UK 'Al-Qaeda' plotter: so what's his crime then?

[detective-boy]

And active planning is what there really isn't any evidence of that we have seen, no sign of the persons or persons unknown, just some vague assertions that he was a member of Al-Qaeda and travelled to Pakistan to look for someone to show his hair brained scheme to.

I think that is impossible to assert without knowing the exact details of the evidence - there would, I am sure be evidence of phone calls, e-mails, meetings, etc. here and abroad. And there would be phone intercept material, not admissible as evidence, but able to be used as the basis of pre-sentence comment by the prosecution to some limited extent behind that.

 

[Kameron]

I just don't see how this whole 'conspiracy' is any different to Wiskers thread about how to open Securico money boxes. If anything it is more likely that wiskey might be in possession of a Securico money box that needs opening without the dye going everywhere than that Borat was going to rupture the Thames.

 

[Azrael]

Er .. yes. His lack of a defence. If he was not guilty of a genuine conspiracy to commit murder he would not have pleaded guilty, his defence team would not have allowed him to plead guilty and the judge would not have accepted the plea if there were insufficient grounds on which to conclude it was genuine.

I agree, there's no way he would have pled guilty (doubtless his counsel told him of the sentence he was facing) if he had a shred of a defense. Does anyone seriously think he'd have sent himself down for a 40-year stretch if there was a snowball's of convincing a jury the plot wasn't genuine?

Conspiracy to murder is not a "thought crime". He had mens rea (guilty mind) coupled with actus reus (guilty action), namely producing plans to kill a load of people. He's convicted for the action, not just the intention.

I completely disagree about the ever-increasing detention without charge however. There's absolutely no reason the police should have to get the entire case together before they level a charge. This is largely about the right to interrogate a suspect for weeks on end, as the recent terror plot demonstrated: the police wanted another week of questioning, were denied, and immediately charged the suspect!

If the issue is encrypted documents, the suspect could be charged with not revealing the key and held on those grounds. If the suspect genuinely doesn't know, but might be incriminated by the files, and the police still haven't broken in after two years, it can be used to justify indeterminate detention: the favourite tool of dictators everywhere and guaranteed to do more harm than good.

 

[Azrael]

Just to add, I see no reason why he should ever be released. In fact, as innocence isn't an issue, I'd have little compunction with him being hanged. At the least a life of hard labour.

 

[Kameron]

I think that is impossible to assert without knowing the exact details of the evidence - there would, I am sure be evidence of phone calls, e-mails, meetings, etc. here and abroad. And there would be phone intercept material, not admissible as evidence, but able to be used as the basis of pre-sentence comment by the prosecution to some limited extent behind that.

I'm sorry but you can have as many phone calls as you like with Osama's private line about crashing oil tankers into New York or rupturing the Thames but it doesn't make it a credible threat and it doesn't make it anything more than a fantasy.

 

[Kameron]

I agree, there's no way he would have pled guilty (doubtless his counsel told him of the sentence he was facing) if he had a shred of a defense. Does anyone seriously think he'd have sent himself down for a 40-year stretch if there was a snowball's of convincing a jury the plot wasn't genuine?

You are talking about him as if he is a rational human being. Get a grip, this is someone who though that he was going to be producing tons of explosive in his house and extracting radioactive material for tens of thousands of smoke alarms. This guy is not rational, he is mentally ill. He believes he is guilty of these crimes; he is convinced that his plan to create a dirty bomb, rupture the Thames and bomb financial intuitions of four continents was a credible threat. It is just anyone who isn't mentally ill can see that it wasn't and he isn't.

 

[Kameron]

Just to add, I see no reason why he should ever be released. In fact, as innocence isn't an issue, I'd have little compunction with him being hanged. At the least a life of hard labour.

Then again you are talking about state sponsored killing and he was into killing sponsored by religion, I can't really get a fag paper between your moral positions.

 

[zoltan]

Actually, I have to say that the plan to put the bombs in limousines was quite a clever touch.

They're big, not as suspicious as vans, they can carry loads of explosives and are - I'd imagine - less likely to get stopped.

or you could utilise a black cab - like the Pros do for moving their "hardware" across central london - they never get a second glance.

 

[zoltan]

I think hes barking and his Walter Mitty scribblings were the ramblings of a fantasist.

