/** Tools */

01 May 2007

Operation Crevice trial ends and the cracks are showing

Below is a transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 (of 7) patsies men convicted in the Crevice trial:

I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:

In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."

And that's the end of the statement. Thank you.
Imran Khan, Nabeel Hussain (acquitted) & Michael Mansfield QC
An MP3 of Imran Khan's statement can be found here, courtesy of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

Those who are more than a little predictably getting all het-up and excited about the revelations-that-aren't of the Crevice trial wouldn't go amiss peering a little deeper into the Crevice before calling for a Public Inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005. They would also do well to understand the -- restrictive-to-the-point-of-futility -- legislative framework the State imposed on public inquiries via the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that was affectionately known as the "Public Inquiries Cover-up Bill" and which came into force on 7/6/2005, just in the nick of time. In summary, any Independent Public Inquiry is legally obliged to be neither 'independent', nor 'public' and the scope of its inquiry is determined by the very State into whose self-preserving interests a truly independent public inquiry would legitimately inquire. Simple enough?

As a point of fact, the July 7th Truth Campaign is the only grass-roots organisation to echo the sentiments of the Law Society of England & Wales, Amnesty International and Geraldine Finucane in calling on the judiciary to boycott any inquiry proposed under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. If the Inquiries Act 2005 is not fit for the purpose of investigating the killing of a Human Rights lawyer almost 20 years ago, it is most certainly not an acceptable piece of legislation under which to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of 56 people. Sign the petition.

Panorama is to be commended, for once, for venturing close to the brink of of the gaping Crevice chasm, but not for hiding the brief jaunt away among the usual old tosh that passes for investigative journalism these days. In addition to the litany of crimes referred to in Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the five men convicted of having comitted no crime, the State was forced to resort to relying on the testimony of an FBI informant, having the rules of the game of law changed and abandoning all notions of a unanimous verdict.

Desperate times, it seems, call for even more desperate measures and the precedents continue to be set. If it's 'justice' you want, you're increasingly unlikely to get it under a system of 'law'.

5 comments:

Shahid said...

I'm genuinely fearful not just for myself, but every other "young, angry Muslim" who rails against the hypocrisy and duplicity of the "democratic" West.

I'm certain I must have said things in the privacy of my own home, which could be reconstructed in court to make me look very bad indeed.

Is it just me, or is this just like Minority Report?

Alright, they talked about blowing up a club, but many people say indefensible things in the privacy of our own minds, and sometimes in the privacy of our own homes. Audio probes render this privacy non-existent. Indeed, I remember you mentioning listening lamp-posts.

What greater surveillance does is it allows the State to arrest anyone.

What greater Islamophobia in the press does is make it almost impossible for any Muslim to get a fair trial. I certainly would not be happy to be judged by a jury of my "peers" in this country, or America, or Australia, or Israel. (The four points of the Zionaxis swastika)

What the new majority verdict precedent does is render the odd, lone voice in a jury irrelevant and pointless. All safeguards are lost.

What the Inquiries Act 2005 does is render any meaningful investigation of the state apparatus after an act of state terrorism null and void.

What this adds up to, is fascism. Plain and simple.

paul said...

In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation - debated in Parliament - and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.

Add Arrest without warrant: constables
1) A constable may arrest without a warrant-
(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

into the mix and you could very well have the basis for an effective police state, which rules through law, making it merely the expression of the bureaucracy's whims.

Of course,it won't be a police state because we're not like that. These powers will only be used judiciously against whatever the current threat to society is.

This coming from people who claim that governments, states are weak and ineffectual in the face of a new globalised order.

It would seem to me that they can do a lot more than they give themselves credit for.

If only 'they worked for us'!

Stef said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stef said...

@shahid

It may be "young, angry Muslims' under the spotlight for now but there's every reason to believe that anyone who's angry could fall foul of the police state that's merrily being constructed around us

I've commented a couple of times in private conversations with people that I can understand the rage that some people feel about the actions of the UK and US governments. I've gone on to say that I do not believe that violence is the way but it would be easy enough to lose that bit of tape. Chuck in the contents of my bathroom cabinet and a dodgy 'star' witness reciting a script and you've got yourself a terror trial

Islam is just the start. Just look at how Fathers for Justice was neutralised for an example of the terror card being played in a non Islamic context. Animal rights activists are next on the list, then (genuine) anti-corporate activists and then ... whoever

paul said...

Ah yes, fathers for justice, an excellent vehicle for advancing the isolation of our head waiters from their electorate, all it took was a few condoms full of purple flour (thankfully not the deadly chapatti variety) and geeing up some bar room big talk about kidnapping little leo.

The great thing about the secret service is you get to join so many interesting organisations, and you're paid for it!