THE CASE FOR TORTURE:

Abu Hamza trial in US 'relies on torture witness' (Catriona Davies, 24/07/2004, Daily Telegraph)

Abu Hamza could not receive a fair trial in the United States because it would rely on evidence that had been obtained under torture, his lawyers argued yesterday. [...]

Hamza, 46, is accused of 11 offences relating to conspiracy to take hostages in Yemen in 1998, conspiracy to set up a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon, in 1999 and 2000, and sending a man to an al-Qa'eda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.

James Lewis, QC, representing the American Government, read a statement from Michael Butsch, a special agent who co-led the FBI investigations into Hamza's activities.

He said Hamza had supplied the hostage-takers in Yemen with a satellite phone, paid for £500 of extra airtime and spoke to them the day before they kidnapped 16 tourists. Three Britons and an Australian died in the incident.

Witnesses in the case have been codenamed CC-1, an American who worked as Hamza's assistant when he was imam of Finsbury Park mosque; CC-2, whom he met at the mosque, CC-3, a top al-Qa'eda associate in Afghanistan; CC-4, a high-ranking member of the Taliban; and CC-5, another conspirator.

Hamza is accused of providing £4,000, men and equipment for CC-1 to set up a terrorist training camp in Bly.

It is also alleged that he asked CC-1 to take CC-2 to Afghanistan, paying for their airfares and lodgings out of funds raised at Finsbury Park mosque. While at Al-Farooq training camp CC-2 allegedly met Osama bin Laden.

So, if the alternative to torture is not being able to stop guys like this then where do folks stand on the issue?

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 23, 2004 11:13 PM