(Leader of camp that trained 7/7 bomber) Mohammed Junaid Babar left prison still advocating violence

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

A New York terrorist who set up a training camp for British jihadis, including the leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was still expressing support for violence against Americans in "occupied" Muslim countries at the time of his early release in December, it has emerged.

Mohammed Junaid Babar was facing a possible sentence of 70 years for his terrorism activities, which also included gun running, supplying money and equipment to senior al-Qaida figures, and two attempts to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf, the former Pakistani president.

The Guardian disclosed last month that a New York judge sentenced Babar to time served, which amounted to four and a half years in prison, after government lawyers described his post-arrest co-operation as "extraordinary".

(snip)

Charles Schumer, a Democratic senator for New York, has asked why Babar was set free given his stated views. "I'd like to see an explanation why somebody who still expresses violence should be let out," Schumer told the US network MSNBC. "We certainly need a good, strong explanation from the authorities."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/mohammed-junaid-babar-prison-violence

---

Given that Obama recently decided to resume military commission trials, this new information about Babar won't help the case for trying terrorists in civil courts.

Oh, I just read on Wikipedia that Babar has testified in several terrorist cases.

[leveymg]

1. Note Babar's "extraordinary" cooperation. Of course he was "still expressing support for violence"

- no doubt, U.S. intelligence "turned" him. He was "caught and released," sent back out to attract others into the net. Yet another double-agent who turned out to be a triple-agent, working against his handlers. Just like the Flt. 77 hijackers, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, and so many others within al-Qaeda before and after 9/11.

If they can't get the hang of this this sort of basic counter-intel/counter-terror agent handling, they should stop doing it before more Americans get killed.

[Wait Wut]

2. Interesting, disturbing, confusing...

I'm not an expert on civil or military courts, but I would imagine that "advocating violence" is worthy of a conviction in military court but not civil. If it were, we could have Glenn Beck and Friends arrested and held indefinitely. But, we have that "Free Speech" thing that gets in the way.

I fully support trying the accused in civil courts, but this has given me something to consider. It might be necessary to "hand pick" judges. Not sure that would hold up in court, though. Probably unConstitutional. Would love to hear from a lawyer on this if there's one lurking about.

Where do we draw the line? Is it time to seriously revisit our freedom of speech? Would it be worth it for security reasons (as above) to stifle the rest of society?