He strongly denies any involvement in terrorism and maintains that he is a Muslim missionary on behalf of an apolitical, nonviolent religious group.

Sounds as if the Brits have lost their last war.

From the JAWA Report:

Who is "G", al Qaeda's Man in London? MOHAMMED AL GHABRA

**************************EXCERPT************************

***Exclusive: Must Cite Jawa Report***

The British press is under a gag order not to reveal the name of al Qaeda's main fundraiser and go between in Britain. The man, identified only as "G", was one of five who had successfully challenged in the British High Court the government's powers to freeze terrorist suspects assets.

For instance, this Times piece:

The man, who can be identified only as G, is one of five people who challenged the Treasury’s powers to freeze terrorist suspects’ bank accounts in a successful High Court action...
The judge banned publication of G’s name but The Times is aware of his identity, which is published on a United Nations Security Council list of terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

This will probably come as a shock to no one, but since the British press won't reveal "G's" name yet give every possible hint as to his identity, here it is: G is MOHAMMED AL GHABRA.

Under U.N. Resolution 1267 and its subsequent addendums, the Security Council:

obliged all States to freeze the assets, prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms and military equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals and entities included on the Consolidated List.

Al Ghabra and four others had challenged the British government's ability to implement the resolution's requirements without a specific act of Parliament. They won their case.

Al Ghabra's activities are described by the U.S. Treasury Department:

Al Ghabra has organized travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking to meet with senior al Qaida individuals and to undertake jihad training. Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in covert activity on behalf of al Qaida. Additionally, Al Ghabra has provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents fight against coalition forces....
Apart from the financial and logistical support activities that led to his designation, Al Ghabra maintains contact with a significant number of terrorists, including senior al Qaida officials in Pakistan...
Al Ghabra is also in regular contact with UK-based Islamist extremists and has been involved in the radicalizing of individuals in the UK through the distribution of extremist media.

Mohammed Al Ghabra has often been called al Qaeda's banker in the press.

Why it is that a British judge ordered that al Ghabra and four others identity be kept secret when they are so well known is a mystery.

Al Ghabra's name appears on a list put together by the Security Council which directs that his assets are to be frozen and which Britain is obliged to follow. His passport number is even public information. Here is how that information appears on the list of individuals known to be al Qaeda or Taliban operatives:

QI.A.228.06. Name: 1: MOHAMMED 2: AL GHABRA 3: na 4: na
Title: na Designation: na DOB: 1 Jun. 1980 POB: Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic Good quality a.k.a.: na Low quality a.k.a.: na Nationality: British Passport no.: British passport number 094629366 National identification no.: na Address: East London, United Kingdom Listed on: 12 Dec. 2006 Other information: na

Several other British residents are on the U.N. list, two of whom are on the run, several in custody, but others said to still be in the UK walking free under a sort of quasi house arrest. They are:
SAAD AL-FAQIH (London)
KHALID ABD AL-RAHMAN HAMD AL-FAWAZ (London)
HANI AL-SAYYID AL-SEBAI (London)
ABDUL BAQI MOHAMMED KHALED aka Mohammed Albashir (Birmingham)
TAHIR NASUF (Manchester)
MOHAMMED HAMMEDI (Midlands)
Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Eliwah (London)

The list may not be complete and some of the information as to their whereabouts may be outdated, but it is likely that the four other individuals involved in the lawsuit are on that list. Please feel free to leave corrections in the comments or e-mail me directly.

The fact that I was able to identify G so easily makes one wonder if these kind of gag orders are effective? And, in fact, doesn't the public have a right to know who the UN has designated a terrorist? Especially when that terrorist may be living next door or down the street?
By Dr. Rusty Shackleford at April 26, 2008 01:13 AM |

Sureeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee he isn’t, I am sorry I don’t trust that!

The west is committing suicide...and tragically, we are doing the same.

I never thought I would see the day when abject enemies openly lined up behind a candidate for President of these United States and that person ever had a viable chance of being nominated by a major party and then elected.

Yet...it is so.

ENEMIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ARE LINED UP BEHIND CANDIDATE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

I AM THE ONE I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

And, if that is not enough, just ask yourself, why Che Guevara, who was a radical, murderous Marxist revolutionary in Argentina, Cuba, and Bolivia, and who became Fidel Castro's chiefexecutioner...why is his picture proudly diplayed proudly at Obama election Headquarters?

All of this ties together and any American of any stripe who values their individual liberty should study these things out for themselves, throw off the chains of the governmental dole and public largess, of the indoctinration and propoganda dealt out by liberal academia, and then act and vote accordingly.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - OBAMA'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND OBAMA'S CHURCH

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

WOT News ping!

