09-09-2009, 03:48 AM
My bolding.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/495687
Questions unanswered in U.K. liquid bomb trial
Sep 09, 2008 04:30 AM
[URL="http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/495687#Comments"]
[/URL]
[/url][url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columnists/94534]Mitch Potter
Europe Bureau
LONDON–Was a Toronto-bound jetliner really in the crosshairs of a British terror ring determined to unleash Al Qaeda-inspired mass murder?
That crucial and vexing question was left unanswered yesterday when a British jury returned irreconcilably deadlocked in the so-called liquid bomb trial, unable to decide whether transatlantic flights from London's Heathrow Airport to Toronto, Montreal and other destinations were at the heart of the case.
In a partial decision on an affair that changed the way the world flies, the jury of eight men and four women instead found three of the eight mostly British-born defendants guilty on a secondary charge – conspiracy to murder. Though the convictions come with maximum life sentences, the determination of guilt is generic and does not establish the actual targets of the 2006 plot.
In so ruling on accused ringleaders Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, Assad Sarwar, 28, and Tanvir Hussain, 27, the jury at Woolwich Crown Court rejected a defence claim the three were merely planning a non-lethal explosion in London as a publicity stunt to draw attention to a supposed documentary they were preparing on the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A fourth defendant, Mohammed Gulzar, was found not guilty on all charges. The jury failed to reach any verdict on the four remaining defendants – Arafat Waheed Khan, Ibrahim Savant, Waheed Zaman and Umar Islam.
The fragmented ruling comes as a mixed blessing to prosecutors, who presented what the Crown regarded as an ironclad case during the three-month trial, detailing a plan to smuggle hydrogen peroxide onto aircraft in soft-drink bottles and combine it with other ingredients to create bombs onboard.
Among the most damning evidence was a series of Al Qaeda-style "martyrdom" videos uncovered by British MI5 and SO15 counter-terrorism teams after they ended an around-the-clock surveillance and swooped down on the plot masters in a series of late-night raids in August 2006.
Air travel was transformed in the immediate aftermath of the arrests with the imposition of sweeping new passenger codes that strictly limited carry-on liquids. British Airways alone was forced to cancel nearly 1,300 flights in the first week of the heightened security alert, as screening crews struggled to cope with the demands of increased scrutiny at Heathrow and other British airports.
"This is still the subject of ongoing proceedings and the prosecution is considering a request for a retrial," the Crown Prosecution Service said in an emailed statement. Prosecutors have until Sept. 26 to decide whether to push for a new trial.
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith put the best face on the partial ruling, saying: "I am indebted to the police and security services who by successfully disrupting this group have saved countless lives."
The case has attracted considerable skeptical commentary in the British media, with some explosives experts publicly doubting whether the would-be bombers could have succeeded in mixing and detonating the volatile liquids in mid-air.
Other U.K. reports have cited sources suggesting U.S. intelligence officials pressed their British counterparts to intercept and arrest the ring prematurely, thereby undermining the quality of evidence.
"There is an inbuilt tension in terror plot investigations because the emphasis has to be on saving lives rather than building open-and-shut cases," said Bob Ayers, a defence and security analyst with the London-based think-tank Chatham House.
"But even so, this is a very weird, confusing outcome. Obviously, the most important thing is the jury ruled that these three men, if not the others, conspired to murder. Whether it was an elegant conspiracy or whether they had a hope in hell of actually achieving it is irrelevant.
"The crime is conspiracy, not the ability to carry it out. It may not seem rational to a guy on the street. But what matters is that these people are taken out of circulation and punished in such a way that the offence is perceived a completely serious," Ayers said.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/495687
Questions unanswered in U.K. liquid bomb trial
Sep 09, 2008 04:30 AM
[URL="http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/495687#Comments"]
[/URL]
[/url][url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columnists/94534]Mitch Potter
Europe Bureau
LONDON–Was a Toronto-bound jetliner really in the crosshairs of a British terror ring determined to unleash Al Qaeda-inspired mass murder?
That crucial and vexing question was left unanswered yesterday when a British jury returned irreconcilably deadlocked in the so-called liquid bomb trial, unable to decide whether transatlantic flights from London's Heathrow Airport to Toronto, Montreal and other destinations were at the heart of the case.
In a partial decision on an affair that changed the way the world flies, the jury of eight men and four women instead found three of the eight mostly British-born defendants guilty on a secondary charge – conspiracy to murder. Though the convictions come with maximum life sentences, the determination of guilt is generic and does not establish the actual targets of the 2006 plot.
In so ruling on accused ringleaders Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, Assad Sarwar, 28, and Tanvir Hussain, 27, the jury at Woolwich Crown Court rejected a defence claim the three were merely planning a non-lethal explosion in London as a publicity stunt to draw attention to a supposed documentary they were preparing on the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A fourth defendant, Mohammed Gulzar, was found not guilty on all charges. The jury failed to reach any verdict on the four remaining defendants – Arafat Waheed Khan, Ibrahim Savant, Waheed Zaman and Umar Islam.
The fragmented ruling comes as a mixed blessing to prosecutors, who presented what the Crown regarded as an ironclad case during the three-month trial, detailing a plan to smuggle hydrogen peroxide onto aircraft in soft-drink bottles and combine it with other ingredients to create bombs onboard.
Among the most damning evidence was a series of Al Qaeda-style "martyrdom" videos uncovered by British MI5 and SO15 counter-terrorism teams after they ended an around-the-clock surveillance and swooped down on the plot masters in a series of late-night raids in August 2006.
Air travel was transformed in the immediate aftermath of the arrests with the imposition of sweeping new passenger codes that strictly limited carry-on liquids. British Airways alone was forced to cancel nearly 1,300 flights in the first week of the heightened security alert, as screening crews struggled to cope with the demands of increased scrutiny at Heathrow and other British airports.
"This is still the subject of ongoing proceedings and the prosecution is considering a request for a retrial," the Crown Prosecution Service said in an emailed statement. Prosecutors have until Sept. 26 to decide whether to push for a new trial.
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith put the best face on the partial ruling, saying: "I am indebted to the police and security services who by successfully disrupting this group have saved countless lives."
The case has attracted considerable skeptical commentary in the British media, with some explosives experts publicly doubting whether the would-be bombers could have succeeded in mixing and detonating the volatile liquids in mid-air.
Other U.K. reports have cited sources suggesting U.S. intelligence officials pressed their British counterparts to intercept and arrest the ring prematurely, thereby undermining the quality of evidence.
"There is an inbuilt tension in terror plot investigations because the emphasis has to be on saving lives rather than building open-and-shut cases," said Bob Ayers, a defence and security analyst with the London-based think-tank Chatham House.
"But even so, this is a very weird, confusing outcome. Obviously, the most important thing is the jury ruled that these three men, if not the others, conspired to murder. Whether it was an elegant conspiracy or whether they had a hope in hell of actually achieving it is irrelevant.
"The crime is conspiracy, not the ability to carry it out. It may not seem rational to a guy on the street. But what matters is that these people are taken out of circulation and punished in such a way that the offence is perceived a completely serious," Ayers said.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.