(UK) Arms dealer is freed after FBI refuses to disclose key evidence

[muriel_volestrangler]

A BRITISH arms dealer walked free from the Old Bailey yesterday after a multimillion-pound terrorist trial collapsed when FBI agents refused to reveal vital information about their “sting” operation to capture an arsenal of weapons.

Syed Bukhari, 46, from London, was accused of plotting to sell £26 million of surface-to-air missiles to a ruthless Colombian terror gang.

Mr Bukhari was said to have agreed to supply the Russian-made missiles and a cache of other weaponry to an under- cover FBI agent who was posing as a dealer for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), the left-wing terror group.
...
Yesterday Judge Stephen Kramer, QC, was forced to halt the trial halfway through its scheduled eight weeks. It has cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. The court had sat behind closed doors for a week as both sides argued over public interest immunity issues, before the judge ordered the Crown to hand over more sensitive documents from US law-enforcement officials. When the FBI refused, the Crown had no alternative but to throw in the towel and Mr Bukhari was formally discharged after spending 19 months in custody.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2057337,00.html

Anyone any idea what the 'sensitive documents' might be?

[mike_c]

1. lack of evidence is lack of evidence....

The government couldn't produce the actual evidence to back its case. End of story. Good thing for Mr. Bukhari this happened in a British court-- in America we don't actually need no stinkin' evidence any longer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Not exactly - the defence wanted this information

and the FBI refused to hand it over.

The case collapsed on Friday after the prosecution refused to comply with an order from Judge Stephen Kramer to give sensitive FBI documentation to Bukhari's defence.

The Crown Prosecution Service had made an application for permission to withhold the documents, but this was refused by the judge, a CPS spokeswoman said.

She said the documents were "sensitive", but declined to give further details. Legal sources said they were FBI documents.

"Following careful consideration by senior lawyers, prosecution counsel Julian Bevan QC today told the court and jury that as he was unable to fulfil his disclosure obligations in respect of this information, the CPS was no longer able to proceed and was offering no further evidence against Mr Bukhari," she said.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-24T152252Z_01_L24646850_RTRUKOC_0_UK-CRIME-BRITAIN-STING.xml

So it's not so much lack of evidence as something that might embarrass the FBI, or throw a different light on what their evidence was.

Mr Sullivan is alleged to have first told Bukhari that he could supply him with a guided laser system' called Viper, which allows targets to be pinpointed from a distance, as well as a remote-control system, known as Piccolo, which would allow an unmanned aircraft to launch missile strikes.
...
Mr Bevan said that police had uncovered documentation in Bukhari's home relating to tenders for the supply of SA18 missiles. It was claimed the cost of the surface-to-air missiles would have exceeded US$38m.

Over the course of further meetings, the FBI agent made it clear that he was interested in obtaining weapons for the Colombian rebel group FARC and brought another undercover agent, calling himself Mr Ruben, who posed as a terrorist.
...
When he discovered that his conversations with Mr Sullivan had been recorded, he is said to have changed his mind and claimed the meetings were hocus pocus to try and find out who the FBI man was acting for'.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.687277.0.missiles_for_sale.php

So they claimed they had the recordings (though the reports don't make it clear that the court heard them, I presume that the prosecution was willing to play them, since it talked about them in open court). That's why I wonder what the documents were that they wouldn't disclose.

[mike_c]

4. if it isn't produced in court, it isn't evidence....

The prosecution, goaded by the U.S. FBI, wanted to simply SAY that these documents proved the defendant's guilt without having to actually produce them in OPEN COURT and debate their merits (which is what results when they're made available to the defense). If the FBI won't produce the evidence, there is no case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. So you know what was in these documents?

Will you tell us, please? All the British reports just say they are documents wanted by the defence.

[ktlyon]

2. sounds like the Libby defense

Hope he doesn't get away with it too.

[stillcool]

5. That stinks...

something's not kosher...I wonder how many Arabs you have to arrest before you get a terrorist?...

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. It's like the movie Lord of War

Spooky.

[Up2Late]

8. Well of course they wouldn't turn over the evidence...

...those Columbia terrorist are most likely one of our "Columbian Civilian Contractor" (Columbian Terrorist) working for the CIA or Bush Co., sent to Columbia for the next Coup d'état attempt in Venezuela.

Why would we turn over evidence for our own "Civilian Contractors"? (no need answer that, it's a rhetorical question).:crazy: