Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

It is still astonishing to us that the UK Government has still done nothing about the insult to our Supreme Court, the Law Lords of the House of Lords, whose Judgment on the extradition to of Farid Hilali to Spain, the first person to be arrested in the UK on a European Arrest Warrant. has been deliberately flouted by the Spanish authorities.

Hilali's former UK solicitors, Arani & Co. have released a couple of documents from the successful application for Habeas Corpus, back last May, which was quashed by the Law Lords on appeal this February, with the proviso that Farid Hilali could not be extradited to Spain to face charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation (Al Quaeda) but that he must face the September 11th 2001 attack linked charges of mass murder and endangering aircraft.

In fact, Hilali is now in solitary confinement, facing only the forbidden "membership of a terrorist organisation" charge, which is an utter insult to our Law Lords and to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

See the Free Farid website.

The Statement by Spanish Prosecutor Pedro Rubiro (.pdf) contains a lot of dubious claims (e.g. that Hilali was involved in the Hamburg cell of terrorist with Mohammed Ata and the other September 11th 2001 plotters, something which is refuted by the German Courts, and by the fact that the US authorities have not bothered to attempt to extradite him)

20 It is also noticeable that in the extradition proceedings, despite any representations made by his advocates, the Applicant has never denied in evidence that he is Shakur.

It should be up to the prosecution to prove that Hilali is Shakur, i.e. the presumption of innocence !

The UK Extradition Act 2003 proceedings do not allow the defendant to make any challenges to any evidence whatsoever, they only deal with the matter of whether the application for extradition has been worded correctly etc.. Hilali and his lawyers have made plenty of press statements denying that he is Shakur.

The point which caught our attention was , however:

In fact, that he and Shakur are one and the same has been demonstrated by evidence of voice analysis conducted in the United Kingdom. I mention this purely to demonstrate that there is no foundation to the suggestion that the Applicant is being unlawfully detained at the request of the issuing judicial authority. I am aware, of course, that the time and place for the evaluation of evidence in the context of a trial is when the Applicant is returned to Madrid

Continue reading "Farid Hilali in solitary confinement - voice analysis match of mobile phone intercept done in the United Kingdom" »

Posted by at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Incredibly, the Spanish authorities, appear to have done exactly what we suspected they might from the press reports last Friday, they have deliberately ignored the Judgment of the UK House of Lords, and charged Farid Hilali with "belonging to a terrorist organisation’", the very offence which the Law Lords explicitly forbad him to be extradited on !

See Farid Hilali finally extradited to Spain - are the Spanish authorities flouting the UK House of Lords judgment ?

The Law Lords' Judgments - In re Hilali (Respondent) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) clearly state that:

[...]

28. Participation in a terrorist organisation is not conduct that falls within the list of offences in article 2(2) of the Framework Decision: see section 64(2) of and Schedule 2 to the 2003 Act.

[...]

It follows that this is not an offence for which the respondent can be extradited.

[...]

31.

[...]
I would affirm the decision by the senior district judge to order the respondent’s extradition to Spain. I would do so on the ground that the offences of conspiracy to commit the offence of murder of persons in the United States and of destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of aircraft, contrary to section 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, are the only offences in respect of which he is to be extradited.

[...]

What steps did the British government take to ensure that the Judgment of the Law Lords was carried out properly ?

Extradition is still the responsibility of the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, not the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who is, however, supposed to be in charge of the UK Courts system. Will either of them bother to make a Statement about this affair ?

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been commenting on the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal announced yesterday. Will any mainstream journalists bother to ask him about Farid Hilali ?

Will the Spanish Ambassador be summoned to the Foreign Office to explain this insult to the British legal system of justice ?

Will the Law Lords issue some form of Contempt of Court or Contempt of Parliament ruling ?

Could they demand that one or more Spanish officials be prosecuted in the UK and therefore face their own European Arrest Warrant "rapid extradition without any prima facie evidence" proceedings, to be extradited to the UK , to face the wrath of the Law Lords ?

If the Spanish Government supports their officious bureaucrats in pressing ahead with this charge, in contempt of the Law Lords, then the Home Secretary must amend, by Order, the controversial Extradition Act 2003, and remove Spain from the Part 1 category of European Arrest Warrant compatible countries.

Continue reading "Spanish authorities ignore and insult the UK Law Lords over the Farid Hilali extradition" »

Posted by at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When will the Labour database surveillance state scandals ever end ?

The Daily Telegraph has published some more whistleblower revelations , which claim that the abuse of of supposedly confidential client lawyer privilege, through the secret electronic eavesdropping in Prisons, is far more widespread than the Sadiq Khan MP / Babar Ahmad scandal.

Hundreds of lawyers 'bugged on prison visits'

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

The full scale of a nationwide policy to bug British jails can be disclosed today after a whistleblower revealed that hundreds of lawyers and prison visitors had been secretly recorded.

Why should anyone believe that these lawyers were only bugged when visiting their clients in prison ? Have they also been subjected to the full panoply of state bugging and interception surveillance techniques ?

Is this how the alleged Mobile Phone Intercept Voice Identification of Farid Hilali as the supposed "Shakur" was done, by sending the Spanish intelligence agency Centro Nacional de Inteligencia a copy of a legally priviliged conversation between him and his lawyers, obtained whilst he was at HMP Belmarsh or HMP Woodhill ?

[...]

Serious criminals, including the Soham murderer Ian Huntley and the letter bomber Miles Cooper, are also thought to have been targeted by the alleged secret bugging

What possible "national security" justification is there for bugging the legal conversations of a notorious child murderer, whose only peripheral accomplice is already in a protected witness scheme ?

Was this bugging actually due to corruption, with those involved hoping to sell sensational tidbits to the tabloid media ?

Continue reading "When will Labour's snooping scandals end ? More widespread Prison bugging allegations" »

Posted by at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It appears that Farid Hilali, who faces terrorism charges based almost entirely on mobile phone Intercept Evidence and Voice Identification, has at last been extradited to Spain, according to The Daily Telegraph:

Hilali, 39, was arrested in June 2004 and was flown out of RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday.

CNN's Madrid bureau report publishes a photo of a clean shaven Farid Hilali after arriving in Spain, in the distinctive British yellow and green prison coveralls. Presumably nobody is ever extradited to Brazil wearing these colours.

However the CNN report says:

But the court source said it may now be difficult to press charges against Hilali for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, given that Spanish courts have acquitted at trial or on appeal three other suspected co-conspirators, including Yarkas.

But Hilali also faces a potential charge of membership in a terrorist group, which may be easier to uphold in court, the source said.

If Hilali is charged with belonging to Al Quaeda, and is not charged with the conspiracy to murder and endangering the safety of airliners charges, then there deserves to be a huge diplomatic row between the United Kingdom and Spain, as that would be directly the opposite of what the House of Lords, the highest Court in the United Kingdom, actually ordered in th their Judgement in this case.

It could well destroy future supposedly fast track European Arrest Warrant extraditions to Spain, and possibly to the rest of the European Union as well.

See the Law Lords' Judgement: Judgements - In re Hilali (Respondent) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus)

Lord Hope of Craighead's Opinion, with which all his colleagues agreed:

Continue reading "Farid Hilali finally extradited to Spain - are the Spanish authorities flouting the UK House of Lords judgment ?" »

Posted by at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Law Lords have published their Judgment which overturns the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum which had been granted to Farid Hhilali.

Hilali was the first person to be arrested in the UK under the new, allegedly rapid, European Arrest Warrant extradition procedure under Part 1 of the controversial Extradition Act 2003.

See also the Press Release from his solicitor, the controversial Muddassar Arani, in the comments on one of our previous blog articles about the Farid Hilali case.

This case is of interest to us, partly because of the European Arrest Warrant, and also because the evidence seems to be rely on mobile phone intercept evidence and voice recognition evidence, in an alleged terrorist plot case, a topic which politicians and pundits should be debating here in the UK, if the secret Privy Council review under Sir John Chilcot, of Intercept Evidence is actually published before the relevant clauses of the new Counter-terrorism Bill are debated.

Continue reading "European Arrest Warrant extradition to Spain - Law Lords overturn habeus corpus for Farid Hilali" »

Posted by at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The BBC reports that Farid Hilali has been granted a writ of Habeas Corpus, overturning his detention without trial currently in Whitemoor prison, as the first person in the UK to have been served with a supposedly "fast track" European Arrest Warrant, for extradition to Spain.

Lady Justice Smith and Mr Justice Irwin ruled that his incarceration under a European arrest warrant was arbitrary and unjustified.

Under the notorious Extradition Act 2003 extraditions to Category 1 countries i.e. the European Union, such cases no longer even involve the Home Secretary making a decision or hearing appeals.

