PDA

View Full Version : When do you inform the Police?


Clivedurdle
13 Dec 2010, 06:31 PM
Abdaly was a student at the University of Bedfordshire in Luton between 2001 and 2004 and continued to live in the town after graduating. Qadeer Baksh, chairman of Luton Islamic centre, said Abdaly showed up at the mosque during Ramadan in 2006 or 2007 and made an instant impression with his "very bubbly character" but they soon clashed over his views.

"We were challenging his philosophical attitude to jihad," said Baksh. "He got so angry that he left. He was just supporting and propagating these incorrect foundations [of Islam], so I stepped in."

He said Abdaly believed scholars of Islam were "in the pocket of the government" and proposed a "physical jihad".

Baksh said he thought he had talked Abdaly round to a more moderate position but the Iraqi-born Swede then came back with more arguments. "I had no idea it would escalate to where it escalated," said Abdaly. "I thought that when he stormed off he was just angry at me. I heard afterwards that he was criticising the mosque in general and me in particular at the university. He said we were working for the British government and that we were in the pocket of Saudi Arabia. He was trying to defame our honour."

Despite the clashes, Baksh said it was not for him to report Abdaly to the police or security services. "It's the police's job, the intelligence service's job to follow these people up, not ours," he said. "You can't just inform on any Muslim having extreme views. In the past many Muslims have had extreme views but have become good balance Muslims."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/13/stockholm-suicide-bomber-luton-mosque

Sorry, do not the Mosque leaders have a clear duty to inform the authorities?

Sins of omission?

Aiding and abetting? This is after 7 7.

Clivedurdle
14 Dec 2010, 07:40 AM
0832
The Swedish authorities say they are almost certain that a suicide bomber who attacked the capital Stockholm was Taimour al-Abdaly, who had spent several years living in Britain. Former anti-terror police chief, Andy Hayman, examines the difficulties of dealing with international terrorism.

Commander Andy Hayman comments several times in this interview that the Muslim community and mosques are not reporting extremists.

There is an issue here that needs exploring.

Is it that many Muslims are working to Sharia Law principles and therefore do not actually see themselves as part of the wider society because we are kafir?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

Politesse
14 Dec 2010, 07:44 AM
If I reported to the police everyone I thought had extreme or dangerous, or potentially violent views (like most Republicans and all Tea Baggers), the police would stop taking my calls. But I guess it's only Muslims who are expected to inform on each other constantly, send their friends and neighbors to the camps over remarks they heard at dinner?

Pastors, imams, and social workers have a responsibility to report crimes or planned crimes to the police. They are not required or requested to be thought police.

Clivedurdle
14 Dec 2010, 07:58 AM
The interview is not yet up but a key point was that the police and intelligence services are not getting the "community intelligence" available elsewhere.

Commander Hayman said the phones are red hot for many incidents, but not here.

Clivedurdle
14 Dec 2010, 08:05 AM
Britain made "little progress" in reaching out to Muslim communities despite investing "considerable time and resources" after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, US diplomats concluded in cables passed to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

A powerful critique of the government's efforts to engage with British Muslims, outlined in a cable published as police investigate the UK connections of the Stockholm suicide bomber, shows the US embassy in London concluded that both sides often appeared far apart.

"Since 7/7, HMG has invested considerable time and resources in engaging the British Muslim community," a diplomat at the US embassy in London wrote in August 2006 after the failed liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic airliners. "The current tensions demonstrate just how little progress has been made."

US fears that Britain was struggling to deal with extremism, outlined a year after the 7/7 bombings, are highlighted as police continued to search a house in Luton as part of an investigation into Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly.

The Iraqi-born Swede, who set off a car bomb in the Swedish capital on Saturday night before killing himself with a second bomb strapped to his body, was believed to live in the house while studying for a BSc in sports therapy at the University of Bedfordshire. He graduated in 2004 and lived in Luton for a decade.

Muslim leaders in Luton spoke today of how Abdaly, 28, stormed out of a local mosque when they confronted him over his extremist views. Farasat Latif, secretary of the Luton Islamic Centre, said Abdaly was popular when he attended the mosque for a couple of months in 2006-07, though there were concerns about his violent views.

"One day during morning prayers in the month of Ramadan – there were about 100 people there – the chairman of the mosque stood up and exposed him, warning against terrorism, suicide bombings and so on," Latif said. "He knew it was directed at him. He stormed out of the mosque and was never seen again."

The challenge of confronting extremists is highlighted in US embassy cables which warned of British Somalis returning to the UK after indulging in "jihadi tourism". In a cable on 2 December 2009, a diplomat at the US embassy in Nairobi wrote: "There is believed to be a certain amount of so-called 'jihadi tourism' to southern Somalia by UK citizens of Somali ethnicity. The threat from Somalia is compounded by the fact that within East Africa there is a lack of local government recognition of the terrorist threat."

