It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Extremists may face treason charges

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:13 AM
Islamic extremists in the UK who supported the bombings in London could face charges of treason. Treason was one of the only offensives in the UK that still carried death by hanging, but it was signed away in 1998 under EU laws.
Islamist extremists who have voiced support for terrorism since the bomb attacks in London on July 7 could face charges of treason, it has been confirmed.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald have discussed possible action that could be taken against three prominent clerics who have appeared on TV in recent days.

The Crown Prosecution Service's head of anti-terrorism will meet senior officers at Scotland Yard within the next few days to discuss possible charges against Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair, the Attorney-General's Office confirmed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The charges may be brought against Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair. All three have said, on British TV and media, that they supported the bombings on London.

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Given the quick investigation by U.K. authorities, i think that this will cause any 'sleeper cells' to splinter and lay low for a period of time.

Absolutely no contact.


[edit on 7-8-2005 by sanctum]

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:42 AM
Define supported......

Actively moving resource around, either to the set location or into the hands of the guilty?



If treason is saying something, then welcome back to the Middle Ages, socio-politically........

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:14 PM
Seems treason does not encompass lying the country into a war

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:55 PM
Let's take a look at the people in question:

Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian-born father of seven, has lived in north London on state handouts since being deported from Saudi Arabia as an extremist 20 years ago.

He has been accused of spreading a message of hate against the West.

Bakri Mohammed, 47, was born into a wealthy family in Aleppo in Syria, and rose to prominence in the 1980s when the city sheltered many radicals. He joined the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man and participated in their revolt against the Syrian Baath Party and the government of Hafez al-Assad.

The Syrian-born father of seven has lived in Britain on state handouts since being deported from Saudi Arabia as an extremist 20 years ago - and has been accused of abusing his refugee status to preach a message of undiluted bile against the West and its values.

Earlier this year, Mr Bakri Mohammed told followers in a webcast monitored by The Times that Britain was "Dar ul-Harb" - "a land of war". And he said that the jihad was a correct path for all Muslims, not just those living in Muslim countries. "The jihad is halal for the Muslims wherever they are, the whole ummah (Muslim community) wherever they are. OK brothers - wherever you are, do it."

He also caused outrage by suggesting after the terror attack on the school in Beslan, Russia, that an attack on a British school could be justified as long as women and children were not deliberately killed.

The 9/11 hijackers: "The magnificent 19"

The London bombings: "I blame the British Government and I blame the British people. They are the ones who should be blamed"

Suicide bombings: "We call it self sacrifice. You must fight for the way of Allah - to kill first and be killed. If somebody decided to land an aeroplane over 10 Downing Street, for example - this is a form of self sacrifice"

Radical Muslims: "We are part of the solution and not part of the problem"

"If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.”

“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world.”

Source (bias)

Abu Izzadeen
Can't find too much on this guy other then his quotes..

* Abu Izzadeen, described himself as a spokesman for the Al-Ghurabaa organisation.
* Abu Izzadeen, is British-born but of Jamaican origin, and converted to Islam when he was 17.

Abu Izzadeen said "Those who do suicide operations are completely praiseworthy. I would never denounce the bombings because we always stand with the Muslims." He also boasted of going to terror camps in Pakistan to learn bomb making.

"Sheikh Osama bin Laden offered to the British public and the UK people at large an offer of ceasefire.

"He said if they rolled up against the Government, brought the troops home, he promised not to attack them. But unfortunately, the stiff upper British lip became hard-headed and we saw what took place on July 7."

Abu Uzair

Abu Uzair said, " We don't live in peace with the British anymore. The banner has been raised for jihad inside the UK, which means it's allowed for the bombers to attack." Asked if British citizens were targets, " Yes…I am a British citizen but I am Muslim first… I don't follow the values of the UK."

Abu Uzair said, “That’s why those four bombers attacked London – they believed that there was no covenant of security, and for them their belief was that it was allowed to attack the UK.”

