Welcome to July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Babar Ahmad =“the first applicant” Haroon Rashid Aswat =“the second applicant” Syed Tahla Ahsan = “the third applicant” Mustafa Kamal Mustafa [Abu Hamza] = “the fourth applicant” Adel Abdul Bary = “the fifth applicant” Khaled Al-Fawwaz = “the sixth applicant”
THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Joins the applications brought by the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants;
2. Adjourns its examination of the application brought by the second applicant;
3. Declares admissible the fifth and sixth applicants’ complaints concerning detention at ADX Florence, the imposition of special administrative measures post-trial, and the length of their possible sentences, and the remainder of their applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of conditions at ADX Florence and the imposition of special administrative measures post-trial if the first, third, fifth and sixth applicants were extradited to the United States;
5. Holds that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the length of their possible sentences if the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were extradited to the United States;
6. Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicants should not be extradited until further notice.
ADX Florence info, including the names of the many Al-Qaeda operatives currently incarcerated there:
Group: J7 Forum Team
Member No.: 598
Joined: 5-July 07
English video-link supergrass Saajid Badat testifying against someone he's never met in the US:
He told the court that he was first enticed to jihad after meeting Babar Ahmad, a suspected terrorist, and a group of extremists known as the Tooting Circle when he ran away from his Gloucester home to live in London at the age of 17. In 2005 he was jailed after admitting plotting to blow up an aircraft with Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”. Four years later, his sentence was cut to 11 years after he agreed to turn “supergrass”.
Badat is thought to have testified in Britain against about 18 other terrorists and is expected to testify against Mohammed when he faces trial in the US.
On Monday, it was disclosed that after agreeing to co-operate fully in 2008, Badat said he did not want to testify against Babar Ahmad. The court heard that he had no choice in the matter and must give evidence if asked.
6 September 2012 Last updated at 12:08 Terror suspect Babar Ahmad faces possible private trial By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent
The BBC went to the High Court for the right to interview Babar Ahmad A British businessman has told the BBC he wants to bring a private prosecution against two UK terrorism suspects.
Karl Watkin said he wanted to prosecute Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, rather than them face extradition to the US.
Mr Ahmad has been detained without trial for a record eight years. The US accuse him and Mr Ahsan of running a major jihadist website.
The BBC understands both men have now confirmed their involvement in the website in the UK.
Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are accused of involvement in Azzam.com, a website and publishing business which between 1996 and 2002 was at the heart of the radicalisation of English-speaking Muslims.
Although the website was based and operated from London, it was technically hosted in the US. Neither of the suspects has been charged with an offence in the UK relating to Azzam, despite the fact that the investigation by US authorities includes evidence seized by the Metropolitan Police. The CPS has refused to prosecute the men.
Mr Watkin, who is based in Newcastle and has interests in China and Australia, told the BBC he instructed his lawyers to prosecute because the alleged crimes took place in the UK and the CPS has not already acted.
He is among campaigners who oppose the 2003 Extradition Act, which critics say is unfair to British citizens.
Mr Watkins said: "I don't know whether these men are totally innocent or as guilty as hell - that's for a court to determine with the benefit of all the evidence.
Watch Babar Ahmad's Newsnight interview in full. Reporter: Dominic Casciani, Producer: Steve Swann
"But as Britons living and working here, having potentially committed serious crimes here, there is no question, they should be tried here.
"The public interest demands it. We do not need to outsource our criminal justice system to America.
"Between them they've spent 14 years in British jails yet have not been charged with breaking any British law - that's crazy.
"Justice delayed is justice denied. So I want to see Ahmad and Ahsan in the dock."
Mr Watkin's lawyers have filed papers at court seeking a judge's approval to summons both men to a trial which he would pay for.
Conspiracy to provide material support to the Taliban and Chechen mujahideen Providing material support to terrorists Conspiracy to kill Money laundering
The lawyers have also written to the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC, asking his permission for a private prosecution under terrorism laws.
Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they can prove that it is in the public interest to do so. The DPP has the power to intervene to take on the case or to stop it.
