DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 3: the War on Terror

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2002 Section 3: The aW r on Terror Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 3: The aW r on Terror" (2002). Supreme Court Preview. 146. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/146 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview THE WAR ON TERRORISM In This Section: Bush Write OffConss, Takes Reims in War Law Sorr Question the Comtitutonlity of the NsPident's Daision to Fight Temmsm on US. Soil His Way, Wthout Laawk em'Apprnoal David G. Savage 73 A shcrft Defends A nti-Tenrm Steps; Cil L irties Gaoups' A ttacks 'Only A id Tennsts,' Senate Panl Td Dan Eggen 77 Lirty and d Puruitof Temmts Charles Lane 80 Ideas & Tncd: Exactie DecisioM; A Penhantfor Secwy Linda Greenhouse 83 Hzstonialy, Laws Bend in TirE of War, Rehnquist Says; Cxts: Chieflustia COntend Jdigs A ?v Indined to Back the Gozernrrnt in Crises. L inedn's Suspension ofHaleas Capu is Cited David G. Savage 86 Natioad Securty State (AntitersmA ct of 2001, Cad Librties, and GoernrEnt Inustigatzors of Tenr David Cole 88 Security Versus O Lirties Richard A. Posner 92 War on TerrorMakes for Old Tists inJustie Sytem Katharine Q. Seelye 95 Tracs ofTerwr The Detaines; Lawe's A ue Owr Rights of a Ctizen Seized on Enemy Land Katharine Q. Seelye 98 Hding Pattem- Why Congess Must Stop A shcmft's A lien Detentions Jeffrey Rosen 100 A shcrft Is Right to DetainSuspects in Tenor Pal Griffin Bell 104 Jud US. May jailMaterial Vtases; N. Y Ruling Conflias with Decision in Pnor Case in SarE FederalDistrict Steve Fainaru 106 71 Jude Odes US. to Razse Narris of 9/11 Detainees Neil A. Lewis 108 Military Tnbmals: Suaft Judgnrnts in Dire Tirs Joan Biskupic and Richard Willing 111 US. Adds Legal Rights in Tnibuna; NewRuks AIoAllawLeuay onEidence John Mintz / 116 Haing zeir Day in (a Military) Capt Robert H Bork 119 Justice Cn't Be Done in Saut Why Publicand Pnss Haw a Right to Witness Proeng #Military Tnbuals Edward J. Klaris 122 Supvw Court Blocks L imit on Secrt Hearings Lyle Denniston 127 Ruling Fawn LiritedA ams to 9/11 Data Benjamin Weiser 129 72 Bush Writes Off Congress, Takes Reins in War, Law: Some Question the Constitutionality of the President's Decision to Fight Terrorism on U.S. Soil His Way, Without Lawmakers' Approval. Los Angeles Times December 10, 2001 David G. Savage The message from the Senate Democrats over a series of orders issued by President to the Bush White House last week was: Bush and his attorney general that expand Let's be partners in the war against the government's power to fight terrorism terrorism. at home--from detaining hundreds of foreigners to holding military tribunals to "That's how the founders and our prosecute noncitizens. Constitution intended it. Under our system, none of us has a monopoly on Truman's Action in 1952 Was Overruled authority," Judiciary Committee Chairman On the question of presidential authority, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) told Atty. Gen. the Republicans' favorite role model is John Ashcroft. Democratic President Franklin D. The American people will have greater Roosevelt. During World War II, confidence if the rules for this new war Roosevelt ordered the detention of are "undertaken by partners in our Japanese Americans on the West Coast country's effort against a common and and a secret military trial for eight Nazi terrible enemy," said Leahy, the saboteurs who had landed on the Atlantic Democrats' point man. beaches. The Bush team responded with a clear but The wartime experience of FDR's polite "No, thank you." successor, however, and the legal precedent it set for a foreign-domestic "The constitutional founders didn't expect delineation of presidential power, is often us to have a war conducted by forgotten. committee," Ashcroft told his former Judiciary Committee colleagues. "The In 1952, with U.S. troops fighting in Constitution vests the president with the Korea, President Harry S. Truman seized extraordinary and sole authority, as control of the nation's steel mills when commander in chief, to lead our nation in unions went on strike and ordered military times of war." troops to keep the mills operating. The president cited his powers as commander The back-and-forth exchange at a in chief, but the Supreme Court ruled he committee hearing Thursday illustrated had gone too far. the growing power struggle playing out in Washington over a war whose boundaries Justice Robert H. Jackson, who had are yet to be drawn. served under FDR, said the president's wartime power is limited on the home No one has questioned the president's front, especially when he acts on his own. authority to send U.S. troops into battle in Truman had not asked for congressional Afghanistan. But controversy has arisen approval before seizing the mills. 