We have been following the proceedings of this case since 2004 (i.e. hardly "fast track" extradition) , since it has huge ramifications for everyone in the UK, who might be arrested and extradited to other European Union countries, without any actual evidence being heard and tested by the defence in a UK court. e.g.

• Farid Hilali still being held in Woodhill Prison - so much for the "fast track" extradition under the European Arrest Warrant

• Farid Hilali loses the first European Arrest Warrant extradition Appeal - where is the evidence against him

• Farid Hilali spin - how were the "voice analysis" samples obtained ?

• Is mobile phone "evidence" enough to extradite Farid Hilali as a terrorist ?
  

The flimsy "evidence" against him appears to be some intercepted mobile phone conversations by the Spanish authorities (which would be inadmissible in a UK court if done by the UK authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Section 17 Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings.).

This alleged identification as the a "mystery voice" via dubious voiceprint analysis (how exactly did the Spanish authorities get hold of reference recordings of his voice, when he was in prison in the UK on immigration charges ?) with the chief activist of the Al-Quaeda cell in Spain, in August 2001.

Mobile phone location records apparently place the "mystery voice" mobile phones in South East London, but these phobnes do not seem to actually have been seized or to have been shown to have been used by Farid Hilali.

Spanish prosecutors claimed he telephoned Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the alleged head of the Madrid al-Qaida cell, in August 2001 and talked of entering "the field of aviation" and "cutting the bird's throat" - an apparent reference to the American bald eagle.

Except of course, that during the multi-defendant trial in which, Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas was sentenced, the Spanish court dismissed all of the telephone intercept evidence as being "untrustworthy".

"The judges dismissed evidence of recorded telephone calls used by the prosecution, saying they were misleading and often based on misunderstandings of the Arabic language."

So the alleged mastermind he is supposed to have been conspiring with in Spain regarding the September 11th 2001 terrorist plots, has already been found not guilty of those charges.

It remains to be seen whether Home Secretary John Reid will, for example deport Farid Hilali to Morocco, or impose a controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Order on him.

What this means for the rest of us, who could also be arrested and held in prison without trial for months and years, under a European Arrest Warrant, simply on allegations based on easily forged or hard to interpret electronic intercept evidence, which is inadmissible in a UK court, remains to be seen.

Under this Labour Government, our supposed system of justice has become frighteningly Kafkaesque

Posted by at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We have been following, on and off, news of Farid Hilali since 2004.

His case is of general interest, in that Farid Hilali seems to be the first person in the UK to have been arrested and held in prison under the new, allegedly "fast track" extradition under the European Arrest Warrant.

We did think that, despite the case against the alleged ring leader Al Quaeda in Spain, Imad Eddin Barakat, having collapsed, and the Spanish court having decided that all the mobile phone evidence presented was "untrustworthy", that Farid Hilali, should have been released, and, as an illegal immigrant, deported from the UK.

The only evidence against him is an alleged Spanish "voice print analysis" of a mobile phone conversation, i.e. there is no actual physical evidence, like possession of the actual mobile phone, DNA, fingerprints etc which would prove that he was actually the person talking elliptically to the alleged Spanish Al Queada cell leader, Imad Eddin Barakat back in August 2001.

However, it, seems that the Kafkaesque legal system bureaucracy ground on, and Hilali lost his High Court Appeal against extradition to Spain, back in May 2006.

This involved the notorious Extradition Act 2003, but unlike Part 2 Scheduled Countries such as the USA, European Union
countries are dealt with under Part 1 of the Act, and the Home Secretary is not involved in the extradition and appeal process at all (officially).

We had assumed that he would then have been sent to Spain, but, lo and behold, it appears that Farid Hilai is still being held in
Woodhill Prison in the UK 17th November 2006 !

A little while later a gang of officers assaulted a category A Muslim alleged terror suspect Farid Hilali after he refused to be transferred to another prison stating that he had social and urgent legal visits booked for the week commencing 20th November 2006. Also, that the Governor of Woodhill Prison has been notified by his solicitors of the request not to transfer him. Mr Hilali was assaulted for merely stating to officers to check the position with the Governor. The inmate was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar (God is Great)!” in pain as he was beaten. His solicitors have reported this assault to the police for proceedings to be bought against the officers concerned.

