DOCSLIB.ORG

Detention Immorality.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Detention Immorality.Pub DETENTION IMMORALITY The impact of UK domestic counter-terrorism policies on those detained in the War on Terror About Cageprisoners Cageprisoners is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee which operates as a human rights NGO. The organisation seeks to work for political Muslim detainees, specifically those interned as a result of the ‘War on Terror’ and its peripheral campaigns, by raising awareness of the illegality and the global consequences of their detention. By promoting due process, the vision of the organisa- tion is to see a return to the respect of those fun- damental norms which transcend religion, socie- ties and political theories. Cageprisoners comprises of an advisory group which includes patrons, seasoned activists, law- yers, doctors and former detainees. From the group, a board has been elected which oversees the strategy and management of the organisation and its employees. By working in such a way the working environment of the organisation can con- stantly be reviewed in light of its aims and objec- tives. Copyright © 2009 Cageprisoners All rights reserved. Cageprisoners 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3XX Telephone: 00 (44) 7973264197 Email: [email protected] 2 | cageprisoners.com Table of contents FOREWORD by Sir Nigel Rodley ............................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6 EXTRADITION .......................................................................................................................... 7 Extradition to the US ...................................................................................................... 8 Extradition to Europe ................................................................................................... 13 DEPORTATION ....................................................................................................................... 20 Memoranda of Understanding ................................................................................... 21 Special Immigration Appeals Commission ............................................................. 22 Deportation to Algeria ................................................................................................. 23 Voluntary Repatriation ................................................................................................ 30 Deportation to Jordan .................................................................................................. 35 Deportation to Libya ..................................................................................................... 36 Deportation to Pakistan ............................................................................................... 40 Deportation to Iraq ....................................................................................................... 41 Deportation to Egypt .................................................................................................... 41 ORDERS ................................................................................................................................... 42 Control orders ................................................................................................................ 42 Torture victims .............................................................................................................. 50 Financial orders ............................................................................................................. 55 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 56 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 57 DETAINEE LIST ...................................................................................................................... 58 cageprisoners.com | 3 DETENTION IMMORALITY Foreword by Sir Nigel Rodley This disturbing publication reminds us of three Of course, throughout the process, first in things; one, what a wide array of techniques SIAC, then through the courts, the person may have been developed to detain or otherwise remain detained for years. restrict people’s freedom in the United King- dom, without their having been charged or Many of the cases documented reveal that peo- convicted in this country of any offence; two, ple have eventually been released, whether how susceptible the techniques may be to er- after acquittal in this country or in the country ror or even abuse; and, three, how destructive to which they were eventually sent or because of the well-being of the affected individuals the authorities simply decided that they could, and their families, getting caught up in the after all, be released. This suggests that the maze of legal procedure can be. system may not be as careful as necessary and appropriate before it fundamentally disrupts Since the House of Lords decision in the people’s lives and livelihoods. ‘Belmarsh’ case ( A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71), there Particularly telling are the brief testimonies of is no longer a formal system of administrative some of the victims, describing how they have internment. Nevertheless, that has not meant had to undergo the kinds of extreme pressures the end of prolonged indefinite detention. For that it must be hard for anyone to whom it has example, all it takes is for a country with not happened really to understand. There are which we have an extradition agreement to cases in which people have been driven out of issue a request for extradition on terrorist their minds. In others, people have preferred charges and a person can be detained pending to opt to return to the risk of torture. the consequent protracted legal proceedings aimed at avoiding extradition. There are cases I believe the government is committed to re- of people detained for over a decade in that specting its commitments under international legal limbo. Particularly offensive to legal prin- human rights law (such as, seeking to avoid ciple is the effect of the Extradition Act 2003, sending people to a place where they face a under which the United States does not even real risk of torture by removing the risk), have