MI5 feared British police attended terrorist camps

[tuer502gt]

MI5 warned Scotland Yard that policemen in its ranks were suspected of attending terrorist training camps, it can be disclosed. The policemen lost their jobs when their security clearance was revoked by senior officers after checks were carried out because of fears of “sleepers” in the ranks.

The Sunday Telegraph can also disclose today the identity of one of the policemen suspected of being at a terror camp in 2001.

Abdul Rahman had been a constable for almost three years when MI5 warned that he might have visited a training camp in Pakistan when he travelled there.

He resigned rather than be dismissed from the force and is now suing Scotland Yard for compensation. He says he is entirely innocent and has never been to a terrorist training camp.

His lawyers say he has never been questioned, arrested or charged under terrorism legislation.

Mr Rahman, 33, is the first British policeman ever disclosed to have failed counter-terrorism checks.

Scotland Yard submitted in legal documents that it acted against Mr Rahman “for the purpose of safeguarding national and public security”. A source familiar with the case said there were either one or two other officers who had also lost their jobs because of MI5’s suspicion that they might have trained as terrorists.

“There was concern that these people had come into the force under false pretences,” the senior Metropolitan Police source said. “There were two or three cases at the same time that were of a similar nature, where there were concerns about potential terrorist links.”

The development raises concerns about the ease with which potential terrorists might infiltrate the police and compromise national security.

It is believed that Mr Rahman’s clearance was revoked as part of a root-and-branch security review carried out by MI5 after the July 7, 2005 terrorist attack, and the subsequent failed July 21 bombings.

The fact that he was under MI5 suspicion was disclosed in court documents made public as he fights a lengthy legal case over his departure from the force.

The case is so sensitive that it is being heard by a security-vetted judge.

Mr Rahman, a Muslim who was born in Bangladesh before being raised in London and becoming a British citizen, does not dispute that he went to Pakistan in 2001.

However, his lawyers say he has been “tangled up” in national security legislation.

Mr Rahman became a probationary constable in the Metropolitan Police in September 2003 then attended Hendon Police College, completing his initial training in March 2004.

His passing out parade, at Hendon, was reviewed by the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, who at the time was Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism police officer.

As part of his recruitment Mr Rahman underwent a process of security vetting known as a counter-terrorist check (CTC).

However, his security clearance was suspended on June 22, 2006. He was interviewed three times — most probably by counter-terrorism officers — in the following months.

In November 2006 he was told by Det Chief Supt Robert Sait — a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police’s specialist operations directorate, which includes the counter-terrorism command — that his CTC vetting clearance had been revoked.

Mr Rahman was told that he had an internal right of appeal against the decision, which he decided to exercise.

A week before the appeal hearing in June 2007 he was told that if the hearing confirmed the removal of his CTC clearance he was likely to be dismissed.

The appeal hearing was conducted by Mr Clarke, who upheld the decision to remove his CTC clearance. Mr Rahman resigned immediately.

Shortly before Mr Rahman’s clearance was suspended, MI5 rechecked details of officers and civilian staff at the Met, and other forces, against their records of suspects who had been to Pakistan or Afghanistan and who it suspected might have attended terrorist training camps or madrassas — Islamic schools — run by extremists. Mr Rahman, who is married with four children, declined to comment on the case. He claims he is the victim of racial and religious discrimination.

His lawyer, Jasmine van Loggerenberg, of Russell Jones and Walker, said: “My client absolutely denies the allegations against him and this forms the basis of his claims against the police.

“It’s important to stress that this is a case being brought by Mr Rahman, not by the Metropolitan Police.

“There are no criminal proceedings against him. Mr Rahman has never been arrested, questioned or charged in a criminal context in relation to these proceedings.”

Mr Rahman’s father, who lives in Poplar, east London, said: “He is a very genuine and very honest man. He has nothing to hide. He is a family man.

“The allegations against him are untrue. He is very pious, he prays five times a day and I think he didn’t fit in in the police because of that.”

Last month, after a five-year legal battle, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that his case could be held in secret although Mr Rahman had wanted a public hearing. Mr Justice Mitting, a High Court judge who also specialises in terror cases in his role as

chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, ruled that Mr Rahman and his legal team would be banned from parts of the hearing that concerned issues of national security.

Scotland Yard applied to have Mr Rahman’s case heard in secret because it is keen to protect intelligence sources which provide highly-sensitive information.

These sources might be compromised if the sensitive evidence emerges in open court. Some of the information might have come from overseas security services, such as the CIA.

Instead, a security-cleared “special advocate”, rather than his own lawyer, will be appointed on Mr Rahman’s behalf.

However, he will be banned from discussing the case with Mr Rahman and his lawyers. Mrs van Loggerenberg said that it was Mr Rahman’s position that questions of national security could “override natural justice”.

Mrs van Loggerenberg said: “This case also raises important issues on whether practices which disadvantage innocent people on the basis of their ethnic or religious background can ever be justified, when the allegations that result are so serious.”

Scotland Yard’s vetting unit is regarded as one of the best in Britain, mainly because the force has countrywide responsibilities in counter-terrorism.

However, it is understood that there are difficulties carrying out full checks on applicants born abroad or who have spent a long time living outside Britain.

MI5 carries out the CTC vetting on behalf of the Met, other police forces and government departments.

It is the lowest of three levels of vetting under the Cabinet Office’s Security Policy Framework. However, individuals who pass the CTC procedure are allowed access to documents classified as “confidential” and can be granted occasional access to “secret” documents.

They also have access to areas where classified papers are stored.

CTC applicants must fill in a detailed form. They are required to declare whether they have ever spent significant time outside Britain.

MI5 checks the applicant against its databases, and the person’s name is also run through the Police National Computer.

The process also includes checks to verify a person’s identity and their employment and education references.

It can take up to six months to complete vetting and clearance is valid for three years.

“If police officers lose their CTC they are effectively unemployable,” said a police source.

“They cannot be allowed to access the Police National Computer, or other vital things in the course of their day-to-day work.”

James Cleverly, a Conservative member of the London Assembly committee that oversees the Met’s work, said: “The fact is that this was flagged up and the security clearance was rescinded, showing the Met is not blase about such issues.

“The system seems to have worked at that level.”

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “Mr Rahman, a former police constable, is bringing two employment tribunal claims against the Metropolitan Police Service alleging race discrimination and employment equality.

“A full merits hearing is yet to be listed.”

The Government introduced new laws making it a criminal offence to attend a terrorist training camp as part of the Terrorism Act 2006. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The first convictions under the new offence were secured in 2008.

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: “All police employees undergo a range of security checks when they join the service and, as necessary, these are reviewed through the course of their career depending on where they work and the nature of the material they are dealing with.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ist-camps.html

[bortmackie]

Seems like discrimination to me. I kinda skimmed the article, but it seems they took away his clearance because he went to Pakistan and they decided he may have gone to a training camp, without actually having evidence? That sounds like bullshit to me.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Good. Fucking muslims are attempting 1st stage jihad on Europe en masse

The brits need to catch the high ranking ones before it's too late.

[Irukanji]

Fucking Abdul, at least get an English name before turning into a terrorist