Is UK Deporting British Intel Informants to US - Patrick Henningsen

By 108morris108: In this Gauntanamo age, Britain is deporting British citizens and residents to the USA. All part of the war on Islam/terror.
Some of these people have already been behind bars for years without due process.
Some of them have mirky pasts which involved British Intel. Patrick Explains in his article here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/06/babar-ahmad-extradition-rip-british-jus...
Here is an article from the Guardian explaining what awaits them:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1931-read-this-and-know...
Read this and know why the decision to extradite Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan is an outrage 05 October 2012 Sadhbh Walshe USA and the War on Terror
The conditions to be imposed on Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, who have not yet been tried or convicted of anything, throws the concept of being innocent until proven guilty out the window.


The Guardian
5 October 2012
Babar Ahmad
LAST WEEK, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to accept the appeal of their ruling allowing for the extradition of Babar Ahmad and four others to the United States.
This decision, from a court whose very purpose is to ensure human rights are upheld, has been widely condemned by human rights groups and advocates, who are convinced the decision will do just the opposite.
The appeal was largely based on the fact that if the men are extradited to the US, they will face years of torturous solitary confinement in America's notorious maximum security prisons.
There is another disturbing aspect of the ruling, however, that is less discussed, but equally worrisome: that these men's chances of getting a fair trial will also be compromised by the pre-trial conditions in which they are likely to be held.
Because Ahmad and the others fall under the category of terror suspects, there is a strong likelihood that if their extradition proceeds, they will be held in pre-trial detention facilities with special administrative measures (Sams) in place.
Sams were established by the federal government in 1996 to deal with certain gang leaders who had demonstrated substantial risk that their "communication or contact with persons could result in the death or serious bodily injury to persons." Since 9/11, the need for an inmate to have "demonstrated" their reach was relaxed, and the department of justice began to use Sams, pre-trial, for terrorism suspects.
So what this means for pre-trial defendants is that they are not only held in the kind of extreme isolation that is routine in facilities like ADX Florence -- the federal super-max prison where inmates spend 22 to 23 hours per day in a completely sealed and soundproof cell, and maybe an hour or so in an outdoor cage for solitary exercise -- but they are also subjected to extra measures of isolation. This ensures both that they completely cut off from the outside world and that the outside world is cut off from them.
A defendant placed under Sams is usually only allowed to communicate with his immediate family (parents, siblings, spouse and children) and his attorney.
Letters to and from his approved family members can take up to six months to be cleared. Such prisoners cannot write to or receive visits from anyone else: friends, extended family or supporters; and they can have absolutely no contact with the media. In addition to the gag that is placed on these defendants, the small number of people with whom they are allowed to have contact are also gagged, as they, too, are bound to abide by the Sams.
So, for instance, an attorney who goes to see her client in solitary somewhere like ADX Florence may notice that her client is deteriorating under the conditions of his confinement. But she cannot discuss those conditions with anyone -- not the media, not even the prisoner's family.
...........................................

There's another, even more chilling reason for lawyers to be concerned about defending clients placed under Sams. Attorneys risk prosecution if they violate any of the terms of the Sams, and precedent has it that the sanction for any violations will be much more severe than the proverbial slap on the wrist. This past June, a ten-year prison sentence was upheld in federal court for Lynne Stewart, a 73-year-old attorney who was convicted in 2005 of "providing aid to terrorism" for sharing statements from her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, with the media.
The prosecution originally sought a 30-year sentence. Stewart, who has been treated for breast cancer, fears she will die in prison.
Read the rest on the link above

Source