By Chris Talbot
31 July 2007

Four 20-year-old Bradford University students and a 19-year-old school student were jailed after a trial at the Old Bailey for being found with material said to be "glorifying Islamic terrorism" on their computers. Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Malik and Awaab Iqbaal were jailed for three years each, Akbar Butt was jailed for 27 months and the school student, Mohammed Irfan Raja was given two years' youth detention.

Such is the atmosphere created by politicians and the media after the attempted terror bombings in London and Glasgow earlier this month that there was very little opposition in the media to what are police state measures—the jailing of these youths merely for downloading material readily available on the Internet

The case is the first successful prosecution under the Terrorism Act 2000 for possessing material useful for terrorism.

Raja, at the age of 17, had run away from his home in London leaving a note to his parents saying, "if not in this [world] we will meet in [the Garden of Paradise]". According to the prosecution, he was planning to go and fight in Afghanistan after training in Pakistan, and for that purpose he had joined the four students in Bradford. No serious evidence that this was anything more than an adolescent fantasy is reported.

His parents talked to him over the phone and persuaded him to return home after three days. Raja was said to have been depressed and had discussed Islamic fundamentalism with the Bradford students over the Internet. His parents contacted the police and Raja apparently confessed, during several interviews, of his desire to fight "Muslim causes abroad." He directed the police to the Bradford students who were arrested for having the extremist material on their computers.

One of the students, Aitzaz Zafar, was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Asked whether the "inflammatory jihadist material" he had downloaded was not an indication of terrorist intent, Zafar said that he was "researching into my religion—looking at all aspects of it." He had become more "politically aware" as a student, and "research had led me to different sites and places." The interviewer pressed him on why he had "horrific material," including the video of a beheading. Zafar said that he had downloaded a zipped file containing more than 200 documents. "I never read all of them and in court they cherry-picked one document—and within that a paragraph." Asked why he had a copy of the "Terrorist's Handbook" on his computer, he said he had been in a chat room discussing the Muslim religion and politics, and it was one of the files that had been sent him—"people send you all sorts."

Reports of the trial claim that the five youths had made Internet contact with a certain British man called Imran who in one online chat had advised them how to travel unnoticed to Pakistan. Also mentioned was a "Brother Ali" in New Jersey, who had told Raja to get in touch with the Bradford students. Whether either of these men had sent them the zipped file or the "Terrorist's Handbook" is not recorded. They were not produced as witnesses, and no explanation was given of why they were not arrested also. It is hardly a secret that such chat rooms can be used by provocateurs and the intelligence services.

There is clearly some disquiet in establishment circles at the way democratic rights are being trampled on in such cases. David Livingstone, an associate fellow in international security at Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, appeared as a witness for the defence at the trial. He told the Today programme that there was no evidence that the five had planned to instigate a terrorist attack. The prosecution could "radicalise" young Muslims "through a perceived sense of injustice," he said.

Claiming the five youths were engaged in "mischievous" activity, Livingstone said, "If you are going to pursue every case of mischief you are going to end up with a very jammed-up criminal justice system and you will certainly have to build more prisons."

Livingstone called for the traditional method of debating with students who were attracted to Islamic fundamentalism, "instead of slugging away with the rather blunt instrument of the criminal justice system."

However, top political, legal and police circles are clearly determined to utilise the fear of terrorist attacks, not only to use such draconian measures but to introduce others.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that in the next session of parliament he intends to raise the 28-day limit on the time that police can hold a suspect without charge. Although the proposal for a 90-day period was narrowly defeated when put forward by Tony Blair in 2005, Brown has called for a "consultation" on increasing the time to up to 56 days, supporting police claims that they need more time to plough through computer memories and collect evidence in terrorist cases.

Brown also announced he is intending to bring in a "unified border force" to boost the "fight against terrorism," creating a "highly visible" uniformed force that would bring together immigration and Customs officers. He is also calling for identity cards to be introduced—in the face of longstanding opposition from human rights campaigners. Other measures will include an attempt to get all-party support for using e-mail and telephone intercepts as evidence.

Brown stated that the police and security services are now tracking 2,000 individuals, an increase of 400 in the past nine months. Security forces claim that there have been 15 terrorist plots discovered since 9/11 and that there are another 30 plots in the making.

Some indication of the increasingly oppressive regime being implemented in Britain by the police and security services, directed particularly at Muslim and Asian youth, was contained in report from the Metropolitan (i.e., London) Police covering the first four months of 2007. Under the anti-terror laws, some 23,000 "stops and searches" were carried out, an increase of 37 percent over the previous year. Only 27 arrests were made on terrorism offences, but 242 other arrests were made. At least 16 percent of those stopped were Asian compared to 12 percent in the population as a whole.

Further evidence that the "war against terror" is allowing all pretence at democratic rights to be swept aside came in a Channel 4 report of how terrorist prisoners are being treated at Frankland Prison, County Durham. Some 10 percent of prisoners in this jail are Muslim and it is said to contain the leaders of the three major terrorism trials that took place in Britain over the last year.

Hussain Osman, one of those convicted for the failed suicide bombing of July 21, 2005, reportedly had his cell set on fire. Channel 4 reported that this event took place after death threats were allegedly made to Omar Khyam, convicted as the ringleader for the so-called fertiliser bomb plot in April of this year. Dhiren Barot, convicted in November of last year for plotting various bomb attacks in the UK and US, was reported having had boiling water thrown at him. Barot suffered severe third-degree burns, described by a prison officer to Channel 4 as one of the worst cases he had seen. These three incidents had all taken place in the last three weeks.

Omar Khyam's wife told Channel 4 that the prison authorities had been previously warned: "Omar in the end went into segregation himself and only a few days later Dhiren Barot was attacked, which shouldn't have happened because the prison knew that these threats were taking place."

According to Channel 4's sources, there were fascists among the prisoners in the jail—members of Combat 18 or British National party supporters—with swastikas daubed on the walls. A conflict had built up over where the Muslim prisoners were to hold their prayers.

Originally from legitgov on August 2, 2007, 4:27am


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.