He sounds like the perfect candidate for Mayor of London.

Then after he Islams London, he can become the Prime Minister to do the same to the rest of Britain.

Nice job...

Fixing links in the article:

***********************EXCERPT*******************

Freezing assets of terror suspects ruled unlawful by High Court

Asset-freezing orders imposed by the Treasury on terror suspects have been ruled unlawful

Sean O'Neill, Crime and Security Editor

See the updates.....

From the Second link at post #10:

*****************************EXCERPT****************************

From The Sunday Times

February 17, 2008

These catch-all terror laws are killing off British justice

Simon Jenkins

Slowly, oh so slowly, Britain’s judges are rescuing Britain’s values from the depths to which Tony Blair and his home secretaries plunged them in the knee-jerk response to terrorism. The acts passed by Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke from 2000 onwards did not create a British Guantanamo Bay, but they did signal a shocking collapse in British justice. The present home secretary, Jacqui Smith, wants to further that collapse.

Last week the Court of Appeal handed down two trenchant verdicts in an attempt to inject common sense into nonsensical terror laws. One implicitly demanded an apology and compensation from the government for a wholly innocent airline pilot imprisoned in 2001 after the police and Crown Prosecution Service lied to a court that he was the “lead instructor” of the 9/11 hijackers. He had merely been an Algerian who once trained in Florida. Every shred of evidence appeared to have been fabricated by police in America – possibly obtained under torture – and used without question by the British police.

The pilot was released after five months of being treated as a terrorist in Belmarsh jail, without explanation, apology or even exoneration. His career, reputation and family were in ruins. The appeal court castigated the police and Home Office and told the pilot, in effect, to sue them for all he could get.

These are the same police who, in January this year, arrested six Pakistanis arriving at Gatwick to prepare the visit of their president, Pervez Musharraf. They were held for 21 hours “on suspicion of operating or planning a terrorist activity”. The police claimed they were members of a sinister group, the PML(Q), possibly responsible for Benazir Bhutto’s murder. They admitted membership on the grounds that the PML(Q) is the governing party of Pakistan, which the police refused to believe. These are the police who are demanding 42-day detention powers.

The second High Court judgment was, in effect, against the 2000 Terrorism Act itself, notably its section 57 which criminalises the possession of literature (or a download) that “creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public . . . for the purpose of advancing a political cause”. The act, considered near unenforceable by many lawyers, was voted through by Labour MPs without batting an eyelid.

Last year the law led to the imprisonment of four students and a schoolboy for having “extremist material on their computers”. There is no argument that the stuff was nasty and the students might have fallen into bad company had they carried out their plan, or possibly fantasy, of going to Pakistan. But as a solicitor for one of them said, it was like sending someone to prison for reading Mein Kampf. Their crime, said the trial judge, was that of being “intoxicated by extremism”. He still imprisoned them.

Intoxicated by extremism better describes the state of mind of the judge Peter Beaumont, the recorder of London, and much of Britain’s political class. In sentencing the students, he implied that the possession of inflammatory material was evidence enough of an intention to inflame, a view to which the Court of Appeal took strong exception. This suspension of “mens rea”, that guilt should require an intention to commit a crime, was a feature of all Blair’s terrorism laws. At one point in 2005 the Home Office was even drawing up a list of “permissible” terrorisms in past history so academics would know which they could “glorify and exalt”, probably the most fatuous piece of drafting in British legal history.

where is James Bond with his 007 license to kill when you need him?

And over here in the USA:

The War on Terror Is Not a Crime

***********************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************

The targets of this witch hunt include some of the country's finest legal minds – such as law Prof. John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley, Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and William J. (Jim) Haynes II, former Pentagon general counsel. Others frequently mentioned include former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

Many positions taken by these attorneys, laying the fundamental legal architecture of the war on terror, outrage international activists and legal specialists. Nevertheless, in a series of cases beginning with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld many of their key positions: that the country is engaged in an armed conflict; that captured enemy combatants can be detained without criminal trial during these hostilities; and that (when the time comes) they may be punished through the military, rather than the civilian, justice system.

He is being handcuffed....he was unfair....

Gives meaning to this:

***************************

It’s difficult to imagine they are so blatantly antiAmerican!

See this :

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

And a review:

**********************************

By	Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

is the picture with him standing with his hand NOT over his heart for real?? - i take it that the national anthem was being sung

A ‘key player’ accused of radicalising British Muslims is living openly in the UK

Related Links

Freezing assets of terror suspects ruled unlawful by High Court

These catch-all terror laws are killing off British justice