18 June 2008

The Lunacy in the Asylum that is modern Britain

Foreword: One of the Worlds most dangerous Islamic terrorists who is described as Osama Bin Laden's right hand man in Europe, whose audio sermons were found in the apartments of some of the 9/11 hijackers was released back out into our society last night from a British prison.

The stringent conditions surrounding his release are going to cost the tax payer 500,000 at a time when inflation is rising and pay packets dwindling.

The British tax payers are paying for the sanctuary of one of their most ardent enemies because to deport this illegal immigrant who arrived on forged papers fleeing terror charges in his home Nation would breach his human rights.

Is it not time to scrap the human rights laws protecting Islamic terrorists for the safety, security and preservation of the British homeland so that we can start deporting these monsters on the grounds of protecting the human rights of the innocent British people who pay their taxes to be protected from such men?

Is there more to this move amidst the eye though?

Have the British wing of Al Qaeda forced the hand of the British government?

They released a press statement at the beginning of the year stating that unless Abu Qatadar and Abu Hamza were released from prison then they were going to attack the Country.

Now Abu Qatadar is free and Abu Hamza's appeal against extradition is currently going through
the courts.

Does this Labour government negotiate with terrorists who are hell bent on our complete and total destruction on behalf of their Religion?

Daily Mail

Abu Qatada, the fanatical preacher once described as 'Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe', left prison last night after winning his fight against deportation.

Qatada - who is considered one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects - was released on bail after a judge ruled there were no grounds to keep him in jail.

However, his eight-page bail order sets out some of the most stringent rules yet seen for terror suspects.

The 47-year-old cleric, who walked out of Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire at around 8.20pm, will be forced to wear an electronic tag and observe a 22-hour-a-day curfew - the toughest yet imposed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which deals with serious terror suspects.

He is also expected to be housed in an MI5 safe house, where he will be subjected to intensive round-the-clock surveillance, costing the taxpayer an estimated £500,000 a year.

Officials have even gone so far as to ban him from receiving visits from Osama bin Laden, and more than 20 other individuals.

Just last month, Qatada won a High Court legal battle to block his extradition to Jordan, where he is wanted on terror charges.

A judge ruled that the cleric would face an unfair trial, breaching his human rights.

The Home Office - which has not yet abandoned hope of throwing Qatada out of the country - is appealing to the House of Lords.

Once that process is exhausted, his bail will lapse, and ministers will have to apply for a Control Order to limit his movements.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said last night: 'I am extremely disappointed the courts have granted Abu Qatada bail, albeit with very strict conditions.

'The Government's priority is to protect public safety and national security and we will take all steps necessary to do so.'

Continue reading:
The lunacy in the Asylum


Anonymous said...

This "man's" eyes speak volumes.
They are like tombstones.
Evil has settled in his heart and the deaths he has caused have turned his soul on a downward spiral.
He is dangerous and evil no doubt.
It seems strange that someone has not walked up to him and put him to sleep like the tortured animal he has become.
This is why he need State protection, obviously.
Couldn't someone do us all a favor and kidnap him?
Take him somewhere like France in the boot of a car, and hand him over quietly to the Jordanian Embassy?
Is it right to pray for such an intervention?
Perhaps the State should engage the "services" of one of the many crime gangs to do it for them.
It would cost no more than succouring this demon.

Lionheart said...

Agreed anonymous, and i dont think it will be long now before the 'British Crime Gangs' become the new Militia, the frontline in the defence of the homeland.

Turning their bravery within society into heroics for their fellow country men/women.

They know the underworld where this darkness resides, they have the resources and networks in place and they have their childrens futures to protect.

I was once told that the Krays spirit is well and truly alive, and i am certain that if they were still around they would not put up with this nonsense on their manor.

Think of all those vulnerable old people who are now surrounded by this evil because they are too old and frail to move.

What would the Krays think of that?

I wonder why those who have taken over the throne are putting up with it.

I was even threatend by them for defending my community and the National Security of the British homeland against Pakistani Moslems.

We must all decide where we stand and who we stand with!

A guerilla war is not fought with troops in full fatigues on the battlefield with tanks and planes. A guerill war is fought by those undercover in a different type of battlefield, the streets and communities where the armies of Islam have over run.

