Britain frees second AQ terrorist on bail
posted at 8:30 am on July 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Maybe it’s like Frito-Lay potato chips; Britain can’t just free one terrorist. The UK allowed “U”, an Algerian suspected of masterminding multiple al-Qaeda plots, to go free on bail after being held for seven years, the second such terrorist released in a month. Western agencies had tracked “U” well before 9/11, and his attempt to pass through Britain on a false passport in 2001 gave them the opportunity to keep him locked up:
An Algerian accused by Britain of links to Osama bin Laden and bomb plots in the United States and France has been freed on bail after more than seven years in prison, a spokeswoman for a British tribunal said on Thursday.
The man, who under British legal restrictions can be identified only as “U,” is the second senior militant suspect to be freed since mid-June. …
Ahmed Ressam, convicted of a plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium, was carrying U’s phone number on him when he was arrested with 60 kg (130 lb) of explosives on the Canadian-U.S. border on December 14, 1999.
The United States sought U’s extradition from Britain but withdrew the request in 2005 after Ressam ceased cooperating with prosecutors building a case against U.
Germany and France described U as the man who incited a December 2000 plot to bomb a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg. The two countries convicted four and 10 men, respectively, in connection with that conspiracy.
Britain wanted to deport U, but the courts have dragged their heels on that question for years. Instead, the man whom intel officials say trained AQ terrorists in Afghanistan before 9/11 now can relax in the English countryside. The court declined to discuss the conditions of his bail, but the first detainee released has to remain in his home for 22 hours a day and cannot use cell phones or the Internet. That leaves open plenty of possibilities for both Abu Qatada and U to connect with their networks once again through intermediaries and pick up where they left off in the war.
Once again, this points out the limitations in fighting terrorism in a strict law-enforcement model. No one doubts that law enforcement has to be part of this fight, but when governments have to release known terrorists who traveled on false passports, then something has gone off the rails. He should have been deported at the least, and within days, not years. Releasing a foreign terrorist on bail after seven years of inaction when he presented false credentials is the height of politically-correct lunacy.
Nations have the right to defend themselves. They are not required to show hospitality to known terrorists using phony identities. Unfortunately, Britain’s action puts more than the UK at risk.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It’s not going to get any better soon.
2theright on July 3, 2008 at 8:48 AM
This is the same country that used to offer theives the choice of hanging or Australia.
Akzed on July 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM
It confirms our decision to throw the British out of our country a few years ago and forge ahead on our own…
sabbott on July 3, 2008 at 8:54 AM
The UK court system is a vision of the future for us, should liberals in our government have the power to appoint the judges that they favor.
This is the court system which informs leftists like Steven Breyer, a douchebag of the highest order and Clinton appointee. Wait, never mind who appointed him - the GOP appointed two of the four judges (Souter and the apparently senile Stevens) who voted in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment last week.
We’re so screwed.
Also: needless to say, this man should have been quietly put to death, like a rabid dog. Until we take these murderous vermin seriously, things will go badly for us.
Jaibones on July 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM
.
Now, apply that same logic to the Guantanamo detainees, and you have a glimpse at what liberals want to do to us.
Think_b4_speaking on July 3, 2008 at 9:16 AM
This is also the same country who favors Obama as our next president over McCain by a 3:1 margin. Maybe they gave “U” bail so he could run off to America and become Barry’s VP.
Time to stick a fork in the Brits.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM
… the second such terrorist rekeased (typo - released) in a month. Western agencies had tracked “U” well before 9/11 …
I’m sure peace loving man will just quietly go about his business of worshipping five times a day. There’s nothing to worry about, and if you ARE worried, then … then, you’re a muslim hater, and, and that’s a hate crime! (points finger) HATE CRIME!
Yeah, blowing up trains is ok, just don’t suspect anybody of doing it, that’s the REAL crime.
That leaves open plenty of possibilities for both Abu Qatada and U to connect with their networks once again through intermediaries and pick up where they left off in the war.
All the while laughing their heads off (ooooops, pun!) at the stupid infidels who set them free. If they pull off an attack, these judges need to be held accountable.
Tony737 on July 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM
… something has gone off the rails.
Funny you should say that, because I predict a train bombing in Londonistan’s near future, with U’s fingerprints all over it.
… is the height of politically-correct lunacy.
Coming soon to a city near you! Thanks, Lefties!
Tony737 on July 3, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Amen to that. The political class debates the wisdom of a “law enforcement” approach to terrorism over the military approach, while events like this prove that not only is the law-enforcement model less effective, it’s the only system under which the terrorists have a chance of accomplishing their goals. Dead terrorists don’t get released early by idiotic judges, and any value to their evil cause that might come from “martyring” them is far outweighed by the value of a released senior operative coming home to share his experience, enjoy the adulation of his comrades, and recruit more young people into the terrorist fold.
In order for terrorism to prevail, it needs a way to keep its most experienced operatives alive, and a way to regroup in safety after it suffers losses. It needs an aura of immortality - the impression that the terrorists can never be defeated, that the campaign of murder will never be over, producing an accelerated version of the “war weariness” that affects any free society engaged in a violent conflict. The objective is to make the targeted citizens conclude that submission to the terrorists is more reasonable than continued resistance. Treating terrorism as a law-enforcement matter provides exactly these benefits to the enemy. Law enforcement is, by definition, a maintenance activity, not an energetic application of force designed to achieve a finite objective.
We can never really “win” the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, or even a war on child abuse or pedophilia, and we don’t empower our police forces with the idea that these things can be utterly and totally eliminated by a certain date. Instead, the police system is designed to reduce these crimes to a minimum level that society can tolerate (by which I mean society can go on about its business - obviously even one child murder is morally intolerable.) Since organized terrorism can never be reduced to a tolerable level, treating it as a law enforcement matter is doomed to fail, and the terror masters will slowly, inevitably, get what they want… starting with domestic leadership that openly states it plans to negotiate with them.
Doctor Zero on July 3, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Coming soon to a country near you.
roux on July 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I’m sure he’s learned his lesson by now and is reformed, especially when he gets back with his AQ buddies and explains to them that they’ve been wrong all along.
abinitioadinfinitum on July 3, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Agree with you on the unwinnablity of the War on Nouns.
I think it can but it would require doing non-liberal things like deporting all Muslims and then enforcing a travel ban. Isolating the Muslim world and weakening it. Muslims can opt-out of jihad if they feel themselves too marginalised to wage war.
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Whatever happened to NIMBY?
Maquis on July 3, 2008 at 4:59 PM
C’mon. It’s not like he called anyone “honkey” or something.
andycanuck on July 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Look on the bright side…maybe the Moops will be made content with this action and delay some planned assault.
BL@KBIRD on July 3, 2008 at 10:38 PM