If the DPP or a judge were to halt the proposed proceedings, the decision could face legal challenge, potentially halting the extradition.
The Babar Ahmad case, and the lack of a prosecution in the UK, has proved so controversial that it triggered a Parliamentary debate.
The BBC later challenged a government ban on interviewing Mr Ahmad over the case. The High Court ruled that the case and the issues it raised was so exceptional it was in the public interest for Mr Ahmad to be filmed in prison.
PROPOSED PRIVATE PROSECUTION
Offences against the Person Act Terrorism Act offences including fund-raising and inciting terror Proposed prosecution relies on same evidence as US case - but suspects have now admitted involvement in activities of Azzam
Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are waiting for a final decision from the European Court of Human Rights on whether they should be sent to the US.
Mr Watkin said: "I know I am not alone - 149,000 people have already petitioned Parliament, demanding a British trial of these two British men.
"If the tables were turned, the Americans undoubtedly would have tried their own citizens in America, many years ago. It is a disgrace that our prosecuting agencies have refused to do so. I smell politics, not justice, at play.
"I am acting where politicians, the Metropolitan Police and the CPS have failed." Earlier this year the CPS confirmed to the BBC that it has only seen "a small number of documents gathered as evidence by the police in this country" and those had been insufficient for a prosecution.
Both the courts and Home Secretary have approved the extraditions.
Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad extradition approved Babar Ahmad, 37, suspected terrorist Babar Ahmad, 37, has been held in UK custody without trial for nearly eight years
The European Court of Human Rights has given its final approval for the extradition of five major terrorism suspects from the UK to the US.
The court's highest judges said they would not re-open the cases of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Babar Ahmad and others.
The decision means that the extradition of the men, wanted for years by the US, is likely to happen within weeks.
Each man said they would face inhumane treatment in the United States if they were sent there.
In a brief statement, the Home Office said that it welcomed the decision and would work to ensure the extraditions would happen as quickly as possible. Abu Hamza is accused of planning a terror training camp in the US and assisting hostage-taking in Yemen. The US says that Babar Ahmad and his co-accused, Syed Talha Ahsan, ran a jihadist website in London that provided material support for terrorism. Adel Abdul Bary, Khaled Al Fawwaz are accused of being aides to Osama bin Laden in London.
In a statement, the Strasbourg court said: "On 10 April 2012 the European Court of Human Rights held, in the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, that there would be no violation of the applicants' rights if extradited to stand trial in the United States.
"On 9/10 July 2012, five of the applicants lodged a request for referral of the case to the Grand Chamber. Today the Grand Chamber Panel decided to reject the request. This means that the Chamber judgment of 10 April 2012 is now final."
Abu Hamza had alleged that he faced inhumane and degrading treatment if imprisoned for life without possibility of parole. The other four men, Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled Al Fawwaz said that they faced an inhumane regime of solitary confinement in a special "supermax" prison.
Reacting to the decision, Babar Ahmad's family said: "The decision of the Grand Chamber is largely irrelevant to us as this matter should never have come to this stage had the British police done their job almost nine years ago and provided the material seized from Babar's home to the CPS, rather than secretly passing it to their US counterparts."
"The CPS is now in possession of all that material which forms the basis of the US indictment and should immediately prosecute Babar for conduct allegedly committed in the UK. There is enormous public interest in Babar being prosecuted in the UK, as reflected by the fact that almost 150,000 members of the British public signed a government e-petition to this effect last year.
"Moreover, a British businessman Karl Watkins has recently commenced his own private prosecution of Babar based on the principle of the matter."
"We now call on the home secretary to immediately undertake to halt any extradition until the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a decision on this material that been in his possession for several months."
Radical Islamist cleric Abu Hamza and four other terror suspects lose bid to halt extradition
Five men accused of terrorism charges – including the hook handed preacher Abu Hamza and the controversially detained suspects Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan – lost their last minute appeal to stop their imminent extradition to the United States today.
The decision by two High Court judges to proceed with the extradition was welcomed by the Government but was greeted with consternation by those who had campaigned for Ahsan and Ahmad to be tried in the UK.
The five men are all wanted by American prosecutors on a variety of unrelated terror charges. Abu Hamza, a firebrand jihadist preacher who once turned Finsbury Park mosque into his personal fiefdom, is accused of trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregan and helping Islamists take and kill hostages in the Yemen. Khalid al-Fawwaz and Adel Abdul Bary, who have been held without charge since the late 1990s, are accused of being members of Al-Qa’ida in London who helped the group take responsibility for the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa.
Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan are alleged to have set up and run a number of pro-jihadi websites that operated under the banner Azzam Publications and encouraged a US Navy sailor to leak them classified information.
All five men have fought lengthy legal battles to halt their extraditions to the United States. While Hamza, al-Fawwaz and Bary’s campaigns elicited little public sympathy, the plight of Ahmad and Ahsan gained considerable support following concerns that the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to try the men in a British court for alleged crimes that were committed on UK soil.
Last week the European Court of Human Right threw out their final appeal against extradition. With their removal to the United States imminent, all five men launched their own proceedings in the High Court to seek a last minute injunction. Bary and al-Fawwaz argued that new evidence had come to light in their cases but the judges – Sir John Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely – dismissed this argument saying it did not alter the allegations against them . Hamza claimed he was too ill to stand trial in the United State – something the judges ruled was “wholly unconvincing” arguing that he would be given adequate access to treatment in the United States.
Ahmad and Ahsan contended that the Crown Prosecution Service had acted unlawfully in deciding not to prosecute them in the UK and sought judicial review of that decision. But the judges ruled that the CPS decision was legal.
The judges said there was a “strong public interest” in seeing extraditions for serious crimes take place and they were critical of how long it had taken the courts to come to a final decision. “It is unacceptable that extradition proceedings should take more than a relatively short time to be measured in months not years,2 they said in their judgement. “It is not just to anyone that proceedings such as these should last between 14 and 8 years.”
The Home Office welcomed the decision and said they would press ahead with the men’s extraditions “as quickly as possible”.
However in a statement read out by former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, Babar Ahmad criticised the decision.
“Today I have lost my 8 year and 2 month battle against extradition to the US,” he said. “I would like to thank all those over the years who supported me and my family: lawyers, politicians, journalists and members of the public from all walks of life. By exposing the fallacy of the UK’s extradition arrangements with the US, I leave with my head held high having won the moral victory."
Exclusive: Police secretly handed the FBI evidence on Babar Ahmad while claiming their own case against him was collapsing due to lack of evidence Court documents unearthed in the US reveal how senior detectives regularly carried out searches and enquiries on behalf of the FBI
Metropolitan Police detectives agreed to nine separate requests from FBI agents to provide information on Babar Ahmad at a time when the case against the long-imprisoned terror suspect was collapsing because of a lack of evidence, The Independent can reveal.
Court documents unearthed in the United States reveal how senior detectives involved in the initial investigation of Mr Ahmad regularly carried out searches and enquiries on behalf of the FBI and even sent American agents two encrypted floppy disks that were found at the south Londoner’s home.
The data set, including the disks, forms part of a dossier of evidence that was sent across the Atlantic but was never seen by the Crown Prosecution Service which dropped the initial charges against Ahmad paving the way for is long battle against extradition to the United States.
Critics of Ahmad’s extradition say not enough was done to make sure that the 58-year-old was tried in a British court and that his prosecution has been effectively outsourced to the United States.
Both the Metropolitan Police and the Government have refused to be drawn on the exact nature of the cooperation between British and American detectives following Ahmad’s arrest in December 2003.
But documents filed in a Connecticut court reveal how multiple requests were made by an FBI agent under mutual legal assistance laws which allow foreign governments to ask British police to conduct investigations on their behalf.
The papers come from a trial four years ago in the city of New Haven in which Hassan Abu-Jihaad, a US navy sailor, was convicted of espionage charges. Abu-Jihaad, a convert to Islam, was found guilty of leaking classified ship movements to Azzam Publications – a series of pro-jihadi websites that American prosecutors allege was run by Babar Ahmad and another British man facing imminent extradition Syed Talha Ahsan. The alleged offences took place from late 2000 to late 2001.