Its true there was nothing on the ground connected to these plans - I could "plan" to blow up Dowwning street with a dirty bomb- but maybe getting a) the explosives and b) the Radioactive isotopes together may have been a big of a problem for me.

I am alos "planning " the consrruction of a huge never been seen before laser weaspon to blast communicvation sattelites out of the sky & thus render the Wests defence & telecoms system inoperable.The fast That he only laser I have any experience of is in my CD player is irrelevant

I would till be guilty however - not matter how far fetched my scribblings would seem.

He is obviously a twat of the highest order though.

 

[Azrael]

I'm sorry but you can have as many phone calls as you like with Osama's private line about crashing oil tankers into New York or rupturing the Thames but it doesn't make it a credible threat and it doesn't make it anything more than a fantasy.

Perhaps these Blofeld-esque plans were a fantasy (or perhaps not: doubtless if the US had caught the 11 September murderers before the act it would have been dismissed as a fantasy) but it's been established he wanted to commit mass-murder and was looking for a way to go about it. Whether he was the Walter Mitty of Islamism or the next Timothy McVeigh, his moral guilt is unassailable, and the danger he posed scarcely less so (a man capable of planning this atrocity is well capable of cutting back his ambition and murdering lesser numbers).

It's hard enough arguing for civil liberties in this panicked age without people calling for scum like this to be let off just because their murderous designs may happen to be incompetent.

 

[Azrael]

Then again you are talking about state sponsored killing and he was into killing sponsored by religion, I can't really get a fag paper between your moral positions.

Withdraw that gilb libel this second: there's a moral chasm between a man who wants to murder thousands on innocent people and someone who considers executing such a man after a fair trial and due process of law. I border on the fanatical in my desire to protect innocent people from wrongful punishment; he borders on the fanatical in ending their existence because Allah supposedly told him to do it.

There's your difference.

 

[Kameron]

There's your difference.

All executions in cold blood are wrong, arguing there is a moral difference on a matter of scale is farcical. I don't believe that due process of law makes cold blooded execution a morally acceptable position.

 

[Azrael]

You are talking about him as if he is a rational human being. Get a grip, this is someone who though that he was going to be producing tons of explosive in his house and extracting radioactive material for tens of thousands of smoke alarms. This guy is not rational, he is mentally ill. He believes he is guilty of these crimes; he is convinced that his plan to create a dirty bomb, rupture the Thames and bomb financial intuitions of four continents was a credible threat. It is just anyone who isn't mentally ill can see that it wasn't and he isn't.

Erm, if he was insane, his counsel would never have put forward the guilty plea and the judge would never have accepted it.

Even if he was deluded in his abilities, it's perfectly believable that he was capable of telling the difference between right and wrong. In fact the court would have required that he was. (Or do you believe every madman who wanders into a cop-shop and confesses his delusions is automatically handed a 40-year-stretch, no questions asked?)

 

[Azrael]

All executions in cold blood are wrong, arguing there is a moral difference on a matter of scale is farcical. I don't believe that due process of law makes cold blooded execution a morally acceptable position.

It's not a matter of scale; it's a matter of guilt.

Executing an undoubtedly guilty man occupies a separate moral universe from drowning hundreds of commuters because you think you're on a mission from God. You can call execution cold blooded and wrong if you like, but to suggest the two are the same is ludicrous. Unless you're about to argue that gaol is wrong because kidnapping is wrong.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Pleading guilty in the UK and getting 40 years might have looked like a better option than being extradited to the US and getting 100 years without the chance of parole. The US authorities certainly wanted him. Maybe he's not so dim afterall?

Louis Mac

 

[Kameron]

Erm, if he was insane, his counsel would never have put forward the guilty plea and the judge would never have accepted it.

Counsel do what the client wants, this client wanted to be the most dangerous terrorist and he has succeeded, branded as such by one of the best legal systems in the world.

This is his win condition. He didn't just fail, with the High Court to help him he has achieved what he could never have done himself, he has become famous, his fantasy has been turned into the material of fear. What happened in court today was not the failure of a master plan for Al-Qaeda but an unexpected feather in their cap.

This is also of course a win condition for the Police and Intelligence services who caught him and a win for the media who are selling lots of newspapers today on the back of it. With so many winners on ever side of the game (and I have only listed the tip of the iceberg) I don't think anyone wants to hear how far from becoming a reality this plan really was.