73 "We should not use this occasion to counter-terrorism legislation. But on other circumscribe, much less contract, the efforts--including the military trials--the lawful role of the President as administration has said that it can proceed Commander in Chief," Jackson wrote. "I without the approval of Congress. should indulge [him] the widest latitude . "We're fighting a war," Bush said last . to command the [military], at least when week about the military tribunals. "I need turned against the outside world for the to have that extraordinary option at my security of our society. But when it is fingertips." turned inward, it should have no such indulgence. His command power is not The Senate Democrats say they can see a such an absolute, . but is subject to need for this "extraordinary option" but limitations consistent with a constitutional do not see why it should not be Republic whose law and policy-making established-- and restricted--by law. branch is a representative Congress." On Capitol Hill, this dispute is partisan Nevertheless, Bush and his advisors are and personal. determined to fight terrorism on their The Senate Judiciary Committee has been own terms and without interference by the scene of bitter battles between liberals Congress. and conservatives and, as the GOP And so long as the public strongly senator from Missouri, Ashcroft was one supports the president's efforts, Congress of its most aggressively conservative is unlikely to stand in the way, or even members. demand a voice in making policy. Concern When Bush chose him as attorney general, for civil liberties aside, the political risk of all but one of Ashcroft's former appearing to side with the terrorists could Democratic colleagues voted against him. be too high. 17isconsin's Sen. Russell D. Feingold said On Sept. 14, just three days after the he knew Ashcroft personally and did not terrorist attacks, Congress passed a think he would be the firebrand that broadly worded resolution authorizing critics had conjured up. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate Since Sept. 11, however, Feingold has force" to retaliate and to "prevent any emerged as Ashcroft's sharpest critic in future acts" of international terrorism. the Senate, and during Thursday's hearing, Since then, the government has detained they engaged in several frosty exchanges. more than 1,200 suspects and refused to Ashcroft also has a testy relationship with say who they are and why they are being Leahy. During the Clinton years, Leahy held. New rules allow federal agents to chafed at the moves by Ashcroft and listen in on some jailhouse conversations other conservative Republicans to block between these suspects and their lawyers. the president's nominees to the federal Ashcroft has increased FBI surveillance of courts. This year, the two have switched groups that might have links to terrorists. sides, and Leahy and the Democrats are And the White House has said it may use blocking a series of Bush nominees. military tribunals to prosecute some noncitizens charged with terrorism Many Disapprove of Military Tribunals offenses. In general, the senators have mastered the Grudgingly, Ashcroft negotiated with art of smiling through clenched teeth. But Leahy to win congressional approval of on the historic and controversial questions surrounding the nation's response to the 74 Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration tribunals, but "now they want to get in the officials have generated animosity by front seat and drive," one administration making clear that they are not interested in official said after the hearing. collaborating with Congress. Dispute Over Power in Wartime Not White House lawyers have been New determined to assert the president's legal This clash also reflects a profound and power. They wrote the Nov. 13 order recurring constitutional dispute over who authorizing military trials and gave it an has the power to set the rules in wartime. unusually broad reach. The Constitution seems to give authority It allows the president to detain and try in to Congress. It says, "Congress shall have military court noncitizens if they have the power to declare war ... and to make "engaged in, aided or abetted, or rules concerning captures on land and conspired to commit" acts of terrorism. water." Congress also has the power "to The order also appeared to close the define and punish . offenses against the courthouse door to any appeals. "Military law of nations . [and] to constitute tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction" tribunals inferior to the United States." over these individuals, and they may not "seek any remedy or maintain any In contrast to these broad rule-making proceeding .
Recommended publications
  • The Hidden Cost of September 11 Liz Fekete

