review of a deal with the US which critics say removes the right to challenge extradition.

    The government denies the agreement infringes suspects' human rights.

    Fast-track extradition

    Court of Appeal judges said evidence suggested there were "serious defaults" in the decision to detain Mr Raissi in prison for nearly five months in 2001 after a US extradition request over alleged links to the 9/11 attacks.

    But opponents of a 2003 extradition treaty with the United States say that it was only because Mr Raissi was arrested before it became law that he was able to stay in the UK and challenge the grounds for his removal to the US.

    The treaty - signed by Home Secretary David Blunkett and US Attorney General John Ashcroft in March 2003 - removed the requirement of the US government to present evidence to a British court when seeking to extradite a suspect.









    If he had been arrested now in exactly the same circumstances then he would simply have been whisked off to the United States




    James Welch





    In effect, it brought the US into line with other EU countries where extradition can be "fast-tracked" under the 2003 Extradition Act.

    Extradition to these countries does not normally require evidence to be provided to a British court - only that there has been a recognised crime committed for which the jail sentence is more than one year.

    The treaty has also been criticised because opponents say it is not reciprocal: the US does not need to present evidence to a British court to request extradition, while the UK still needs to present evidence to an American court.

    However, the government points out that the "burden of proof" to seek extradition has not changed, and that suspects' rights are still protected.

    'Unbalanced treaty'

    Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said that the Appeal Court ruling "demonstrates how this Government has risked serious miscarriages of justice by entering into an inherently unbalanced treaty with the United States, which seriously undermines the rights of British citizens".

    He added: "Somebody in Mr Raissi's position today would not be in the Court of Appeal but languishing in an American prison, under current extradition rules.

    "The government must undertake an immediate review of the Extradition Act and reopen negotiations, so that we can have the same protections enjoyed by US citizens."

    James Welch, legal director of the human rights organisation Liberty, said that Mr Raissi was "lucky" to be arrested before the new laws came into effect.

    He said: "If he had been arrested now in exactly the same circumstances then he would simply have been whisked off to the United States.

    "Nobody is denying that there needs to be a proper extradition procedure. But within that procedure there has to be scope for courts in this country to see how strong the evidence is against the person they are seeking to extradite."







    David Blunkett and US Attorney General John Ashcroft
    David Blunkett and John Ashcroft signed the extradition deal






    Mr Raissi's solicitor Jules Carey said that had the 2003 treaty been in effect at the time of his client's arrest Mr Raissi would have been extradited to the US where he may have faced "execution or life imprisonment."

    A Home Office spokesperson said there were no plans either to review the 2003 Extradition Act or to renegotiate the treaty with the US.

    He said: "All requests for extradition made to the UK are considered under the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003, which provides full and effective safeguards for the rights of requested persons."

    "The US is a trusted extradition partner with a mature legal system and it guarantees appropriate safeguards within its domestic courts."

    Tuesday 5 February 2008