 

[detective-boy]

(Or do you believe every madman who wanders into a cop-shop and confesses his delusions is automatically handed a 40-year-stretch, no questions asked?)

Sadly, I think they do!

 

[detective-boy]

I just don't see how this whole 'conspiracy' is any different to Wiskers thread about how to open Securico money boxes. If anything it is more likely that wiskey might be in possession of a Securico money box that needs opening without the dye going everywhere than that Borat was going to rupture the Thames.

It's different because wiskey has explicitly said that he has no intention of doing it and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (whereas this bloke has said the opposite (in terms of his plea) and there is).

 

[detective-boy]

There's absolutely no reason the police should have to get the entire case together before they level a charge.

There is, and it is not of the police's making.

It is arbitrary though. It is a requirement of the CPS that charges should only be laid when there is sufficient evidence for them to proceed (even if it is known that more will come in the inevitable pre-trial period).

The police used to charge on a pima facie case and then do the rest pre-trial. In an attempt to speed up justice this was changed. I am sure the police would have no particular view on it changing back.

Especially if someone was making no comment, there would a limit on how much they would be interviewed during a 28 day period, let alone a 90-day one! You imply there would be high-stress interrogation going on. There wouldn't. That would not be permissible under PACE (which applies to terrorism suspects just the same as ordinary ones in all substantive ways).

 

[lostexpectation]

ha yes arrested cos the USA boasted about their asset! without telling anybody else

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/10/dhiren-barot-pleads-guilty.html
so is the superior al qaeda member he met who gave him the go ahead Khan who was working for the americans at that stage?

 

[Azrael]

Counsel do what the client wants, this client wanted to be the most dangerous terrorist and he has succeeded, branded as such by one of the best legal systems in the world.

No, they don't. They do what their client want if a) they believe him or her to be of sound mind and b) if accords with the law. A judge is then entitled to reject the guilty plea if he or she believes it to be false, or the client to be insane. You're rapidly sounding like someone who doesn't have the first clue about the legal system.

This is his win condition. He didn't just fail, with the High Court to help him he has achieved what he could never have done himself, he has become famous, his fantasy has been turned into the material of fear. What happened in court today was not the failure of a master plan for Al-Qaeda but an unexpected feather in their cap.

This is also of course a win condition for the Police and Intelligence services who caught him and a win for the media who are selling lots of newspapers today on the back of it. With so many winners on ever side of the game (and I have only listed the tip of the iceberg) I don't think anyone wants to hear how far from becoming a reality this plan really was.

Erm, I've never denied for a moment it might have been a Walter Mitty scheme. I simply said that little bearing on his guilt. No doubt terrorist murderers, loving publicity, enjoy being gaoled for any offence: are you suggesting we leave these men wandering the street so as to not give them the satisfaction?

This is the sort of nonsense that makes people warm to authoritarians.

 

[Kameron]

Erm, I've never denied for a moment it might have been a Walter Mitty scheme. I simply said that little bearing on his guilt. No doubt terrorist murderers, loving publicity, enjoy being gaoled for any offence: are you suggesting we leave these men wandering the street so as to not give them the satisfaction?

I think that there are serious issues with prosecution people who have no credible intention of committing any crime. He was found guilty of Conspiracy to Murder when he had no means, no credible plan and no supplies to commit any such act. Just a big fantasy; you're dam right we shouldn't give him the satisfaction, he was and remains a trivial risk to my health but his fantasy will be used to erode the civil liberties on which a free society depends.

 

[Azrael]

There is, and it is not of the police's making.

It is arbitrary though. It is a requirement of the CPS that charges should only be laid when there is sufficient evidence for them to proceed (even if it is known that more will come in the inevitable pre-trial period).

The police used to charge on a pima facie case and then do the rest pre-trial. In an attempt to speed up justice this was changed. I am sure the police would have no particular view on it changing back.

Excuse me, I didn't make myself clear: I see no argument why the law (or policy, whichever it is) shouldn't be changed (and bureaucracy slashed) to allow evidence to be gathered after charges have been laid. (To my knowledge this is the case in other common law countries: to give a recent and famous example, the police were ramsacking Michael Jackson's home with a string of warrants months after charges had been set down.) Demanding the entire case be ready before the charges are laid surely helps no one, be it the police, public, suspect, or for that matter, justice itself. Return to a pima facie case by all means.