    The Hidden Cost of September 11 Liz Fekete

    Racism: the hidden cost of September 11 Liz Fekete Racism: the hidden cost of September 11 Liz Fekete A special issue of the European Race Bulletin Globalisation has set up a monolithic economic system; September 11 threatens to engender a monolithic political culture. Together, they spell the end of civil society. – A. Sivanandan, Director, Institute of Race Relations Institute of Race Relations 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS Tel: 020 7837 0041 Fax: 020 7278 0623 Web: www.irr.org.uk Email: [email protected] Liz Fekete is head of European research at the Insitute of Race Relations where she edits the European Race Bulletin. It is published quarterly and available on subscription from the IRR (£10 for individuals, £25 for institutions). •••••• This report was compiled with the help of Saba Bahar, Jenny Bourne, Norberto Laguia Casaus, Barry Croft, Rhona Desmond, Imogen Forster, Haifa Hammami, Lotta Holmberg, Vincent Homolka, Mieke Hoppe, Fida Jeries, Simon Katzenellenbogen, Virginia MacFadyen, Nitole Rahman, Hazel Waters, and Chris Woodall. Special thanks to Tony Bunyan, Frances Webber and Statewatch. © Institute of Race Relations 2002 ISBN 085001 0632 Cover Image by David Drew Designed by Harmit Athwal Printed by Russell Press Ltd European Race Bulletin No. 40 Contents Introduction 1 1. The EU approach to combating terrorism 2 2. Removing refugee protection 6 3. Racism and the security state 10 4. Popular racism: one culture, one civilisation 16 References 22 European Race Bulletin No. 40 Introduction ollowing the events of September 11, it became commonplace to say that the world would Fnever be the same again.
  • UNITED KINGDOM Rights Denied: the UK's Response to 11 September

    UNITED KINGDOM Rights Denied: the UK's Response to 11 September

    UNITED KINGDOM Rights Denied: the UK’s Response to 11 September 2001 Introduction Amnesty International is deeply concerned about serious human rights violations that have taken place as a consequence of the United Kingdom (UK) authorities’ response to the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States of America (USA).1 This document focuses on the human rights violations that those detained in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 have suffered. Among others, these violations include: · detention of non-UK nationals for unspecified and potentially unlimited duration, without charge or trial, under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA);2 · conditions of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in high security prisons in the UK of those detained under the ATCSA or under the Terrorism Act 2000 or on the basis of warrants for extradition to the USA; · denial of the opportunity to challenge, in a fair procedure, any decision taken under the ATCSA which negatively affects people’s status or rights as recognized refugees or asylum-seekers in the UK; · the UK authorities’ neglect of their obligation under domestic and international law to make representations to the US authorities to ensure that the human rights of their nationals currently detained, without charge or trial or judicial review, for an unspecified period of time, potentially of unlimited duration, at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, be respected. These UK nationals have been denied access to legal counsel, including during questioning by both US and UK intelligence officers, and may be at risk of being subjected to unfair trial 1 Amnesty International has strongly condemned the attacks of 11 September 2001 in the USA and has called for those allegedly responsible to be brought to justice.
  • British Detain Flight Trainer - Chicago Tribune

    British Detain Flight Trainer - Chicago Tribune

    3/29/2019 British detain flight trainer - Chicago Tribune [ References in this Sep. 29, 2001 Chicago Tribune article (number): No: Reference: 12 FBI 9 Arvinda Sambir (aka Arvinder Sambei) 3 Robert Mueller 3 Mohamed Atta 3 Hani Hanjour British detain flight trainer 1 Marwan Al-Shehhi 1 Ziad Samir Jarrah CHICAGO TRIBUNE 1 Nawaf Albazmi ] SEPTEMBER 29, 2001 | LONDON S. authorities began extradition proceedings in a London court Friday against a British-based Algerian pilot suspected of being the flight instructor for four of the 19 U. hijackers who attacked U.S. landmarks Sept. 11. Investigators consider the arrest a breakthrough in the search for living co-conspirators to the New York and Pentagon attacks. Lotfi Raissi, 27, the first of dozens of suspects arrested throughout Europe to be officially linked to the U.S. hijackings, was ordered held without bail after a British prosecutor told the court that Raissi may have helped the hijackers acquire their piloting skills. "What we say is that he was in fact a lead instructor for four of the pilots responsible for the hijackings," said the prosecutor, Arvinda Sambir. "He was in the background to facilitate training of these pilots. His job was to ensure the pilots were capable and trained." Sambir said Raissi's mission related to American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. It was unclear whether he was suspected of training hijackers on other jets. Raissi, whose name appeared on the FBI's watch list immediately after the hijackings, made several trips to the U.S. over the summer and made contact with some of the suspected hijackers in Las Vegas, Sambir said.
  • Two Kinds of Justice