At the trial Detective Sergeant Ian Vickers and Detective Sergeant Ian Elgeti, two Met Police officers involved in the original British investigation into Babar Ahmad, gave evidence. During his testimony DS Vickers stated that he was first alerted to the FBI’s interest in Ahmad in late December 2003, a few weeks after his arrest on 2 December. His first point of contact was special agent Craig Bowling, who spoke to him via teleconference and later made a trip to the UK around February 2004.
Asked to describe how the mutual legal assistance treaty system worked he explained that the United States needed to contact to Home Office and request help. “As a result of that,” he added, “If everything is correct and it’s being applied and asked for in the correct manner, then a letter of request goes through to a case officer, normally a detective, to make inquiries, seize exhibits on behalf of the United States.”
Asked how many times such requests were made he replied: “I think there were a total of nine”. He added: “I coordinated that and organized that myself.”
In the same testimony DS Vickers also confirmed that he personally oversaw the transfer of multiple exhibits to the United States including the floppy disks found on Babar Ahmad’s desk.
The decision by the Met Police to send evidence to detectives in the States has been both controversial and shrouded in secrecy. The Attorney General has refused to “confirm or deny” whether dossiers were passed abroad whilst the Metropolitan Police have declined to comment while Mr Ahmad is continuing to fight his extradition to the United States in the UK courts. Neither the Met Police nor the CPS were willing to comment on the new details uncovered in the American court documents when contacted by The Independent.
Mr Ahmad’s legal team had long argued that the CPS should have seen all the evidence against their client before deciding to drop the case. That decision not to press charges against Mr Ahmad was further complicated by the fact that he was viciously beaten by his arresting officers – an incident which the Metropolitan Police later admitted during civil proceedings.
It was only in November 2011 that the CPS admitted to Mr Ahmad’s legal team that they were never shown the entirely of all the evidence seized in the raid on their client’s house. After sending a team to the United States, Mr Ahmad’s lawyers forwarded a new dossier of evidence to the CPS in the spring of this year in the hopes that they might initiate a new prosecution that would keep him in Britain. At the same time a businessman from Newcastle who campaigns against Britain’s extradition laws tried to launch his own private prosecution of Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan. However the Director of Public Prosecutions has rejected both attempts citing a lack of evidence as the reason for his decision.
Green MP Caroline Lucas, who has campaigned for Babar Ahmad, called on the CPS and Met Police to provide a full account of the cooperation between American and British law enforcement following his arrest.
"Last year I exposed the fact that the CPS hadn’t even seen, let alone investigated properly, evidence against Babar Ahmad,” she said. “Now we have this extraordinary confirmation that, at a time when the CPS was arguing he couldn’t face trial in the UK because of an "absence of evidence", British police were in thrall to the FBI and handing over that very evidence without even looking at it themselves. We urgently need to know who directed and authorised this scandalous circumvention of the CPS - and I reiterate my call for a full public inquiry into what has occurred."
Group: J7 Forum Team
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06
JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES
In the Westminster Magistrates-� Court
Judge Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Ruling on the application of Mr Karl Watkin MBE for the issue of process -v- Mr Babar Ahmad & Mr Syed Talha Ahsan
3 October 2012
I have considered two informations dated 23rd August 2012 submitted by Ward Hadaway solicitors on behalf of Karl Watkin MBE. Mr Watkin seeks to summons Mr Babar Ahmad and Mr Syed Talha Ahsan to face allegations of solicitation to murder, contrary to Section 4 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is said that the two proposed defendants played a leading role in the administration of websites that, among other things, encouraged engagement in violent Jihad, pursing the death of -�non-believers-� if necessary.
Section 1 MCA 1980 says:- 1 Issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest
(1) On an information being laid before a justice of the peace that a person has, or is suspected of having, committed an offence, the justice may issue-- (a) a summons directed to that person requiring him to appear before a magistrates-� court to answer the information, or ( a warrant to arrest that person and bring him before a magistrates-� court.
