Effort here to charge London suspect was blocked (Tax dollars at work)

The Justice Department blocked efforts by its prosecutors in Seattle in 2002 to bring criminal charges against Haroon Aswat, according to federal law-enforcement officials who were involved in the case.

British authorities suspect Aswat of taking part in the July 7 London bombings, which killed 56 and prompted an intense worldwide manhunt for him.

But long before he surfaced as a suspect there, federal prosecutors in Seattle wanted to seek a grand-jury indictment for his involvement in a failed attempt to set up a terrorist-training camp in Bly, Ore., in late 1999. In early 2000, Aswat lived for a couple of months in central Seattle at the Dar-us-Salaam mosque.

federal indictment of Aswat in 2002 would have resulted in an arrest warrant and his possible detention in Britain for extradition to the United States.

"It was really frustrating," said a former Justice Department official involved in the case. "Guys like that, you just want to sweep them up off the street."

British intelligence officials now think that in the days and hours before the July 7 bombings, Aswat was in cellphone contact with at least two of the four suicide bombers, according to The Times of London.

So what? Maybe the Justice Department knew it didn't have enough information to extradite this scumbag, or that Britain would extradite him.

We have better evidence and more Intel on this Jose Padilla (the dirty bomber suspect) and we haven't convicted him either.

The strategic considerations seem clear to me. Abu Hamza is and has always been a much higher priority target than one of his aides. That, coupled with the sensitivity of the British law prior to the 7/7 bombings meant that all aspects of the case had to be processed at the highest levels of US government.

Just one of thousands of possible loose strings, with the aide in custody, Hamza's attorneys could subpeona him to help "lie up" whatever defense Hamza chooses to attempt.

I'm not saying that's a real issue, I am stepping outside the Seattle Time's spin to show that the decisions they attack were formulated under an entirely different set of priorities.

My guess as to the the nature of those priorities goes something like this:

1. Maintain positive relations with Great Britain.

2. Get Hamza off the street for the maximum number of years possible under the restrictions imposed by British law and Priority 1 above.

Any circumstance that is a subset of a larger set of considerations and priorities can be isolated and second guessed outside of its real implications, and this is precisely the tactic the Seattle Times is employing here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.