    Two Kinds of Justice

    THE DENNING LAW JOURNAL The Denning Law Journal 2008 Vol 20 pp 239-246 CASE COMMENTARY GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION? R Ex P Raissi v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal, (Civil Division) [2008] All ER (D) 215 (Feb) Bolanle Opadokun∗ THE FACTS The case of Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian pilot, who was denied compensation under the ex gratia scheme has been reported by many national newspapers. It is likely that we have not heard the last of it, as it is possible for the Secretary of State to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The case1 concerned a judicial review appeal application by Mr Raissi. On September 21st 2001, he was arrested in his home following a letter dated September 17th 2001, from the United States Embassy in London addressed to the Metropolitan Police asking them for information about him. The FBI believed that Raissi may have been involved in the September 11th 2001 atrocities. There was also a further request, from the United States Embassy to the United Kingdom government on September 27th 2001, to arrest Raissi for extradition purposes. It was alleged that he had given false information to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when he wanted to renew his licence. Mr Raissi was born in Algeria and is married to a French national. He was residing in the United Kingdom at the time of his arrest. In 1997, he had qualified as a commercial pilot in the United States and at the time of his arrest was a student at an aviation school in the UK undergoing training in order to obtain a European pilot licence.
  • Fair Trial and Detainees' Rights

    Fair Trial and Detainees' Rights

    United Kingdom IHF FOCUS: freedom of expression and the media; right to privacy; fair trial and detainees’ rights; prison conditions and prisoners’ rights; intolerance, racial discrimination and xenophobia; asylum seekers; rights of the child; Northern Ireland. In 2002 the government stepped up anti-terrorist and anti-crime measures in ways that led to restrictions of individuals’ basic rights, particularly the right to privacy, respect of fair trial standards and detainees’ rights. The government made moves to allow a wider range of authorities to demand access to telephone and internet records without obtaining a judicial or executive warrant and to require that communication service providers keep their customers’ records for longer periods in case the authorities needed to access them. Other measures, which, if introduced, would potentially violate the right to privacy, were the attempts to introduced a “universal entitlement card” and the requirement for air carriers to record personal data of their passengers. The recent anti-terrorism measures and other moves affecting privacy warranted the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International to state in the fall that Britain had one of the worst records in the developed world for protecting the individual’s privacy.1 In the face of these planned measures to limit the right to privacy, Britain’s senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Woolf, warned the government about its human rights policy. He commended the Human Rights Act, in force since 2000, which gave the courts the possibility of intervening when parliament or government failed to strike the correct balance between the rights of society as a whole and the rights of the individual and to ensure that Britain remains a democracy committed to the rule of law.2 Despite this statement, court rulings reflected the lack of commitment to human rights.
  • Evidence from US Experts to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Extradition Law

    Evidence from US Experts to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Extradition Law

    Evidence from US experts to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Extradition Law 1. We are academics, researchers and legal experts who have studied the US system for prosecuting terrorism-related crimes. Our academic and legal research on the US system has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, books and congressional and legal testimony. 2. We have become increasingly concerned in recent years at the human rights issues raised by the extradition of persons from the UK to the US to face terrorism-related charges. Moreover, we believe that the evidence already submitted to the committee on the nature of the US system conveys an inaccurate picture of how terrorism prosecutions in the US are conducted. In particular, we have deep concerns about the pattern of rights abuses in these cases and the conditions of imprisonment that terrorist suspects face in the US both before and after their trial or sentencing hearing. 3. Given the significant proportion of US extradition requests that involve federal terrorism-related charges and the particular concerns that exist in relation to these, we believe that specific attention to this category of extradition is warranted. In our submission, we have restricted our comments to terrorism- related cases and make no claims about cases involving other kinds of charges, although we believe much of our evidence would apply more widely. 4. We are familiar with a number of terrorism-related cases involving extradition requests to the US from the UK since 9/11: Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Haroon Rashid Aswat, Adel Abdel Bari, Khaled Al-Fawwaz, Syed Fahad Hashmi, Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (commonly known as Abu Hamza) and Lotfi Raissi.
  • Muslims in Britain