I also support the abolition of the PACE codes, which I've read in full, and which made my head hurt more than a Cambridge essay. I have no idea how police officers are expected to function efficiently under that Brazil-esque level of bureaucracy. It's certainly the biggest bugbear of coppers I've talked to about it.

Especially if someone was making no comment, there would a limit on how much they would be interviewed during a 28 day period, let alone a 90-day one! You imply there would be high-stress interrogation going on. There wouldn't. That would not be permissible under PACE (which applies to terrorism suspects just the same as ordinary ones in all substantive ways).

What are the limits on no-comment interviews? Last time I mentioned this you said you were against ending interrogation, so how long do they get to go on?

And since guilt can now be inferred, no comment interviews have gone down. An innocent man could easily feel pressured into continuing to talk. As I've said before, I don't hold some deluded "rubber hose" impression about interviews: I simply believe four weeks of interrogation, however well conducted, would be enough to mess with anyone's mind.

 

[Azrael]

I think that there are serious issues with prosecution people who have no credible intention of committing any crime. He was found guilty of Conspiracy to Murder when he had no means, no credible plan and no supplies to commit any such act. Just a big fantasy; you're dam right we shouldn't give him the satisfaction, he was and remains a trivial risk to my health but his fantasy will be used to erode the civil liberties on which a free society depends.

A flooded tunnel or a simple bomb would have done rather more to achieve this. You stop the government from using terrorist threats as a pretext for draconian law by attacking their impoverished arguments, not by allowing would-be murderers wander the streets on the hope they don't get round to doing anything nasty.

You must be a Labour cabinet minister in disguise: stuff like this can't exist outside Home Office straw men.

 

[Kameron]

You are a nutter with a severe case of projection aren't you?

I mean we can all read what you have written and it is all solid Labour cabinet minister material, more Blunkett than Straw but right on the button but you want people to believe that I'm the one peddling the main stream view?

Pull the over one. 'ts got bells on.

 

[Azrael]

You are a nutter with a severe case of projection aren't you?

I mean we can all read what you have written and it is all solid Labour cabinet minister material, more Blunkett than Straw but right on the button but you want people to believe that I'm the one peddling the main stream view?

Pull the over one. 'ts got bells on.

So Blunkett supports: jury trial for every crime, with unanimous verdicts and pre-emptory challenges; a ban on double jeopardy; the right to silence; an absolute limit of 48 hours on detention without charge; and no searches of persons, belongings or DNA without a warrant.

Because I support all of those things. None of which are currently mainstream views.

Seems you can't distinguish a right-wing civil libertarian from a left-wing authoritarian. But since you also fail to distinguish a harmless fantasist from a would-be mass-murderer and a judicial execution of same from the slaughter of innocents, excuse me if I'm not overly troubled by your judgement.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Have you contacted known NLCs in Pakistan and spent time training with them?... sending your ideas off to a known bunch of NLCs and corresponding with them...

What are NLCs? Google doesn't seem to be able to help.

 

[weltweit]

Just to add, I see no reason why he should ever be released. In fact, as innocence isn't an issue, I'd have little compunction with him being hanged. At the least a life of hard labour.

Hi Azrael

I assume you say that because even when he is released he is still likely to be a threat, is that why?

And if so what do you think about releasing paedofiles after their sentence when they still also often or even perhaps usually present a threat to children?

 

[weltweit]

These are all subjective depending on your viewpoint and how you see the balance of influences. Some would say 'BlairBush!BlairBush!BlairBush!', some would say 'Lunatic muslims who hate the West' and all the places inbetween those idiot polarised views where the real reason probably lies.

kyser_soze so what you are saying is that

"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

is just glib, was merely a throwaway soundbite because it is not possible to be tough on "the causes" .. ?

Sadly if this is true it seems to doom Great Britain to homegrown terrorism for the forseeable future then.

That is not something I look forward to.

 

[magneze]

Interesting thread. I can kind of see people's points about "thought crime" and that but it clearly went further however technically ridiculous some of the ideas were.

There's quite a big difference between thinking, writing and discussing various acts and going onto terrorist training camps to meet people who are interested in the same thing. That's the differentiator in this case for me.