to make out a prima facie case in support while having to thwart the plans of those who of its request. clandestinely go about realizing their goal of seeking to kill as many innocent people – of Some are detained while seeking to avoid de- any language, colour or religion -going about portation (other than by way of extradition) to their business as possible. At the same time, states with which the UK has concluded they have set up an array of powers, each of memoranda of understanding aimed at safe- which on its own may be legally defensible, but guarding them against torture or ill-treatment which together is prone to be oppressive at the hands of the receiving country. The whether by inadvertence or design. This publi- memoranda contemplate follow-up monitor- cation will suggest to thoughtful readers that ing measures, but serious questions about review of the system is called for. their effectiveness have entailed extensive liti- gation. Moreover, the procedures before the key Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the usual first forum for legal challenge to a deportation in these cases, put the sub- jects at a substantial disadvantage, as neither they nor their lawyers can be sure to have ac- cess to all the material adduced against them. 4 | cageprisoners.com DETENTION IMMORALITY Introduction The storming of the Bastille on 14 th July 1789 In an age of suspected Islamic terrorism, secu- marked one of the most pivotal moments in rity officials in the UK and governmental min- the history of modern day democracy. The isters often make reference to the ‘new’ threat; Bastille itself was a symbol of oppression by a a threat which must be dealt with through giv- totalitarian monarchy and unlawful detention ing greater powers to the police and govern- was a common symptom. The destruction of ment. The result has been the re- France’s most famous detention facility was establishment of further counter-terrorism the staging point for the French Revolution measures; policies which only remind of the and the heralding of a new world where habeas failures of actions taken in the past. corpus and the recognition of the right to a fair trial would be the corner stone of civilised so- One of the main arguments excluded in the ciety. drawing up of legislation, is the impact that such policies have on individuals and commu- The War on Terror has again brought with it nities. Although the legislation may seem cor- images of the Bastille through the detention of rect in terms of the mechanisms of ratification, thousands of innocent men, women and chil- an inherent immorality is witnessed through dren worldwide. The prison camps at Guan- the destruction of the philosophical traditions tanamo Bay now stand as the modern day that traditionally would have stopped such French prison reminding the world that there legislation, and more importantly the destruc- are people in the western world who are being tion of families who are subjected to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 3:07-Cr-00057-MRK Document 6 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 9
    Case 3:07-cr-00057-MRK Document 6 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No: : : VIOLATIONS: : : 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (Providing Material v. : Support to Terrorists) : : 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) (Communicating : National Defense Information to Persons not : Entitled to Receive it) HASSAN ABUJIHAAD, : a/k/a PAUL R. HALL : 18 U.S.C. § 2 I N D I C T M E N T The Grand Jury charges that: INTRODUCTION 1. From on or about December 20, 1997, through on or about January 25, 2002, HASSAN ABUJIHAAD, a/k/a PAUL R. HALL (“ABUJIHAAD”), was an enlisted member of the United States Navy. From on or about July 1, 1998, through on or about January 10, 2002, ABUJIHAAD was assigned to a United States Navy destroyer named the U.S.S. Benfold, where his primary position was Signalman. In March and April 2001, the U.S.S. Benfold was part of a United States Navy Battle Group directed to transit from California to the Persian Gulf region. 2. On January 6, 1998, in connection with his duties in the United States Navy, ABUJIHAAD was approved by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (“DONCAF”) for access to information classified at the “Secret” level pursuant to Executive Order 12,958, as amended by Executive Order 13,292. Case 3:07-cr-00057-MRK Document 6 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 2 of 9 3. Pursuant to Executive Order 12,958, as amended by Executive Order 13,292, national security information may be classified as, among other things, “Secret.” The designation “Secret” applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain and Algeria: Problems of Return
    MIREM Project MIGRATION DE RETOUR AU MAGHREB Britain and Algeria: Problems of Return George Joff é .*3&. Analytical Report, MIREM-AR 2007/03 Research Project Collective Action to Support the Reintegration of Return Migrants in Their Country of Origin, co-fi nanced by the European Union and the European University Institute © 2007 European University Institute - Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. For information contact: <[email protected]> EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES Britain and Algeria: Problems of Return GEORGE JOFFÉ MIREM COLLECTIVE ACTION TO SUPPORT THE REINTEGRATION OF RETURN MIGRANTS IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ANALYTICAL REPORT MIREM-AR 2007/03 BADIA FIESOLANA, SAN DOMENICO DI FIESOLE (FI) © 2007, European University Institute Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Requests should be addressed to [email protected] The views expressed in this publication cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the European Union Published in Italy in 2007 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/ http://www.mirem.eu MIREM Le projet MIREM, ou «Action collective de soutien à la réintégration des migrants de retour dans leur pays d’origine», a été lancé en décembre 2005, grâce au concours financier de l’Union Européenne et de l’Institut Universitaire Européen. Il est hébergé au sein du Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (Florence, Italie).