    Muslims in Britain

    report Muslims in Britain By Humayun Ansari Acknowledgements Minority Rights Group International Minority Rights Group International (MRG) gratefully Minority Rights Group International (MRG) is a non- acknowledges the support of the Joseph Rowntree governmental organization (NGO) working to secure the Charitable Trust and of all other organizations and individuals rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and who gave financial and other assistance for this report, indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation including the independent expert readers. and understanding between communities. Our activities are Commissioning Editor: Katrina Payne. Reports Editor: Sophie focused on international advocacy, training, publishing and Richmond. outreach. We are guided by the needs expressed by our worldwide partner network of organizations which represent The Author minority and indigenous peoples. Humayun Ansari is an academic specializing in the field of ethnic studies, racial equality, and historical and contemporary MRG works with over 130 organizations in nearly 60 Islam. For the past twelve years he has been the Director of countries. The governing Council, which meets twice a year, the Centre for Ethnic Minority Studies at Royal Holloway, has members from 10 different countries. MRG has University of London, where he leads a research team. He is consultative status with the United Nations Economic and also a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History. His Social Council (ECOSOC), and is registered as a charity and published work includes articles on ethnicity and identity, the a company limited by guarantee under English law. history of Islam and Muslims in Britain, and the Registered charity no. 282305, limited company no.
  • In the Name of Counter-Terrorism: Human Rights Abuses Worldwide

    In the Name of Counter-Terrorism: Human Rights Abuses Worldwide

    Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 Tel: 212 290-4700 Fax: 212 736-1300 Email: [email protected] Website:http://www.hrw.org In the Name of Counter-Terrorism: Human Rights Abuses Worldwide A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper for the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights March 25, 2003 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 II. INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 4 U.N. Security Council................................................................................................................................................................. 4 U.N. General Assembly.............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures..................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Organizations.............................................................................................................................................................. 8 III. COUNTRY STUDIES: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT OF COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES IN TEN COUNTRIES ........................................................................................................................................
  • 9/11 Investigation 2004 01(Jan)

    9/11 Investigation 2004 01(Jan)

    ALL INFC3FLI&#39;fI.11.T OI-J COT-ITAINE D I 57 HEREIN rs uncrassrrrsn U5_Dqmnmun0fhmu 3 1, :|_;| &#39;,,,,_,2:;;2,$ss;_, &#39;~&#39; - ,- ,-;, 72;, *. V. .3 < 1.Federal BureauInvestigation of hRWWmRdw Phoenix, Arizona 85012 BEN January 4, 2004 ;b6 b7c LOTFI RAISSI, I Lotfi Raissi is described as a white male,[::::::::] . 1 [::k:§hs communication augments prior obtaineddisseminations whichestablishedregarding and reasonto believeE;:::::::g::L summarizes information |Hani Hanjour, the presumed pi ot of t e ijacked American Airlines Flight 77 on 09/11/2001 who flew the plane into the Pentagon. OnAugust 21, 1993, at 19 45] Ithe line at the Gulf Air checkin desk at Heathrow Airport. Whi e waiting, |a passenger in the line. was arrested and charged with Theft. On September 27, 1993, he was convicted at Uxbridge Magistrates Court. tr has been esLablished_thrnuah_eTfortsby LEGATRome that| the Italian authorities on August Z2, I§§q | I I To summarize circumstances surrounding the detention, the following is provided: On August 22, 1996, two Italian National Police Officers stopped an individual who appeared to be North African behaving in a suspicious manner in Rome, Italy. The individual produced an international driver&#39;s license. issued in Eqypt. identifvinq him| I | | Various checks revealed lhad acriminal This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. .b6 LOTFI RAISSI b7c &#39; &#39; <identifi@d as His driver&#39;s license was seize and he was charged with false information and false documents.
  • An Entropy-Based Framework to Analyze Structural Power and Power Alliances in Social Networks

    An Entropy-Based Framework to Analyze Structural Power and Power Alliances in Social Networks