The Moslems are conducting a Civil guerilla war against us within our streets and communites and what is the response?

NOTHING we get arrested by the British State for just talking about it.

We cannot change what the future holds because the writing is on the wall, written by our enemies.

The armies of Islam would do well to remember that they are surrounded by millions of British patriots who are blended into society just like them, and all it will take is a spark to ignite the fire that will never be quenched.

Maybe that spark has has happend and the fire is beginning to start!

Anonymous said...

The emergence of so many "moderate Muslims" courting the Church of England clerics and Government Ministers favours, is an indication of how the Jihad against the non-believers (all the rest) is fueling Muslim fears of losing what they have gained in our Society.
Self -preservation is a very strong instinct, and unfortunately there is not much choice for them
They will have to choose one day, between the holy book of Jihad and living in Britain divested of their unfounded self righteou superiority complex.

Anonymous said...

What about British taxpayers (the potential victims of this monster) calling for the arrest of the judge as an accessory after the fact for protecting a dangerous known criminal,an inciter/provoker to murder and mayhem and thus, perhaps, even a potential murderer himself?

How can judges, lawyers, juries continue getting away with protecting dangerous foreign criminals/terrorists under the guise of a phoney set of 'human rights'?

I bet his lawyers were of the same shameless ilk as those who tried to get an Israeli general arrested for so-called 'war crimes' on his arrival in England to attend a charity occasion for funds to further develop the wonderful home for autistic & other mentally & physically damaged children - (whether jewish, arab, christian or other) he has set up in Israel.

That gentle General will never
be able to visit England again because of these so-called 'human rights' lawyers (who include a few politically active anti-Israel,pro-
terrorist renegade Jews I'm sorry to say) though he has definitely never committed a single 'war crime', apart from being a soldier whose responsibility it is to see that those who daily commit'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' against his people, do not do so with impunity.

Another question is why aren't any demonstrations being held against this sentence and its unbelievable cost for the British taxpayer? Could it be because people fear that it is THEY who could be arrested for 'disturbing the peace' and 'incitement', put on trial and thus find themselves in prison...with no 'human rights' for them if those 'human rights' prosecuters have their way.

It's about time that such lawyers, not the British taxpayer, are made responsible for covering the tremendous costs needed for the
'protection' of their client's
'human rights'. After all, we all know they're rolling in it so they can easily afford it....

But when their heads are about to be chopped off in El-Trafalgar Square, they shouldn't be surprised when their pleas for
'human rights' from those whose
'[in]human rights'they fought for so diligently, fall on deaf ears.

Again we are witness to the fact that there may be law and order, but only the evil, the criminals, are awarded 'justice', not their victims.

Anonymous Lady

The Green Arrow said...

Lionheart you must watch this video


Good Luck

Anonymous said...

That is one for the book of stupid things courts do ! these scumbags do not care what the law says they have there own laws. the courts and government think they can learn more info by letting these people run about. but at what cost? here in the US the men who bombed the twin towers we being watched by our government and what good did it do? they watched them alright. all the way to there death as they took 3000 others lives with them! stupid is what they are. our lives mean nothing to them we are the pawns while they play detectives

Anonymous said...

it wasnt like the 9/11 bombers were under constant surveillance. They were concerned over some activities they were doing. So if your going to write something Miles...please disclose everything. In eseense, the feds were a step behind the terrorist. And just didn't move or act quick enough based on circumstantial evidence at best. There was nothing that could have been done prior to 9/11 to prevent it.

Anonymous said...


- March 2004 15 year old Kriss Donald tortured, castrated, blinded and burned alive by gang of Muslim men.

- Feb 2007 Three young Sikh boys attacked by 20 strong Muslim gang

- April 2008 15 year old English boy left with brain damage after hammer attack by 16 strong gang of Muslim men

- April 2008 12 and 13 years old brothers attacked by Muslim gang.

- April 2008 16 years old asthmatic boy attacked by adult Muslim gang

- April 2008 19 year old kuffar attacked with baseball bats by Muslim gang

- May 2008 14 year old English boy attacked with iron bars by Muslim gang.