The cable, which reported on a meeting between US and UK counter-terrorism officials in Addis Ababa last October, also found:

• Fears that the new government in Britain would take a "simplistic" approach to fighting terrorism. It said: "Many of the people who will form the new government have been outside of government policy circles for a long time, and they may have a simplistic point of view on CT [counter-terrorism] issues."

• Concerns were raised that a "Mumbai-style attack" could be launched in Britain.

• The "highly controversial military operations ongoing in Afghanistan" is a "massive" political issue.

• A "wave of litigation" relating to actions taken by UK citizens and residents rendered to Guantánamo Bay is having a "severe effect on what counter-terrorism tools are available to the UK authorities".

• Security for the 2012 Olympics was a big issue.

Separate cables published by WikiLeaks show that prominent British Muslims were highly critical of initiatives introduced by the British government in response to the 7/7 bombings. One cable reports that Sadiq Khan, who is now shadow justice secretary, criticised a programme introduced by the last government.

In the cable sent on 14 August 2006, a year after his election to parliament, the diplomat wrote: "Labour MP Sadiq Khan said the community feels 'let down' by HMG efforts to date, particularly the 'Preventing Extremism Together' task forces, which the Home Office created after the 7/7 attacks. Very few of the 64 measures recommended by Muslim leaders on the task force have been implemented, Khan said, creating an 'air of despondency' and leading the community to believe that the entire exercise was just a publicity stunt."

Khan was one of a series of prominent Muslims who felt so uneasy that they wrote to Tony Blair on 12 August 2006 warning the "debacle of Iraq" provided "ammunition to extremists" who threaten everyone, according to the cable.

Khan maintains that the letter was prompted by the war in Lebanon. At the time he was highly critical of Tony Blair's reluctance to criticise Israel.

The diplomat claimed that the letter, signed by Khan and his fellow Labour MP Shahid Malik, was prompted by the frustration prominent Muslims felt after the "bruising" their community had taken after 24 "UK-born" Muslims were arrested in response to the failed liquid bomb plot.

Three men were found guilty in July of conspiracy to murder in the plot. They were cleared last year of targeting aeroplanes by smuggling liquid bombs in drinks bottles on planes bound for the US and Canada but retried for conspiracy to murder. Two other men were found guilty of the airline bomb plot last year.

The same diplomat wrote: "The Muslim community's reaction to the arrests of 24 of its own sons – a kneejerk reaction blaming HMG – shows that its leaders too have far to go … That said, the Muslim community is not the only element in Britain blaming HMG's foreign policy for inciting radical elements; the left in particular but even the mainstream press has expressed the belief, reportedly widespread, that homegrown terrorism is an 'inevitable' response to the UK's involvement in Iraq and reluctance to call for an 'immediate ceasefire' in the Middle East.

"HMG's rather heated response to the letter is undoubtedly aimed at swaying broader opinion."

Cables published by WikiLeaks also show the US embassy in London drew up its own programme to win over Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-cables-uk-muslim-communities

There are two sides to this coin. Yes intelligence services are clumsy but everyone has a clear responsibility to keep the peace and cooperate with the democratic state.

Invoking Godwin doesn't help the discussion.

Schneibster
14 Dec 2010, 08:10 AM
I would say that at the point where an actual crime is contemplated and lives put at risk, there is a responsibility to take action to prevent it, and reasonable action is to call the cops. However, Politesse's point is excellent, and has a brother: if we all informed on everyone who held potentially violent views the cops would never get anything done because they'd be too busy trying to investigate all the leads.

I don't see that a reasonable person would expect this individual to start blowing shit up. I've read the article multiple times and don't see a smoking gun. Do you think you see one, Clive?

rog
14 Dec 2010, 08:13 AM
What would you suggest, a database of every discontented Muslim in the uk? Besides, if people knew that every thing they say is likely to be reported to the police they would either talk elsewhere or stop going in the first place - better to have the council of someone more likely to guide them away from such interpretations if possible, the state and 'project prevent' sure as hell won't manage to do it.

Clivedurdle
14 Dec 2010, 08:16 AM
It is to do with risk mapping. Someone who gets publicly challenged and expelled should definitely be discussed within local groups of which the Police are members. Yes it is intelligence but critical stuff.

And there is a strange belief that it is somehow shopping someone.

Hello? A few hundred people might be dead this morning.

Ray Moscow
14 Dec 2010, 09:17 AM
Despite the clashes, Baksh said it was not for him to report Abdaly to the police or security services. "It's the police's job, the intelligence service's job to follow these people up, not ours," he said. "You can't just inform on any Muslim having extreme views. In the past many Muslims have had extreme views but have become good balance Muslims."

To me this is just another example of how moderate religion is often part of the problem, in that it tends to protect more extremist views and members instead of stopping them.

Ozymandias
14 Dec 2010, 10:22 AM
I think the key point is: "I had no idea it would escalate to where it escalated," said Abdaly. "I thought that when he stormed off he was just angry at me."

If he had "no idea", what would he have informed the authorities about?

rog
14 Dec 2010, 10:35 AM
Despite the clashes, Baksh said it was not for him to report Abdaly to the police or security services. "It's the police's job, the intelligence service's job to follow these people up, not ours," he said. "You can't just inform on any Muslim having extreme views. In the past many Muslims have had extreme views but have become good balance Muslims."

To me this is just another example of how moderate religion is often part of the problem, in that it tends to protect more extremist views and members instead of stopping them.

But can you shop someone for a thought crime? Ok if he announced his intention, then the mosque is obliged to inform the police, in the same way that anyone else is - but on the mere suspicion?

I've read that project prevent runs classes for teenagers and notes down anyone who has vigorous objections to our culture or the war - unsurprisingly it's not well trusted.

You're right though when you say the moderates protect the extremes, aside from allegiance, without the moderates the extremes could not exist in the first place.

Ray Moscow
14 Dec 2010, 10:50 AM
I take issue with his statement that it's "not his job" to report Muslims having "extreme views". If those extreme views include advocating violence, then it bloody well is his job to report them to the police.

"Good balance Muslims" my ass.

If I know someone who seriously advocates hurting people for whatever reason, can I hide behind "well, he's on balance a good American/Englishman/Christian/humanist" or "that's the police's job to stop him"?

rog
14 Dec 2010, 11:00 AM
If those extreme views include advocating violence, then it bloody well is his job to report them to the police.

If that was the nature of his views then I would tend to agree, but subtleties come into play - if they reported anyone who had ever expressed sympathy with jihad or terrorism then there would be a very large fraction of Muslims being reported, too many to retain confidence from either side; but if he expressed a desire to hurt people or actively encourage others to do so, then the mosque is at fault - it was said that he left 4years ago, so his views may not have been fully formed or communicated at that point.

Schneibster
14 Dec 2010, 11:21 AM
I think the key point is: "I had no idea it would escalate to where it escalated," said Abdaly. "I thought that when he stormed off he was just angry at me."

If he had "no idea", what would he have informed the authorities about?You do have to admit it sounds a hell of a lot like, "I didn't know it was loaded."

BioBeing
14 Dec 2010, 04:41 PM
I think there was a case in the US recently where it was decided that a regular citizen who knew a crime was about to be committed had no legal obligation to inform the police.

davidpbrown
14 Dec 2010, 05:32 PM
The community that's persecuted for the minority's actions might not want to be proactive in reinforcing that stereotype? Even now professional muppets like Glenn Beck in the US are making out that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. In the UK the police putting cameras on every corner and other similar profiling behaviours likely hasn't gone anyway to encourage a caring/sharing environment. Let the community deal with it is probably the default reaction.

Schneibster
14 Dec 2010, 11:41 PM
I think there was a case in the US recently where it was decided that a regular citizen who knew a crime was about to be committed had no legal obligation to inform the police.That would surprise me. It goes against precedent.

Loren Pechtel
15 Dec 2010, 12:58 AM
0832
The Swedish authorities say they are almost certain that a suicide bomber who attacked the capital Stockholm was Taimour al-Abdaly, who had spent several years living in Britain. Former anti-terror police chief, Andy Hayman, examines the difficulties of dealing with international terrorism.

Commander Andy Hayman comments several times in this interview that the Muslim community and mosques are not reporting extremists.

There is an issue here that needs exploring.

Is it that many Muslims are working to Sharia Law principles and therefore do not actually see themselves as part of the wider society because we are kafir?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

Exactly--which is a major boon to radicals. They can try to recruit all they want with almost no fear of being turned into the authorities.

Try this for any other illegal cause and you have to be very careful feeling out people or you're going to get turned in.

Schneibster
15 Dec 2010, 01:13 AM
Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Horseshit.

Politesse
15 Dec 2010, 01:24 AM
Try this for any other illegal cause and you have to be very careful feeling out people or you're going to get turned in.Like not paying taxes, shooting illegal immigrants, or establishing a Christian theocracy? Oh yeah, you can say all that on TV without repercussions.

Loren Pechtel
15 Dec 2010, 06:36 PM
Try this for any other illegal cause and you have to be very careful feeling out people or you're going to get turned in.Like not paying taxes, shooting illegal immigrants, or establishing a Christian theocracy? Oh yeah, you can say all that on TV without repercussions.

You had better be pretty careful when actually conspiring with someone to do #1 or #2. #3 isn't on it's face illegal although the means might be.

Politesse
16 Dec 2010, 12:32 AM
Try this for any other illegal cause and you have to be very careful feeling out people or you're going to get turned in.Like not paying taxes, shooting illegal immigrants, or establishing a Christian theocracy? Oh yeah, you can say all that on TV without repercussions.

