How visiting the Department of Justice’s website can make you a suspected terrorist
Written by Mark Pack on 23rd August 2008 – 3:19 pmEarlier this week, Hicham Yezza wrote about his experiences of being arrested as a suspected terrorist, being detained for six days and then released without charge:
Once in custody, almost 48 hours passed before it was confirmed that the entire operation (involving dozens of officers, police cars, vans, and scientific support agents) was triggered by the presence on my University of Nottingham office computer of a … document called the “al-Qaida Training Manual”.
Sounds good grounds for arresting someone, until you realise where this document came from:
Rizwaan Sabir, a politics student friend of mine (who was also arrested), had downloaded the file from the US justice department website.
Yes, you read that right - the document is made publicly availabe by the USA’s Department of Justice. If they think there are perfectly good reasons for non-terrorists to look at this document (and why else put it on their website?), why did the British police decide its possession was grounds for arrest and six days detention? (Or indeed, why had the University of Nottingham put the document on the reading list for one of its own courses?)
Indeed, two other parts of Yezza’s account (from a comment he posted to his own piece) raise further questions about how the police conducted the operation. First is the delay before he was questioned at all:
I was arrested, fingerprinted (a two-hour quite unpleasant process for both hand and foot prints), had my DNA sampled, locked up in a cell incommunicado for ten hours BEFORE I was asked a single question.
When arguing for longer detention periods, the Government has frequently claimed that more time is needed. But if you’re not making good use of the time you’ve got, that seriously weakens the case for needing more time.
Second, if Yezza had been a terrorist, he almost certainly would have been able to avoid the police because:
I turned up at my office on the morning of May 14 with full knowledge that police officers were there, (a fact the police had verified very early on). In other words, they were only able to arrest me because I came to them.
Yezza’s account fits with the media coverage of his case and - if even close to being accurate - raises the question: in its near obsession to introduce ever more draconian powers for the police, has the Government taken its eye of the ball when it comes to ensuring that the police properly handle cases such as this?
Posted in News
24th August 2008 at 6:46 pm
And of course his DNA is now on file and will not be deleted. And Labour wonders why everyone wants to beat the crap out of them at the ballot box.
24th August 2008 at 9:19 pm
Absolutely appalling story - the content not your post Mark - it makes my blood boil to read about it.
Whatever happened to true liberalism ?
I do not believe it would be any different under the Tories either in spite of their Damascene conversion to Human Rights.
25th August 2008 at 9:57 am
Unfortunately, we have Liberal Democrats who don’t believe in human rights. Like Julia Goldsworthy, who is in favour of martial law for under 16s. Goldsworthy would have an under 16 who goes out to post a letter after 9.00pm bundled into a police car, fingerprinted and his/her DNA taken. Why? Because people find the sight of him/her offensive. Sounds like fascism to me.
25th August 2008 at 10:03 am
Why am I awaiting moderation?
Are criticisms of Julia Goldsworhty forbidden on LDV?
Cut out the final sentence if you like.
25th August 2008 at 10:37 am
Given the number of times you’ve criticised her before on this site, Sesenco, I think you know that the answer to your question is “no”
25th August 2008 at 4:20 pm
Interesting how easy it is to blame Labour and then say the Conservatives are just as bad. I’m sure it would be difficult to find anyone in either of those two parties (in their hearts) to say it was acceptable, but they would all trot out the usual, it is necessary to protect our citizens. The key question is, that if this sort of thing has now become normal behaviour by the Police, who as home secretary in our party would have the courage to confront it and change it.
26th August 2008 at 5:49 pm
Sesenco; The kids are returned to their parents, not fingerprinted nor is DNA taken. Kids posting a letter, coming home from Cadets or Scouts are not picked up. What sort of parent allows their children out on their own after 9pm anyway?
26th August 2008 at 9:09 pm
Acton wrote:
“kids posting a letter, coming home from Cadets or Scouts are not picked up.”
Yes they are.
The martial law scheme in Redruth forbids ALL those under 16 to be in a public place after 9.00pm, whatever their motive or purpose for being there might be.
“What sort of parent allows their children out on their own after 9pm anyway?”
Mine did. Two higher education lecturers.
Your use of the word “kids” is disingenuous. Martial law in Redruth applies to anyone under the age of 16. Vaz wants to go further. He is demanding a blanket, nationwide ban on anyone under 18 being in a public place after 9.00pm.