- June 2008 17 English 17 year-old given savage beating by mob of Muslim men

- June 2008 two English schoolboys kicked unconscious by mob of 100 Muslim youths

Spot the pattern? The victims are lone or small groups of vulnerable kuffar young boys, the Muslims are older, in some cases controlled by adults, and vastly outnumber their victims. The attacks also seem to be increasing in frequency, though never reported in the national press.

These are not racially-motivated attacks (except in the McPherson sense) because non-white kuffars are attacked as well, and humiliation of the victim is often an important part of the attack. They are in fact religiously-motivated and probably incited by the type of sermons seen in Undercover Mosque.

Anonymous said...

Watched the Jail to Jihad Despatches programme on C4 last night, well worth watching.


Anonymous said...

# Anonymous 18-Jun-2008 17:36:00

I read that most of these attacks happen after a non-moslem having an argument with a moslem. The gang then attacks the non-moslem because he is oppressing the moslem.

This is defensive Jihad, the only form of Jihad that according to moderate moslems is the only permissible ones.

Anonymous said...

#lionheart @ 18-Jun-2008 10:05:00

I recall reading recently that a senior police officer saying that people are turning to underworld figures to sort out problems as they have no faith in the judiciary system.

I believe these 'fixers' are the same type that the footballer Steven Gerrard turned to.



Anonymous said...

My point was I feel if they are or have been in to something we need to deport them and not take the chance. head them off at the pass !

Anonymous said...

Mentions Print this page Email this page
Tracing Plots, British Watch, Then Pounce

By Philip Shenon & Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times
August 12, 2006

The disclosure that British officials conducted months of surveillance before arresting 24 terrorism suspects this week highlighted what many terrorism specialists said was a central difference between American and British law enforcement agencies.

The British, they say, are more willing to wait and watch.

Although details of the British investigation remain secret, Bush administration officials say Britain's domestic intelligence agency, MI5, was for at least several months aware of a plot to set off explosions on airliners flying to the United States from Britain, as well as the identity of the people who would carry it out.

British officials suggested that the arrests were held off to gather as much information as possible about the plot and the reach of the network behind it. Although it is not clear how close the plotters were to acting, or how capable they were of carrying out the attacks, intelligence and law enforcement officials have described the planning as well advanced.

The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have suggested in the past that they would never allow a terrorist plot discovered here to advance to its final stages, for fear that it could not be stopped in time.

In June, the F.B.I. arrested seven people in Florida on charges of plotting attacks on American landmarks, including the Sears Tower in Chicago, with investigators openly acknowledging that the suspects, described as Al Qaeda sympathizers, had only the most preliminary discussions about an attack.

“Our philosophy is that we try to identify plots in the earliest stages possible because we don't know what we don't know about a terrorism plot,” Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said at the time. “Once we have sufficient information to move forward with a prosecution, that's what we do.”

The differences in counterterrorism strategy reflect an important distinction between the legal systems of the United States and Britain and their definitions of civil liberties, with MI5 and British police agencies given far greater authority in general than their American counterparts to conduct domestic surveillance and detain terrorism suspects.

Britain's newly revised terrorism laws permit the detention of suspects for 28 days without charge. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government had been pressing for 90 days, but Parliament blocked the proposal. In the United States, suspects must be brought before a judge as soon as possible, which courts have interpreted to mean within 48 hours. Law enforcement officials have detained some terrorism suspects designated material witnesses for far longer. (The United States has also taken into custody overseas several hundred people suspected of terrorist activity and detained them at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as enemy combatants.)

At the same time, Britain has far stricter contempt-of-court laws intended to prevent the prejudicing of trials. Anything that is said or reported about the suspects rounded up this week could, the police contend, prejudice their trial and prevent their prosecution.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former terrorism prosecutor at the Justice Department, said he believed that British authorities were willing to allow terrorist plots to progress further because, if an attack appeared imminent, they could immediately round up the suspects, even without formal criminal charges.

“They have this fail-safe,” he said. “They can arrest people without charging them with a crime, which would make a big difference in how long you'd be willing to let things run.” He said F.B.I. agents, who are required to bring criminal charges if they wanted to arrest a suspect, had a justifiable fear that they might be unable to short-circuit an attack at the last minute.

There is a difference, too, in how information is shared, with American law enforcement officials typically communicating much more fully with the news media and other agencies than their British counterparts do.