You had better be pretty careful when actually conspiring with someone to do #1 or #2. #3 isn't on it's face illegal although the means might be.

They are all illegal here (#3 would represent an unconstituitional religious establishment). But people routinely discuss all of them out loud, even on national TV programs such as the 700 Club or the Glenn Beck Show. Shall we arrest everyone who talks about them and detain them as terrorists? Or are thought crimes only dangerous if they are Muslim thoughts?

rog
16 Dec 2010, 12:44 AM
No your thoughts are dangerous too, I have the FBI on hold as I type this :p

Politesse
16 Dec 2010, 12:47 AM
Oh, they already know me quite well- liberal hippies are on the watch list too. I haven't flown without first having my bag rummaged through in almost a decade now.

rog
16 Dec 2010, 12:54 AM
Oh, they already know me quite well- liberal hippies are on the watch list too. I haven't flown without first having my bag rummaged through in almost a decade now.

Only your bag, you are lucky :)

DMB
16 Dec 2010, 08:29 AM
^^^^ This.

Clivedurdle
16 Dec 2010, 12:56 PM
Kouao kept Victoria away from hospitals, turning instead to churches. Kouao said to the pastors that she was the mother and that demons were inside Victoria. The pastor at the Mission Ensemble Pour Christ, Pascal Orome, offered prayers for Victoria to cast out the devil, and thought that her injuries were due to demonic possession. On another occasion, Kouao took Victoria to a church run by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, where the pastor, Alvaro Lima, suspected she was being abused, although he took no action. He said in the inquiry that Victoria told him that Satan had told her to burn herself. The pastor did not believe her, but he still believed that a person could be possessed.
Admittedly, the main problem was the horrible abuse meted out to Victoria by her aunt and the aunt's boyfriend. But the churches got off lightly.

From prayer thread.

Is there a general problem that religious beliefs are stopping people doing what is right?

Lugubert
16 Dec 2010, 01:13 PM
There was also this Muslim congregation that banned a police(?) infiltrator, because of his (pretended) extreme views.

Ray Moscow
16 Dec 2010, 02:50 PM
There was also this Muslim congregation that banned a police(?) infiltrator, because of his (pretended) extreme views.

Good for them! And boo to the police for their attempted entrapment.

Loren Pechtel
16 Dec 2010, 05:34 PM
Try this for any other illegal cause and you have to be very careful feeling out people or you're going to get turned in.Like not paying taxes, shooting illegal immigrants, or establishing a Christian theocracy? Oh yeah, you can say all that on TV without repercussions.

You had better be pretty careful when actually conspiring with someone to do #1 or #2. #3 isn't on it's face illegal although the means might be.

They are all illegal here (#3 would represent an unconstituitional religious establishment). But people routinely discuss all of them out loud, even on national TV programs such as the 700 Club or the Glenn Beck Show. Shall we arrest everyone who talks about them and detain them as terrorists? Or are thought crimes only dangerous if they are Muslim thoughts?

No, because they could do it by changing the Constitution.

Clivedurdle
19 Dec 2010, 11:44 AM
Observer reports today that the Mosque that did not turn him in is not above suspicion!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/19/abdaly-luton-mosque-stockholm-bomber

Stockholm bomber's mosque website carries links to extremist preacher

Luton Islamic Centre site's links to speeches by Bilal Philips, who was barred from Britain by home secretary in July for his views

Loren Pechtel
19 Dec 2010, 03:46 PM
Observer reports today that the Mosque that did not turn him in is not above suspicion!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/19/abdaly-luton-mosque-stockholm-bomber

Stockholm bomber's mosque website carries links to extremist preacher

Luton Islamic Centre site's links to speeches by Bilal Philips, who was barred from Britain by home secretary in July for his views

Somehow I'm not surprised.

They pretend to reject the violent approach but really support it.

Clivedurdle
19 Dec 2010, 04:23 PM
There is an advert on the radio currently by the Metropolitan Police saying if you suspect something report it. This followed a programme about a muslim youth worker who knew Richard Reid where they discussed people having a mistaken understanding of jihad.

I had the distinct impression they were working from a completely different morality.

Politesse
19 Dec 2010, 08:29 PM
My facebook "wall" has a clip from a hitler speech posted on it, just in case y'all ever need to impugn my reputation in a debate later.

kriswest
22 Dec 2010, 01:39 PM
When I see this topic come up it tends to remind me of the Spanish inquistion, the crusades, slavery, and a whole host of other events that were tacitily condoned by the average person that was not involved but knew about atrocities commited. Hmm,, I guess I can do something but you can't.. You are evil if you do, as is all your kind. Its a normal response though totally based on survival of one's society. We still are very territorial.