Under the stupid Extradition Act 2003, there is no opportunity for a UK Court and defence lawyers to cross-examine any alleged prima facie evidence, such as the "voice print" analysis. If the mobile phone calls had been intercepted in the UK, then they would be inadmissible as evidence, in a UK Court, either for the prosecution or the defence, under the current Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 section 17 Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings.

As we have said before:

Call us old fashioned, but we think that some actual positive, evidence should be brought before a British court, for a sanity check, before anyone is arrested and extradited from the UK to a foreign country.

For all we know, Farid Hilali could be a peripheral associate of terrorist plotters, but this is not justice, and it does not make us any safer against real terrorists, it just weakens our freedoms and liberties, which is exactly what the terrorist extremists want to achieve.

Posted by at 2:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What could be worse than being extradited to foreign country like the USA without any prima facie evidence against you being presented to a British court for challenge by your defence lawyers, like in the cases of Gary McKinnon or Babar Ahmad ?

You could be arrested and extradited to a European Union country, under the supposedly "fast track extradition" European Arrest Warrant.

The first person to have had this dubious honour thrust upon him is Farid Hilali, who, today, has lost his High Court appeal against the decision last June to allow his extradition to Spain on terrorist chrges, connected with the alleged Al Quaeda cell which was broken up in 2001.

Spanish prosecutors claimed he telephoned Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the alleged head of the Madrid al-Qaida cell, in August 2001 and talked of entering "the field of aviation" and "cutting the bird's throat" - an apparent reference to the American bald eagle.

Except of course, that during the multi-defendant trial in which, Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas was sentenced, the Spanish court dismissed all of the telephone intercept evidence as being "untrustworthy".

"The judges dismissed evidence of recorded telephone calls used by the prosecution, saying they were misleading and often based on misunderstandings of the Arabic language."

There are still lots of unanswered questions about the alleged phone calls to or from Peckham and New Cross in London.

There does not appear to be any actual evidence to link Farid Hilali with the mobile phone(s) which an unknown person named or codednamed "Shakur" spoke in such coded terms with Yarkas, from i.e. they were not fouund in his Farid Hilali's possession, and there does not seem to be any DNA or fingerprint evidence which links him to these mobile phones, if they even still exist anywhere.

The only thing to link Farid Hilali as "Shakur" is an alleged "voice analysis" by the Spanish secret authorities, which was not done until May 2003.

"Voice analysis" is hardly an incontrovertible forensic technique which cannot be challenged in court.

Given that mobile phone calls are entirely digital and are synthesised from "phoneme" building blocks, it is entirely possible to digitally fake such an alleged intercepted phone call to resemble the "voice" of a suspect.

Even if not faked, or selectively and misleadingly digitally edited, how can anyone be sure that the vague and unspecific words used were not mis-translated from Arabic ? What direct proof is there that they had anything to do with the September 11th 2001 terrorist hijacking suicide murders ?

Remember also, that if Farid Hilali was being tried in England under the Terrorism Act which he was arrested under, then Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Section 17 Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings would apply to all this alleged phone intercept "evidence", which would be indamissable in Court.

Why is there no mention of Farid Hilali in the extensive and exhaustive reports by US Congressional Commisions ad Committees into these attacks ?

How can it be right to extradite anyone on such flimsy, entirely digital and easly faked or misinterpreted, circumstantial evidence ?

One would have thought that such evidence would have been challenged in a British court during the extradition hearing, but, remember, thanks to the NuLabour Extradition Act 2003, no such evidence is required anymore. Since this comes under Part 1 of the Act, there is no longer even a role for the Home Secretary to decide on the case either.

Call us old fashioned, but we think that some actual positive, evidence should be brought before a British court, for a sanity check, before anyone is arrested and extradited from the UK to a foreign country.

For all we know, Farid Hilali could be a peripheral associate of terrorist plotters, but this is not justice, and it does not make us any safer against real terrorists, it just weakens our freedoms and liberties, which is exactly what the terrorist extremists want to achieve.

Posted by at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today saw the verdicts on the long running court case in Madrid, where 24 suspected Al Quaeada terrorist cell members were on trial, for membership of a proscribed organisation, and some of them, on charges of helping in the September 11th 2001 attacks (not the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, as most of these people were in custody by then).

Read the 447 page judgement (.pdf), obviously in Spanish.

Interestingly, the Spanish Judges rejected the "evidence" of mobile phone call conversations, as being "untrustworthy".

