David Blunkett may have absconded from government, but evidence of his authoritarianism remains all over the law books. His Extradition Act 2003 is less well known than his measures for indefinite detentions, ID cards and antisocial behaviour orders, but consider the case of Babar Ahmad and you will know it is a very bad law.
Ahmad is in prison awaiting extradition to the US for alleged terrorist offences. Thanks to Blunketts extradition law, the facts that he is British, that his alleged crimes were supposed to have been committed in Britain, and that the British police have already arrested, investigated and released him without charge are no barrier to shipping him off to the US for trial there.
A computer worker from Tooting, south London, Ahmad is accused of running websites that organised support for Chechen fighters and terrorists. The US indictment clearly states that at all times material to the indictment, defendant Babar Ahmad… was a resident of the United Kingdom. The American authorities are seeking extradition simply because one website allegedly linked to Ahmad was hosted by a Connecticut internet service provider.
In December 2003 Ahmad was arrested and held for six days under anti-terror laws. Three family houses were thoroughly searched, but no charges were laid. Ahmad says he was beaten when arrested, a claim supported by a report by a London hospital consultant. Ahmad was re-arrested on the US warrant shortly after publicly protesting about his injuries. His wife said to Red Pepper: Why have the British authorities taken this so-called evidence to America? Why not charge him here? If you think youve got some evidence on him, show it to us and charge him here.
The simple fact is, the current political climate in the US means it is much easier to launch such prosecutions over there. Blunketts law has given the US authorities even more power: the right to extradite British citizens on minimal evidence just as America launched into a series of dubious prosecutions in the name of the war on terror.
Much of the evidence cited by the American authorities actually comes from the British police searches. In their extradition request, the Americans cite as evidence of terrorist activities Ahmads possession of a 1974 tourist brochure for the Empire State Building, a souvenir of a trip his father made before Ahmad was born; they also point to three books about warfare and one on Islam seized by British officers. The books are all available through Amazon.
Ahmad cannot challenge the meagre evidence on offer: under Blunketts law the US can ask for a British citizens extradition simply by showing official documents alleging a crime. British defendants have no right to ask for, or challenge, evidence before the extradition. The UK has no such right to summon Americans.
Also threatened by the new law are three NatWest bankers the US wants to be extradited for alleged involvement in the Enron fraud. But while Blunkett was happy to see Ahmad rendered to the US, one of his last acts as home secretary was to step in and ask the courts to stop the Enron extradition proceedings for further consideration. Blunkett proposed his extradition law four days after nine/11: it was clearly designed to deal with terrorists and not bankers.
Louise Christian, the solicitor who helped Ahmad obtain medical reports for claim of assault against the police, told Red Pepper that Ahmad was a victim of his own governments folly in allying itself with the extremely right-wing US administration.
Ahmads wife said: The authorities criminalised Irish people in the 1970s, then black people in the 1980s. Now they are doing the same to Muslim people. Blunketts extradition law certainly seems to hit some groups harder than others.
David Blunkett may have absconded from government, but evidence of his authoritarianism remains all over the law books. His Extradition Act 2003 is less well known than his measures for indefinite detentions, ID cards and antisocial behaviour orders, but consider the case of Babar Ahmad and you will know it is a very bad law.
Ahmad is in prison awaiting extradition to the US for alleged terrorist offences. Thanks to Blunketts extradition law, the facts that he is British, that his alleged crimes were supposed to have been committed in Britain, and that the British police have already arrested, investigated and released him without charge are no barrier to shipping him off to the US for trial there.
A computer worker from Tooting, south London, Ahmad is accused of running websites that organised support for Chechen fighters and terrorists. The US indictment clearly states that at all times material to the indictment, defendant Babar Ahmad… was a resident of the United Kingdom. The American authorities are seeking extradition simply because one website allegedly linked to Ahmad was hosted by a Connecticut internet service provider.
In December 2003 Ahmad was arrested and held for six days under anti-terror laws. Three family houses were thoroughly searched, but no charges were laid. Ahmad says he was beaten when arrested, a claim supported by a report by a London hospital consultant. Ahmad was re-arrested on the US warrant shortly after publicly protesting about his injuries. His wife said to Red Pepper: Why have the British authorities taken this so-called evidence to America? Why not charge him here? If you think youve got some evidence on him, show it to us and charge him here.
The simple fact is, the current political climate in the US means it is much easier to launch such prosecutions over there. Blunketts law has given the US authorities even more power: the right to extradite British citizens on minimal evidence just as America launched into a series of dubious prosecutions in the name of the war on terror.
Much of the evidence cited by the American authorities actually comes from the British police searches. In their extradition request, the Americans cite as evidence of terrorist activities Ahmads possession of a 1974 tourist brochure for the Empire State Building, a souvenir of a trip his father made before Ahmad was born; they also point to three books about warfare and one on Islam seized by British officers. The books are all available through Amazon.
Ahmad cannot challenge the meagre evidence on offer: under Blunketts law the US can ask for a British citizens extradition simply by showing official documents alleging a crime. British defendants have no right to ask for, or challenge, evidence before the extradition. The UK has no such right to summon Americans.
Also threatened by the new law are three NatWest bankers the US wants to be extradited for alleged involvement in the Enron fraud. But while Blunkett was happy to see Ahmad rendered to the US, one of his last acts as home secretary was to step in and ask the courts to stop the Enron extradition proceedings for further consideration. Blunkett proposed his extradition law four days after nine/11: it was clearly designed to deal with terrorists and not bankers.
Louise Christian, the solicitor who helped Ahmad obtain medical reports for claim of assault against the police, told Red Pepper that Ahmad was a victim of his own governments folly in allying itself with the extremely right-wing US administration.
Ahmads wife said: The authorities criminalised Irish people in the 1970s, then black people in the 1980s. Now they are doing the same to Muslim people. Blunketts extradition law certainly seems to hit some groups harder than others.
Messages of support can be sent to: Babar Ahmad MX5383, HMP Woodhill, Tattenhoe Street, Milton Keynes MK4 4DA, e-mail: info@freebabarahmad.com and visit: www.freebabarahmad.com, www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk, www.stoppoliticalterror.com