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Case No: CO/5160/2014 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2354 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 07/08/2015 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CRANSTON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE Claimant METROPOLIS - and - SYED TALHA AHSAN Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Tom Little (instructed by the Metropolitan Police Legal Service) for the Claimant Mr Daniel Squires (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 24/07/2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgmen tMr Justice Cranston: Introduction: 1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (“the Commissioner”) for an order to impose notification requirements for a period of 15 years on Syed Talha Ahsan (“Mr Ahsan”) under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”). In 2013, he was convicted in the United States of conspiracy to provide material assistance for terrorism through his involvement in a website. He has now returned to the United Kingdom. The notification order will require him for that period to attend police stations to provide, and update, information about his living arrangements and to provide details about his travel plans, for which permission can be refused. Breach of the requirements is punishable with imprisonment of up to 5 years. 2. Notification requirements have been imposed in many cases when persons have been convicted in the UK of terrorist-related offences. This is the first case in which a notification order has been contested in respect of a person convicted outside the UK of a corresponding foreign offence.
    [Show full text]
  • Pietro Deandrea
    POETRY AND THE WAR ON TERROR: THE CASE OF SYED TALHA AHSAN Pietro Deandrea In May 2013 public opinion was informed that the British army in Camp Bastion (Afghanistan) held some ninety native prisoners in inhuman conditions, arbitrarily and indefinitely, as a result of a government decision to extend exceptional measures to all detainees. Predictably, the news stirred much shock and debate1, showing another appalling side of the involvement of the UK in the American War on Terror based on exceptional measures. Commenting on President Bush’s 2001 special laws, Giorgio Agamben identified in the state of exception, “state power’s immediate response to the most extreme internal conflicts”, a structural element of continuity between the techniques of government of modern totalitarian states and the “so- called democratic ones […] a threshold of indeterminacy between democracy and absolutism.” Agamben’s juridical and philosophical analysis shows that the state of exception “tends increasingly to appear as the dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics”2. Unfortunately, in the past decade the exceptional practice whereby people can be detained without evidence and trial has been practised on British soil, too, thanks to a specific Act involving Britain and the US: In 2003 a new Extradition Act was fast-tracked into UK legislation without a formal consultative parliamentary process, scrutiny or debate. […] the UK would be expected to extradite any individual to the US on request, without the need for the US to provide prima facie evidence (only to invoke reasonable suspicion), and thus 1 E. GIORDANA, La Guantanamo di Sua Maestà, “Il manifesto” 30-5-2013, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 19 2014 Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution? Andrew Dalack University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Dalack, Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?, 19 MICH. J. RACE & L. 415 (2014). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol19/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES AND THE WAR ON TERROR: WHEN DO EXTREME PRETRIAL DETENTION MEASURES OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION? Andrew Dalack* Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circum- stances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inher- ently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism: a Threat to Europe?
    © Rubbettino Centro Militare di Studi Strategici - Roma © Rubbettino Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism: A threat to Europe? Maria do Céu Pinto (University of Minho Portugal) Rubbettino © Rubbettino Copyright © by CeMiSS Centro Militare di Studi Strategici Piazza della Rovere, 83 - 00165 Roma (RM) e-mail: [email protected] © 2004 - Rubbettino Editore 88049 Soveria Mannelli - Viale Rosario Rubbettino, 10 -Tel. (0968) 662034 www.rubbettino.it © Rubbettino Index Abstract: 7 Introduction 9 I Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism in Europe: The Background 11 I.1. Palestinian Terrorism 11 I.2. Iranian Terrorism 17 II New Patterns of Islamist Terrorism in the 1990s 21 II.1. A New Age of Terrorism 21 II.2. Religious Terrorism 22 III The Web of Terror in Europe 31 III.1. Interlocking Terror Plots 31 III.2. Al-Qaeda: an Umbrella Network 32 III.3. Mosques: Recruitment and Indoctrination 36 IV Groups and Activities of Islamic Terrorists in Europe 41 IV.1. England 41 IV.2. France And Belgium 49 IV.3. Italy 53 IV.4. Germany 62 IV.5. Spain 65 IV.6. The Netherlands 71 V Evaluating the Terrorist Threat to Europe’s Security 75 V.1. Al-Qaeda’s European Infrastructure after 11th September 75 V.2. Islamic Communities in Europe: A Breeding Ground of Terrorists? 76 Conclusion 77 Bibliography 79 © Rubbettino 5 © Rubbettino Abstract During three decades Middle Eastern terrorism in Europe was largely a spillover from problems in the Middle East. Europe was a preferential oper- ational area for Arab, Palestinian and Iranian terrorists fighting each other. In the 1990s, a new Islamic threat emerged as a result of the activities of “ad hoc” terrorist groups, which lack a well-established organisational identity and tend to decentralise and compartmentalise their activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Number 3:04CR301(JCH) : V