It will be seen from the section that the justice -�may-� issue a summons. There is a discretion. That discretion is neither unfettered nor unlimited.
In R v West London Magistrates-� Court, ex p. Klahn  1 WLR 933 it was said:
-�The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. As Lord Goddard CJ stated in Rex v Wilson at PP46 -- 47:
-�A summons is the result of a judicial act. It is the outcome of a complaint which has been made to a magistrate and upon which he must bring his judicial mind to bear and decide whether or not on the material before him he is justified in issuing a summons-�.
It would appear that he should at the very least ascertain:
(1) Whether the allegation is of an offence known to the law and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; (2) That the offence alleged is not -�out of time-�; (3) That the court has jurisdiction; (4) Whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute.
In addition to these specific matters it is clear that he may and indeed should consider whether the allegation is vexatious: see Rex v Bros -� Since the matter is properly within the magistrate-�s discretion it would be inappropriate to attempt to lay down an exhaustive catalogue of matters to which consideration should be given. Plainly he should consider the whole of the relevant circumstances-�.. The magistrate must be able to satisfy himself that it is a proper case in which to issue a summons-�.
The solicitors have helpfully provided a bundle of papers, including the signed witness statements of Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan, taken at Long Lartin prison on 5th August 2012. I return later to the content of those witness statements.
I am satisfied: that the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute [this is not an offence that requires the consent of the Attorney General]; that the court has jurisdiction to grant process; that the allegations are of an offence known to law; and that the offence is not -�out of time-�, the alleged offence being an indictable offences.
I doubt that the informations alone disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of soliciting to murder. The information as far as Mr Ahmad says:
-�As part of Mr Ahmad-�s activities in administering and maintaining these websites he participated in the uploading of a large number of articles which encouraged readers to engage in violent Jihad, pursuing the death of -�non-believers-� if necessary, in areas of the world including Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Balkans-�.
The information states as far as Mr Ahsan is concerned:
-�As part of Mr Ahsan-�s activities in administering and maintaining these websites he participated in the uploading of a large number of articles which encouraged readers to engage in violent Jihad, pursuing the death of -�non-believers-� if necessary, in areas of the world including Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Balkans-�.
Without more these informations do not provide the essential ingredients of soliciting to murder.
Moreover, as referred to in Klahn, before issuing process against a defendant I am also required to consider whether an allegation is vexatious, and the whole of the relevant circumstances.
In the circumstances of these applications, which are highly unusual, it would have been expected that the defence would supply materials sufficient to show a genuine intention to prosecute. In fact the material supplied does not provide a sufficient connection between the proposed defendants and the material complained of. There is no direct evidence that either Mr Ahmad or Mr Ahsan solicited murder. As far as nexus is concerned Mr Ahmad says:
-�I was never asked in the police station or thereafter whether I was involved in the administration of azzam.com and qoqaz.net websites.
I have now been asked this question. Both websites were taken offline in June 2002. I have no hesitation in confirming that I continued to be involved in the administration of both websites until a date I am no longer certain of in Spring 2002-�.
Mr Ahsan says:
-�I admit when requested I provided assistance with some of the running of the Azzam publication activities whilst a student between the mid 90s and 2001-�.
The failure to provide evidence is far from determinative, and in most applications for a summons is not required. However here it is relevant to the question as to whether Mr Watkin genuinely intends to prosecute this case.
In this case I am satisfied that the purpose of these proposed proceedings is to stop or delay extradition of the two named proposed defendants to the USA. The application is made many years after the events complained of. It appears to have the cooperation and support of the proposed defendants themselves. It comes as almost all other ways of resisting extradition have been exhausted. Decision
The application is an abuse of the process of the court.
Bearing in mind all the factors that have been drawn to my attention, I am satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice to issue these proceedings. I have a discretion, and I exercise it by refusing the application.
The websites, which were operational 'between the mid 90s and 2001' were used to garner/recruit angry young Muslims in a similar operation as 'al-Muhajiroun'....