The BBC reports:

"But the judges dismissed evidence of recorded telephone calls used by the prosecution, saying they were misleading and often based on misunderstandings of the Arabic language."

Continue reading "Spanish Al Quaeda group court case - judges reject the telephone intercept evidence as "untrustworty"" »

Posted by at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Farid Hilali, the Moroccan facing the first European Arrest warrant extradition in the UK to Spain, has today lost his extradition hearing at Bow Street Magistrates Court, according to the Press Association report in The Scotsman.

District Judge Timothy Workman (who also heard the new "rapid" extradition to the USA hearings involving Babar Ahmad)

"added that Hilali had the right to appeal to High Court against his decision within seven days."

Farid Hilali is accused of somehow being part of Al-Quaeda in Spain, before the September 11th 2001 attacks, and was not involved in the Madrid railway bombings (he was being held in Belmarsh at the time).

It would appear that yet again, the UK extradition court did not ask any questions about the alleged eveidence against Farid Hilali, only the points of extradition lae about possible torture or the lack of a fair trial.

According to the flimsy reports abouut this case, there have to be some doubts that the Spanish authorities have identified the right man, soley on the basis of an alleged electronic "voice analysis" of a mobile phone conversation. How they obtained suitable voice samples from a prisoner being held in Belmarsh high security prison is unclear.

If Farid Hilali was a member or associate of AL-Quaeda, he was ahrdly a linchpin of the organisation, and we do not support any extremist views he may have. However, the legal precedent that this case sets is a chilling one, it cannot be justice, if people can be arbitarily arrested and extradirted to face serious charges in another European Union country , simply on some alleged "voice analysis", by a secret police agency (Unidad Central de Informacion Exterior - UCIE) of a foreign state (Spain) of a mobile phone conversation, which in itself contained no overt threats, and which it has not been established was to or from a mobile phone actually in the suspects's possession. All of this relates to an alleged terrorist plot in a third country, the USA, which has not brought any evidence or even accusations against Fatrid Hilali with respect to the September 11th 2001 attacks.

Doesn't anyone suspect that justice is not being seen to be done properly and fairly in this case ?

Posted by at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Farid Hilali appeared in court again today, according to Reuters.

His case is of general interest because he is the first person in the United Kingdom who faces being extradited , in this case to Spain, under the new , allegedly more speedy, European Arrest Warrant.

This European Arrest Warrant extradition procedure has certainly lasted longer than the three months which it is supposed to take, as the original request from the Spanish authorities was issued in April 2004. His next hearing has been adjourned until April 21st 2005.

The case is also notable in that it seems to be entirely reliant on mobile phone communications data and intercept evidence in an alleged terrorism case.

The "Westminster village" of politicians and journalists have hardly managed to understand these types of technological "intelligence" or "evidence", what will they make of the fact that Hilali is claiming that it is a case of mistaken identity, and that the Spanish authorities are somehow "magically" relying on some unknown, unchallenged "voice analysis/comparison" technology to claim that he is the person who uttered some innocent/code phrase during a phone conversation with a senior Al-Queada suspeect in Spain, before the September 11th 2001 attacks ?

How exactly did the Spanish authorities get hold of voice samples of Farid Hilali in order to compare with their intercepted phone call recordings ? Were his conversations in Belmarsh recorded and handed over tot the Spanish authorities ?

For those of you using a search engine to look up "Farid Hilali" , note the number of other websites which spread the disinformation that since Hilali is wanted by Spanish authorities on terrorism charges, therfore he must somwhow be connected with the Madrid bomb attacks of 11th March 2004. However, since he was arrested on immigration charges in September 2003, and has been in custody in Belmarsh high security prison ever since, one would have thought that he had a cast iron alibi for the Madrid attacks, which appear to have been planned in January / February 2004.

Posted by at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Farid Hilali, who is the first person who is being extradited under the new European Arrest Warrant, actually appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court yesterday,

This new extradition procedure should be under microscopic scrutiny by the media and others, since the reported "evidence" against Hilali seems to be vague and circumstantial, and some of it should be inadmissible under current laws.

According to various reports and Press Association reports

"Farid Hilali, 35, phoned Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, who is suspected of leading an al-Qaeda cell in Spain, a few weeks before the attacks on the US, said a prosecutor, James Lewis. He was speaking at Bow Street magistrates' court in London for the Spanish government in its effort to extradite Hilali from the UK.