    Case 3:04-cr-00301-JCH Document 181 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case Number 3:04CR301(JCH) : v. : : BABAR AHMAD a/k/a “Abu Ammar”, : a/k/a “Abu Khubaib/Kubayb Al-Pakistani” : a/k/a “Salah” / “Salahuddin”, a/k/a : “Dr. Karim”, a/k/a “D. Karim”, a/k/a : “Maria Alcala”, a/k/a “Lara Palselmo” : a/k/a “Mr. B” : JUNE 16, 2014 GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM On July 16, 2014, the Court will sentence the defendant, Babar Ahmad (“Ahmad”), for conspiring to provide and providing material support to terrorists, knowing and intending that such support would be used in preparation for and in carrying out: (1) a conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property; or (2) the murder of U.S. nationals abroad. Ahmad’s conduct, summarized in part below, warrants the maximum sentence of twenty-five (25) years. From at least 1997 through his arrest in August 2004, Babar Ahmad – through the use of numerous kunyas and aliases – surreptitiously led a sophisticated, highly organized, technically savvy and operationally covert support cell in London with global reach, through which he supported the Chechen mujahideen, the Taliban and Al-Qaida. Ahmad’s material support operation was robust, far-reaching and virtually unprecedented in its scope – indeed, Ahmad and his cell provided almost every single category of support set forth in the material support statute. Ahmad supplied funds, military equipment, communication equipment, lodging, training, expert advice and assistance and personnel – all of which were designed to raise funds, recruit for and provide equipment to the Chechen mujahideen, the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and to otherwise 1 Case 3:04-cr-00301-JCH Document 181 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 30 support violent jihad in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • Syed Talha Ahsan : June 16, 2014
    Case 3:06-cr-00194-JCH Document 179 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : NO. 3:06CR194(JCH) v. : SYED TALHA AHSAN : JUNE 16, 2014 SYED TALHA AHSAN’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING I. Introduction Syed Talha Ahsan has now served over eight (8) years in prisons in England and the United States, for his peripheral involvement in a case not susceptible to easy explanation or categorization. He is a highly intelligent, sensitive, inquisitive, creative man, who does not subscribe to violence as a means to solving problems. He is a threat to no one. The odds of his committing any kind of new offense are so low as to be virtually negligible. The parsimony clause of the Sentencing Reform Act would be fully satisfied by a sentence of less than the time which he has already served. Under all the circumstances here, a sentence of credit for time served is appropriate. All of Talha Ahsan’s conduct in this case occurred prior to September 11, 2001 (“9/11"). There is no allegation here that Mr. Ahsan committed or attempted to commit any act of violence. This case is not about al Qaeda. It is a case about a citizen of the United Kingdom, who before his extradition had never set foot in the United States, and the marginal assistance he provided to a website when he was twenty years old. The website reported on the plight of Muslim populations around the world. It provided information on the concept of defensive jihad, i.e., the religious obligation to protect Muslims at risk of genocide and violent persecution.
    [Show full text]
  • OUSSAMA ABDULLAH KASSIR, A/K/A "Abu Abdullah," A/K/A "Abu Khadi Ja, "
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v. - INDICTMENT MUSTAFA KAMEL MUSTAFA, S2 04 Cr. 356 (JFK) a/k/a "Abu Hamza, " a/k/a "Abu Hamza al-Masri , " a/k/a "Mustafa Kamel," a/k/a "Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, ": OUSSAMA ABDULLAH KASSIR, a/k/a "Abu Abdullah," a/k/a "Abu Khadi ja, " and HAROON RASHID ASWAT, a/k/a "Haroon, " a/k/a "Haroon Aswat, " Defendants. COUNT ONE CONSPIRACY TO TAKE HOSTAGES (THE ATTACK IN YEMEN) The Grand Jury charges: 1. ~romon or about December 23, 1998, up to and including on or about December 29, 1998, in an offense begun out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, MUSTAFA KAMEL MUSTAFA, a/k/a "Abu Hamza, " a/k/a "Abu Hamza al-Masri, " a/k/a "Mustafa Karnel," a/k/a "Mostafa Karnel Mostafa," the defendant, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom'was first brought to - -- ,' and arrested in the Southern District of New York, unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with each other to violate Section 1203 of Title 18, United States Code. 2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that MUSTAFA KAMEL MUSTAFA, the defendant, and others known and unknown, - : would and did, inside and outside the United States, unlawfully and knowingly seize and detain and threaten to kill, to injure, and to continue to detain other persons, including two U.S. nationals, in - order compel a third person and a governmental organization, wit, the government of Yemen, to do and abstain fxom doing any act explicit and implicit condition for the release the persons detained.