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN An entropy‑based framework to analyze structural power and power alliances in social networks Andreas Dellnitz1* & Wilhelm Rödder2 Power is a central phenomenon in societies. So for ages, numerous power perceptions in philosophy and sociology have existed. Measuring power of an actor in its social fabric is a difcult issue, however. After sketching frst attempts for this in social network analyses, we develop a new power theory. To this end, we distinguish between vertices in the network and actors acting in vertices. Vertices get structural power potential from their position in the net. In an entropy‑driven model such potential can be calculated for all vertices; for selected networks, the method is exemplifed. Actors in vertices can deploy power potential once they have respective personal skills, and dominate actors in adjacent vertices. If chosen with suitable care, an alliance of actors can even dominate the whole network. The fndings are applied to the famous 9/11-network with 34 vertices and 93 edges. A short survey of power perceptions in history. Power is a central phenomen in societies: Who exerts power on whom, to which degree, using which resources and at which costs. Following Witte 1 even in the animal kingdom we observe manyfold power relations perhaps indicating an evolutionary setting. In occidental cul- tures, the issue of power was and is omnipresent. Linguistic terms with diferent etymologic roots like Anweald, Auctoritas, Macht, Maht, Potentia, Potestas, Pouvoir, Power refer to this. According to Platon exertion of power is part of human nature. Aristoteles brings into focus hierarchical dominance structures like slavery, despotism and political sovereignty.
  • Highview Page

    Highview Page

    Document obtained by INTELWIRE: Please credit and link INTELWIRE.com when reporting I ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of Justice ATE 04-20-2006 BY 0309AUCTN1!MLT!LR2 Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply, Please Refer to Phoenix, Arizona 85012 FileNo. January 4, 2004 b6 b7C LOTFI RAISSI, Lotfi Raissi is described as a 'white male; II . r-I----------J I Th2-s communication augments prior disseminations regardingI j and summarizes information obtained which established reason to believel I I IHani Hanjour, the presumed pl10t of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 on 09/11/2001 who flew the plane into the Pentagon. On August 21, 1993, at 19:451 Ithe line at the Gulf Air check-in desk at Heathrow Alrport. While waiting, r I[ I a passenger in the 1 ine ~ ~I--w-a-s-a-r-r-e-s"'t-e-d"""a-n-d"""'-c""h-argedwith Theft. On September 27, 1993, he was convicted· at Uxbridge Magistrates Court. r-- ~~~~~~-=~~~~~~~~~~~fortsby LEGAT Rome that the Italian lauthorltles on surroun detention, the On August 22, 1996, two Italian National Police Officers stopped an individual who appeared to be North African behaving in a suspicious manner in Rome, Italy. The individual produced an international driver's license issued in E t ident i fying himL...----: ~---=----__=_---=,.....--"'I"":""-=__--_:_"""':""-~----I I I various checks revealed had a criminal This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
  • Islamist Terrorist Plots in Great Britain: Uncovering the Global Network Ted R

    Islamist Terrorist Plots in Great Britain: Uncovering the Global Network Ted R

    No. 2329 October 26, 2009 Revised and updated January 4, 2010 Islamist Terrorist Plots in Great Britain: Uncovering the Global Network Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., and Morgan L. Roach Abstract: Data on major Islamist terrorist plots in Brit- ain reveal a physical and ideological terrorism pipeline between Britain and Pakistan. At least 27 of 87 convicted Talking Points individuals were trained or sought training in Pakistan or • Both the United States and Great Britain need Afghanistan. Homegrown Islamism is also a major threat: to recognize the existence of and seek to 18 individuals received terrorist training in Britain. Britain break the physical and ideological terrorism and the U.S. need to fight and win both the counterterror- pipeline between Britain and Pakistan. ism war and the broader war of ideas. This will require • Individuals with family ties to Pakistan com- fighting Islamism both in Afghanistan and at home, con- prise a significant proportion, although not tinuing and expanding cooperation in intelligence and the majority, of those who have been pub- homeland security, and opposing the Lisbon Treaty and licly connected with terrorist plots in Britain. other European Union initiatives that would undermine Homegrown Islamism is also a serious prob- Britain’s ability to control its own borders. lem in Britain. • The first front in the war on Islamist terrorism is in Afghanistan. A premature U.S. and Brit- In January 2009, the head of MI-5, Britain’s domes- ish military retreat from Afghanistan would allow that country to serve again as an inter- tic security service, stated that 2,000 individuals in national terrorist haven and would embolden Britain were directly connected to Islamist terrorist al-Qaeda and its affiliate organizations to plots and that many more supported terrorism expand their ambitions both regionally and 1 through fundraising or propaganda.