Hilali allegedly spoke to Yarkas after the attacks of being "sick," code for under police surveillance, the prosecutor said. "

This is hardly smoking gun stuff, with no actual mention of anything illegal, or of a particular target. How can it actually be proven that the word "sick" did have the meaning attributed to it ?

"The arrest warrant claims Hilali is participating 'in a commando (group) that is being trained on aircrafts, a few days before the attacks of 11 September, 2001' and he directed al Qaida activities.

The court also heard of a wedding video seized in Germany, also implicating Hilali through his connection with Yarkas. "

A wedding video is unlikely to have recorded any actual illegal plotting. All that it might establish is that some people might have met each other. That is not evidence of a crime.

Judge Timothy Workman remanded the suspect in prison until a further hearing on July 29.

The extradition case is expected to be decided some time in September.

June until September does not seem to be a very "fast track" extradition procedure.

Questions which should be answered before this European Arrest Warrant Extradition is permitted:

Continue reading "Farid Hilali in court - unanswered questions" »

Posted by at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It looks like Farid Hilali has now made his Bow Street Magistrate's court appearance by video link from Belmarsh prison, as did Abu Hamza.

Considering that all the "evidence" against them seems to be entirely electronic, it seems strange that they do not even get to be brought before a "real world" court in the UK (presumably they will face these once they are extradited).

The relevant legislation seems to be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 57 together with the Prison Service Order 1030

Although there are rules for prison staff to move out of earshot, but not out of sight of the defendant and his legal team, during privileged conversations, the regulations do not seem to say that any video recording (with sound) actually has to be switched off as well. How can a defendent or lawyer actually tell if this is the case ?

Posted by at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Press Association reports that:

"Farid Hilali, 35, was due to appear at Bow Street magistrates court in London today but prison officials failed to deliver him to court. It was understood to have been an oversight."

How is it possible to "overlook" the court appearance of an allegedly major terrorist suspect ?? Just how many Category A prisoners are there to keep track of in Belmarsh prison ?

We have no idea about whether Hilali is innocent or guilty, but we are worried about the alleged use of voice analysis and what should be inadmissable mobile phone intercepts under a European Arrest Warrant extradition procedure to Spain.

Posted by at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Farid Hilali story in the Evening Standard which we commented on yesterday seems to have been based, without attribution, on a story in The Times (unless both stories are just verbatim parroting of a briefing or leak).

Several other "newspapers" have parroted this story, but one of the few which seems to have quoted The Times as the source, is, astonishingly, the communist Chinese Xinhua news agency.

"The Times, June 30, 2004

Voice analysis and detective work led police to believe that Shakur and Mr Hilali were the same person.

Who exactly conducted this "voice analysis" ? The Spanish or the UK authorities ?

The name "Shakur" appeared alongside Osama bin Laden and 33 others on an indictment in Spain last September for allegedly using the country as a base to plot September 11.

Mr Hilali was arrested by the Metropolitan Police last September. He was not charged but was discovered to be an illegal entrant and detained at Belmarsh prison.

If he has been in Belmarsh maximum security prison since September 2003, surely that gives Hilali an alibi for the Madrid bombings in March 2004 ?

He immediately claimed political asylum but his case has yet to be processed. Well-placed sources yesterday expressed doubt about any direct involvement in September 11 but suggested that his arrest was a significant development in the war against terrorism.

We are not a "well placed source" but our doubts about the actual threat posed by Farid Hilali are growing.

Baltasar Garzon the judge leading the Spanish investigation, said last autumn that he had been unable to establish Shakur's identity. But in April he made a new order saying that police had identified him as Mr Hilali, and calling for his extradition.

Baltasar Garzón is the Spanish judge who issued an extradition warrant for General Pinochet the dictator of Chile, which caused such a headache for then Home Secretary Jack Straw, by reminding everyone of Jack Straw's own left wing political activities in Chile when he was a student.

The Metropolitan Police formally arrested Mr Hilali on Monday and brought him before Bow Street Magistrates? Court, accused of ^participation in a terrorist organisation". He was sent back to Belmarsh for seven days. The fast-track extradition procedure, introduced on January 1, should take three months.

Judge Garzón alleges that the 9/11 plot was finalised in 2001 at a meeting between Mohammed Atta, the leading hijacker, and Ramzi Binalshibh, a suspected al-Qaeda leader. One train bomb suspect has been charged with helping to arrange the meeting. "

The detailed USA 9/11 Commission report does not mention any Spanish links with either Mohammed Atta or Ramzi Binalshibh, and it does not mention Farid Hilali either.