    [Show full text]
  • Prefering Order to Justice Laura Rovner
    American University Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 5 Article 3 2012 Prefering Order to Justice Laura Rovner Jeanne Theoharis Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Rovner, Laura, and Jeanne Theoharis. "Prefering Order to Justice." American University Law Review 61, no.5 (2012): 1331-1415. This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Prefering Order to Justice This essay is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol61/iss5/3 ROVNER‐THEOHARIS.OFF.TO.PRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 6/14/2012 7:12 PM PREFERRING ORDER TO JUSTICE ∗ LAURA ROVNER & JEANNE THEOHARIS In the decade since 9/11, much has been written about the “War on Terror” and the lack of justice for people detained at Guantanamo or subjected to rendition and torture in CIA black sites. A central focus of the critique is the unreviewability of Executive branch action toward those detained and tried in military commissions. In those critiques, the federal courts are regularly celebrated for their due process and other rights protections. Yet in the past ten years, there has been little scrutiny of the hundreds of terrorism cases tried in the Article III courts and the state of the rights of people accused of terrrorism-related offenses in the federal system.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Angle to the U.S. Terror Threat Robin Simcox | Emily Dyer
    AL-QAEDA IN THE UNITED STATES THE EUROPEAN ANGLE TO THE U.S. TERROR THREAT Robin Simcox | Emily Dyer THE EUROPEAN ANGLE TO THE U.S. TERROR THREAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Nineteen individuals (11% of the overall total) who committed al-Qaeda related offenses (AQROs) in the U.S. between 1997 and 2011 were either European citizens or had previously lived in Europe. • The threat to America from those linked to Europe has remained reasonably constant – with European- linked individuals committing AQROs in ten of the fifteen years studied. • The majority (63%) of the nineteen European-linked individuals were unemployed, including all individuals who committed AQROs between 1998 and 2001, and from 2007 onwards. • 42% of individuals had some level of college education. Half of these individuals committed an AQRO between 1998 and 2001, while the remaining two individuals committed offenses in 2009. • 16% of offenders with European links were converts to Islam. Between 1998 and 2001, and between 2003 and 2009, there were no offenses committed by European-linked converts. • Over two thirds (68%) of European-linked offenders had received terrorist training, primarily in Afghanistan. However, nine of the ten individuals who had received training in Afghanistan committed their AQRO before 2002. Only one individual committed an AQRO afterwards (Oussama Kassir, whose charges were filed in 2006). • Among all trained individuals, 92% committed an AQRO between 1998 and 2006. • 16% of individuals had combat experience. However, there were no European-linked individuals with combat experience who committed an AQRO after 2005. • Active Participants – individuals who committed or were imminently about to commit acts of terrorism, or were formal members of al-Qaeda – committed thirteen AQROs (62%).
    [Show full text]
  • The Jihadist Threat in France CLARA BEYLER
    The Jihadist Threat in France CLARA BEYLER INCE THE MADRID AND LONDON BOMBINGS, Europeans elsewhere— fearful that they may become the next targets of Islamist terrorism— are finally beginning to face the consequences of the long, unchecked Sgrowth of radical Islam on their continent. The July bombings in London, while having the distinction of being the first suicide attacks in Western Eu- rope, were not the first time terrorists targeted a major European subway system. Ten years ago, a group linked to the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armé—GIA) unleashed a series of bombings on the Paris metro system. Since 1996, however, France has successfully avoided any ma- jor attack on its soil by an extremist Muslim group. This is due not to any lack of terrorist attempts—(only last September, France arrested nine members of a radical Islamist cell planning to attack the metro system)—but rather to the efficiency of the French counterterrorist services.1 France is now home to between five to six million Muslims—the sec- ond largest religious group in France, and the largest Muslim population in any Western European country.2 The majority of this very diverse population practices and believes in an apolitical, nonviolent Islam.3 A minority of them, however, are extremists. Islamist groups are actively operating in France to- day, spreading radical ideology and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on French soil and abroad. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of France’s Islamist groups, the evolving threats they have posed and continue to pose to French society, and the response of the French authorities to these threats.
    [Show full text]