Abu Uzair said, “That’s why those four bombers attacked London – they believed that there was no covenant of security, and for them their belief was that it was allowed to attack the UK.”


I did find a video of the Abu's justifying the attacks here

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:30 PM
I may be correct in saying this, but Im not sure. It is my belief that you can still be hanged in this country for commiting an act of treason (though I belive it to be a certain kind). Im really tired right now and can't be bothered to investigate further and if anyone wants to debunk this, go for it, Im just throwing it out there as a possibility, something I heard a long time ago.

As for these guys, they are scum. I'll tell you who else is scum, Blair. He led us into Iraq based on a pack of lies. Lets string him up for treason. He lied to parliament and sent our soldier off to war. These guys (i.e. the clerics) haven't actually killed anyone, i.e. commited bombings in this country (tho I do despise them. Anyone who advocates my death deserves whatever is comming to them), where as the war in Iraq has killed thousands. Now that ladies and gents is terrorism if ever I saw it and I don't care if it was an accident or colateral damage (which to me is an obscene term). And for what? So Bush can gourge his fat cat friends on Iraqs oil. Its no wonder Muslims hate the west. 9/11 was nothing compared to the ammount of people who have died in Iraq/

Also these guys have been operating here for years. Is the goverment so bloody imcompetant and useless that they haven't shut these guys down? And to think he's been living off the state as well? Sweet son of God. I really have absolutely no faith in Blair whatsoever, this is reactionary politics if ever there was any. This problem should have been nailed years ago.

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:40 PM
Treason is the act of betraying; betrayal of a trust undertaken by or reposed in anyone; a breach of faith, treachery. High Treason or Treason Proper is the violation of a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state, levying war on the King's dominions, adhering to the King's enemies in his dominions, or aiding them in or out of the realm. In 1795 the offence was extended to include the contemplated use of force to make the King change his counsels.

The Law:If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty. and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.

[edit on 8/7/2005 by QuietSoul]

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:02 PM
This thread is basically the same topic posted by Valhall concerning Blair's recent speech. Why not merge the two?

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:19 PM
Again,i support Blair.Let's face it.......

First this guy comes to the UK,because of his treason in his own country,that's one thing.But when he carries on and commits treason,in a country that gave him shelter,then he should face whatever the punishment is there,or be sent back to face his own problems,in his own country.That's all there is to it.

It seems people like these,expect asylum somewhere,then once they get it,expect that country to adhere to their ways.I absolutely refuse to comply with any wishes that they think we should obey or change to.

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:13 AM
It appears that these action meet the definition in the U.K.

The difference between crime and war is in the motive.

In these cases, the radicals themselves explicitly say what they mean
and why. It is not necessary to apply "western" interpretations,
they say what they mean.

When they talk about the "house of war", and refer to historical
war, and command their followers to engage such, they are levying war.

Treason is as treason does.

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:54 PM
Funny how it is...

Say something in anger at a perceived "minority" and regardless of the actions, the words themselves define the act as a "hate crime" which liberals persecute..err..prosecute relentlessly. Yell at someone and the words become "verbal abuse" and are labelled a crime. Words have been made out to be as dangerous as deeds when a liberal cause or interest is involved. (and sadly, the conservatives are getting good at the same game too)

But when it comes to terror, to anti-government acts, or supporting of evil-suddenly words are a protected thing, and anyone calling for the death of innocents (as long as it's against the current administration) should be protected.

Do the same folks who now defend these self-labelled clerics also step up to defend KKK rallies and neo-Nazi speeches, even when said speeches do not call for death of their enemies? Here, we destroy organizations that speak of such things-if they're mostly white folks anyways (Ruby Ridge, Waco, the whole "anti-militia" thing from an administration ago...ring any bells?)

Or is it different when the fascists hide behind religion, when the hatemongers are supported by oil monies beyond even the dreams of Haliburton? Or is anything at all acceptable when it supports partisan agendas?

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:38 PM
Omar Bakri Mohammed is reported as having left the country for Lebanon.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by hands]


log in