Why have no "journalists" asked questions such as:

• Is there really any proper evidence against Farid Hilali or is the UK court's interpretation of a European Arrest Warrant going to permit "fast track" extradition merely on on rumours and easily faked mobile phone "evidence" ?

• Where did the Spanish authorities get authenticated voice samples from Farid Hilali, with which to conduct "voice analysis" comparisons with the intercepted mobile phone call allegedly made by "Shakur" in August 2001 ?

• Were such recordings obtained by the UK authorities by bugging Hilali's legally privileged conversations with lawyers or with relatives or other inmates etc. inside Belmarsh prison ?

• Or are we to assume that the Spanish authoritiesare conducting illegal electronic surveillance within the United Kingdom ?

• Will the extradition hearing on July 5th actually bother to forensically examine the alleged Spanish "voice analysis" and the mobile phone intercept "evidence", something which should be illegal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act ?
  

Posted by at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The London Evening Standard reports that :

"Scotland Yard said in a statement: "Farad Halali has been arrested on suspicion of his involvement in a terrorist organisation.

"He appeared at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 28 June on a European arrest warrant to Spain, alleging he committed terrorist offences." He was remanded in custody at Belmarsh Prison and will appear in court again on 5 July."

"Mr Hilali was arrested by the Met last September. He was not then charged, but detained at Belmarsh after it was found he was an illegal immigrant"

Presumably a search of his home and bank accounts etc. did not produce any evidence of terrorist activities back in September 2003.

N.B. Is that spelt "Halali" or "Hilali" ? Is this a confusion with Halal meat or simply a typographical mistake ? An inaccuracy of a single letter in your surname could be the difference between being arrested as a terrorist or not. Other media sources and the rest of the Evening Standard article call him Hilali.

This probable spelling mistake will now surface in various public and private search engines, and anybody with a similar name will probably find themselves being suspected of being related to a major terrorist suspect, and will be discriminated against, harassed and subjected to extra security checks, especially if travelling on an aeroplane.

However, the Evening Standard then alleges that pretty well the only evidence against him is based on mobile phone intercepts and on voice analysis, neither of which could possibly stand up in court if he were to be charged in an English court of law.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2001 specifically forbids the use of telephone intercepts as evidence in court, a situation which may or may not change after the Home Office consultation on the renewal or modification of anti-terrorist powers currently underway, but which cannot change the law before the Hilali case is considered.

"It is alleged Mr Hilali, from Morocco, is also known as Shakur - a man previously revealed to have telephoned the chief of al-Qaeda's Madrid cell shortly before the September 11 attacks."

Is the "chief of al-Qaeda's Madrid cell" meant to be Imadeddin Eddin Barakat Yarkas, (also spelled as "Imad Eddin" in some reports) also known as Abu Dahdah, who has been in Spanish custody since November 2001 ?

"In a tapped call on 27 August 2001, Shakur said he had "entered into the field of aviation"-and "cut the throat of an eagle". Three weeks earlier the agent had called to say: "I am preparing certain things which should please you."

He gave a warning that his phone was "hot", which suggested that he realised that the conversation could be tapped.

Who exactly is leaking this level of alleged detail and why ?

The calls are reported to have been made from New Cross or Peckham. "

i.e. a mobile phone rather than a landline, for which an exact address would be known

"Voice analysis and detective work, sources claim, led police to believe that Mr Hilali and Shakur are the same person"

The computerised data manipulation needed for voice analysis also makes it impossible to prove in court that the voice sample was not convincingly faked, using a current version of Voice Morphing technology, which even 5 years ago, was possible to do in near real time from a small sample of someone's voice.

Where is the evidence linking either Hilali or any of the Madrid bombing terrorist suspects in Spain or Morocco to the September 11th 2001 suicide hijackers in the USA ? They do not appear in the 20/20 hindsight social network analysis of the links between the plotters.

If these mobile phone interecepts have not lead to other evidence such as large financial transactions or access to weapons, then Farad Hilali (or Halali) can hardly be the dangerous terrorist mastermind which some people seem to be trying to claim in the media.

It would be a massive blow to our civil liberties if anybody can be extradited under a European Arrest Warrant on terrorist or other charges simply on mobile phone intercepts, which are illegal to use as evidence in a British court of law.

Posted by at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)