The US evidence against Ahmad featured 'email correspondence with a US sailor serving in the Gulf, who was 'honorably discharged' two years later!
Internet has 'given Al Qaeda wings' claims BBC potboiler Shock discovery - terrorists use computers too By John Lettice Published Wednesday 27th July 2005 12:29 GMT
... The evidence presented in the US indictment of Ahmad (some background and a link here) is actually sketchy.The most apparently damning is email correspondence with a US sailor serving in the Gulf, but while the traffic presented in the indictment appears to indicate some case against the serviceman, it doesn't establish one against Ahmad. We hold no brief for Ahmad, but the point to take away here is that the case for Ahmad's extradition is proceeding (by the terms of the currently one-sided US-UK extradition treaty) on the basis that we in the UK accept that the US Government has a case against Ahmad under US law, and that we are satisfied that he will receive fair justice if he is extradited there. Ahmad's defence points out that he has not been charged with terrorism offences under UK law (if evidence of incitement of a US serviceman existed, then the Terrorism Act 2000 could well apply), and it does not appear that the serviceman, although no longer in the US Navy, has been charged.
Apparently the leak by the US Salior 'to a Web site in London' came in 2000, just months after the 2000 USS Cole bombing. The US Salior has now been charged:@
Ex-Sailor Gets 10 Years In Terror Case A former Navy sailor convicted of leaking details about ship movements and the best ways to attack them was sentenced Friday to the maximum 10 years in prison.
U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz said Hassan Abu-Jihaad[?], of Phoenix, betrayed his country and endangered his fellow sailors.
"I cannot really overstate the seriousness of this crime," Kravitz said [9 years after the alleged crime]. The leak "does constitute a fundamental betrayal of your country and of your oath. You endangered your colleagues, you endangered your vessel and other vessels and other sailors, and you endangered your country."
Abu-Jihaad was convicted last year of disclosing classified national defense information. Prosecutors labeled him a traitor who was trying to help foreign terrorists replicate the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors.
Abu-Jihaad was a signalman aboard the USS Benfold who was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2002. He was accused of passing along information including the makeup of his Navy battle group and a drawing of the formation the group would use to pass through the dangerous Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf in April 2001.
The ship was not attacked.
Abu-Jihaad did not speak during the hearing. His attorney, Dan LaBelle, said his client maintained his innocence and appreciated the fairness of the court.
He said his client's demeanor in court has been "very remarkable."
Prosecutor William Nardini encouraged Kravitz to consider Abu-Jihaad's actions, not his demeanor in court. He said the former sailor praised the Cole bombing as an operation carried out by martyrs.
"That is a twisted view of the world," Nardini said.
Abu-Jihaad believed engaging in a fight against his own country would make him a martyr, Nardini said.
"His alliances are not with America but with the American enemies" Nardini said. "He embraced those enemies. When he did that he betrayed his oath, he betrayed his security clearance and he betrayed his country."
Kravitz said Abu-Jihaad's sentence should be a deterrent for anyone who supports terrorism.
"We happen to be engaged in a very different struggle right now," Kravitz said. "It's really a struggle about the fundamentals of freedom. That struggle will go on for quite some time and we need to ensure the people that are part of that struggle on our end uphold the oath and protect classified information from getting into the hands of those who stand opposed to those concepts of freedom."
Abu-Jihaad was also convicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists, but Kravitz overturned the conviction last month, citing the language of the law.
Prosecutors are considering whether to appeal Kravitz's ruling throwing out the terrorism support charge, said acting U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy.
"A harsher sentence would seem reasonable but the judge was constrained by the statute in this case," Dannehy said.
The leak to a Web site in London that openly espoused violent jihad against the U.S. came just months after the 2000 USS Cole bombing, prosecutors noted.
Prosecutors say investigators discovered files on a computer disk recovered from a suspected terrorist supporter's home in London that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists.
Ahmad lived with his parents, where the computer file was allegedly found, and was arrested in London, and is to be extradited to the U.S.
This post has been edited by Sinclair on Oct 5 2012, 06:45 PM
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)