What is inherently wrong or immoral about 17 year-olds, 16 year-olds, 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, persons of any age in fact being in public places at any time of day or night?
Freedom of movement is one of the most fundamental of human rights. Yet the state is taking it away from us, step by step. They have started by targeting an unpopular minority unable to defend itself. Once the Trojan Horse is through the city gates, they will come for the rest of us (as they did when they imposed martial law in the countryside during the so-called foot and mouth “crisis”).
Goldsworthy is on record as saying that young people should be locked up at night because people find them intimidating. Should blacks likewise be locked up at night, because many people do indeed find them intimidating?
The Lester Report made it abundantly clear that pandering to racist sentiment is unacceptable for a Liberal Democrat politician. Surely pandering to youth-hating sentiment is just as morally reprehensible?
It is an utter scandal that Nick Clegg has failed to speak a word of repudiation of Goldsworthy’s comments.
Either we are a party that fights for human freedom or we are nothing.
27th August 2008 at 12:23 pm
I’m not aware of the detail of the Redruth scheme, but if it is as described by Sesenco, I agree, it is totally illiberal.
One point where I do differ with the sentiments I think Sesenco is putting forward is where he/she says “What is inherently wrong or immoral about 17 year-olds, 16 year-olds, 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, persons of any age in fact being in public places at any time of day or night?”
Here the key flip side to Liberalism must come into play - that of personal responsibility. While there is a right for an individual to be out at any time of night, young children are liable to be in personal danger if out alone too late. This is where the responsibility of parents must come into play. Where the very young, say under 11, are concerned there is also a need to ensure they get a good night’s sleep so that they are ready to go in the morning. If these youngsters’ parents allow their children to be out ridiculously late, they are failing in their responsibilities.
27th August 2008 at 1:56 pm
David Evans wrote:-
“While there is a right for an individual to be out at any time of night, young children are liable to be in personal danger if out alone too late.”
The Redruth scheme is aimed at those aged between 11 and 16, not infants. There is not now, and has never been, a widespread or even localised phenomenon of young children (ie, infants) being in public places after 9.00pm.
That is why the original martial law legislation (which was restricted to children under 10) was so obviously a Trojan Horse for the present legislation, which allows Police chiefs, at a whim, to forbid anyone under 16 from being in a public place after 9.00pm.
The present legislation is Trojan Horse No 2, for it paves the way for a nationwide blanket martial law scheme affecting everyone under the age of 18, which is what Keith Vaz and his Home Affairs Select Committe along with the Murdoch and Rothermere press are demanding.
Trojan Horse No 3 will pave the way for martial law for adults. Which we have already had, during the 2001 so-called foot and mouth “crisis”. During the 1967 foot and mouth outbreak martial law was considered unnecessary. So why did we have to have it in 2001? Foot and mouth is spread by wind, not the feet of walkers.
Martial law represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the state and the individual. In Britain, we have enjoyed more or less unrestricted freedom of movement since the last villein tenant died in 1638 - a period of more than 350 years. Even during the wartime blackout, the government didn’t consider it necessary to impose martial law. (My mother recalled fumbling her way round Glasgow in the pitch black negotiating horse manure and baffle walls.)
Our freedoms are in great peril. If Liberal Democrats don’t stand up for them, who will?
BTW, it is actually more dangerous for children to be at home than in public places. More than 90% of children who are harmed intentionally are harmed by their own near relatives.
27th August 2008 at 6:57 pm
I gather the Redruth “exclusion zone” only covers one small area. However, there is no justification for blanket bans on people of any age being out on the street. But the police may on occasion be justified in stopping and questioning groups or individuals(of any age) who seem to be causing a disturbance or messing up the environment and in the case of under-16s returning them to their parents. In general as a society we have become totally mixed up about at what point young people should be regarded as adults. With certain exceptions 16 should be the age of majority. Attempts t, for instance, extend child protection to 18 are, except in the case of those who are genuinely “vulnerable”, are unhelpful both to the young persons and to society in general.
27th August 2008 at 7:44 pm
“What sort of parent allows their children out on their own after 9pm anyway?”
I walked home from school on my own after 9pm aged 15-17.
I suspect several of our u-17 cricket team walk home from the club after youth team matches in the evening which finish after that time as several live within a mile of the ground.
27th August 2008 at 7:45 pm
PS - I’m not quite sure what it says that the Google ad at the moment is for “telescopic polic batons - guaranteed delivery within 2-3 days”!