Alleged terrorist arrested wearing an electronic tag!
The Telegraph has a story about an Al Qaeda suspect arrested for being on a train which runs through the Olympic Park. The headline states misleadingly that he was caught 'at the Olympic Park' and the article opens with the statement that 'he was caught crossing through the Olympic Park five times' which left me wondering how he had managed to get into the Park, let alone get across it, so many times, until I got to the bit which mentioned the Overground train journey.
We are told this is the most 'serious security alert' to hit the Olympics so far. The article refers to the 'suspect' and various allegations and accusations that have been made against him and says he 'fled' to Somalia while on bail for which he was later locked up for almost two months. Mixed in with all this are various references to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, al-Shabaab and jihad. The suggestion seems to be that he fled to re-engage in jihadi activity in Somalia but then the article refers in an aside to his Somali origins and his marriage to a Somali woman which makes Somalia a more obvious place to run to. It manages to mention that the person in question denies involvement in terrorism. However, buried in the middle of the article is the telling statement:
'In his absence he was acquitted of any crime.'
His lawyers claim that he was going to Stratford by train from Caledonian Road to meet his legal team at their offices in Stratford. The only thing he is being prosecuted for is travelling by train to Stratford in breach of an order made on the basis of various allegations but no actual convictions.
Bizarrely the prosecution claim that if it wasn't for the control order barring him from travelling to Stratford by the Overground route he would be re-engaging in terrorist activities, although no terrorist activities have been proved. And of course the order did not prevent him travelling by the Overground route, which according to the order is one of the activities he is barred from undertaking.
The 'suspect', on the other hand, claims he was tortured in Somalia and British agents were complicit in the torture and in his illegal rendition back to Britain.
While not wishing to draw direct comparisons it should be recalled that when Games Monitor's Mike Wells was denied bail after an incident at Leyton Marsh it was claimed by the prosecution that he had been engaged in a protest in defiance of an injunction, when in fact there was no protest, and then remanded in custody on the grounds that he would re-engage in further protest, even though he had not been protesting in the first place.
So this suspect, who may well have been tortured and illegally deported from Somalia, has been locked up for breaching bail on a charge of which he was acquitted and subject to a control order on the basis of allegations none of which have been proven and is now being prosecuted for breaching the conditions on that order based on these unproven allegations!
The suspect was 'caught' breaching his control order because he was wearing an electronic tag, which he was obliged to wear, and which he had not thought to remove in order to escape detection while on these five dangerous missions traversing the Olympic Park by train.
This is the 'most serious security alert' to hit the Olympics.
Submitted by Julian Cheyne on Sun, 08/07/2012 - 17:21.