In one case in particular, last year after the London bombings when New York police officers traveled there to pitch in, the different working style created tension. British police and intelligence officials complained to the F.B.I., C.I.A. and State Department after the New York officers, used to speaking more openly, gave interviews to the press in London and sent information on to their headquarters in New York, where officials then held a news conference with some details about the investigation, according to one senior American official involved in the relationship with British agencies.

While American officials say they do not believe there were any serious compromises of the investigation, the British were extremely upset. “They don't want us to share so widely,” the senior American official said.

A senior federal law enforcement official said MI5 also had a distinct advantage over the F.B.I. in that it had a greater store of foreign-language speakers, giving British authorities greater ability to infiltrate conspiracy groups. The F.B.I. still has only a handful of Muslim agents and others who speak Arabic, Urdu or other languages common in the Islamic world.

Justice Department officials and others involved in developing American counterterrorism strategies, however, say it is wrong to suggest that the F.B.I. always moves hurriedly to arrest terrorism suspects, rather than conduct surveillance that may lead to evidence about other conspirators and plots.

On Saturday, as news reports surfaced describing significant disagreements between British and American officials over the the timing of the arrests in the bombing plot, Frances Fragos Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said in a statement: “There was unprecedented cooperation and coordination between the U.S., U.K. and Pakistan officials throughout the case and we worked together to protect our citizens from harm while ensuring that we gathered as much information as possible to bring the plotters to justice. There was no disagreement between U.S. and U.K. officials.”

John O. Brennan, a former official of the Central Intelligence Agency who set up the government's National Counterterrorism Center two years ago, said in an interview that he had been involved in a number of recent cases — most of them still classified — in which the F.B.I. had placed suspected terrorists under surveillance rather than rounding them up.

He said the bureau's willingness to wait reflected a new sophistication as supervisors adapted to the rhythm of terrorism investigations. “Especially given the history of 9/11, of course the bureau wants to move quickly and make sure there is no risk of attack,” he said. “But over the past two years, I think the bureau has become much more adept at allowing these operations to run and monitor them.”

But others are less certain that the bureau has overcome its traditional desire to make quick arrests.

Daniel Benjamin, a counterterrorism specialist in the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the apparent success of the British surveillance operation — and the failure of the F.B.I. to identify and disrupt any similar terrorist cell in the United States since Sept. 11 — argued for creation of an American counterpart to MI5. “The F.B.I. has still not risen to the domestic intelligence task,” he said.

But MI5, others note, may have benefited from the longer experience of dealing with domestic terrorism in connection with the Irish Republican Army. And it has its own critics who question its strategy by noting that it had some of the suspects in last summer's bombings in the London subway and on a bus under surveillance before the attacks.

British security officials have publicly acknowledged that two of the London bombers — Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer — had been observed in connection with a different terrorist plot that was subject to heavy surveillance. But when they dropped out of sight — well before the London bombings — intelligence agencies did not pursue them because the other conspiracy seemed a much greater priority.

John Timoney, the Miami police chief who also has run the Philadelphia Police Department and served in the No. 2 post in the New York Police Department, has worked extensively over the years in Britain on policing matters. He said comparing the two country's approaches was difficult.

“First and foremost, the policing systems are completely different,” said Chief Timoney, noting that in Britain the Metropolitan Police is the dominant national law enforcement agency and is served by MI5.

In the United States, on the other hand, there is intense competition between various federal agencies and between some federal agencies and some state and local forces, he said.

But neither approach is guaranteed to succeed. In June, about 250 police officers stormed an East London row house looking for chemical weapons and arrested two brothers, Abul Koyair and Mohammed Abdul Kahar. Mr. Kahar was shot and wounded during the operation. But the two men were later released without charge after the authorities failed to find any evidence linking them to terrorist activities.

David N. Kelley, a former United States attorney in Manhattan who has overseen a range of international terrorism cases, including prosecuting the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, said, “The real challenge in law enforcement when you have a plot like that is when do you pull the trigger.”

He also said that the longer investigators waited to take down a case, the risks that they might lose track of suspects increased, even if the plotters were under 24-hour surveillance.

“People think when you have someone under surveillance, it's a fail-safe, but losing someone is a real fear in these things,” he said. “It's not like television. It's a real juggling act. You've got to keep a lot of balls in the air and not let any of them drop.”