Wednesday, 20 February 2008

'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