Ashfaq Ahmad is seventy one. He is a former civil servant who came to Britain from the Indian sub-continent four decades ago to create a better life for himself and raise a family. His son Babar did well at school went to University and fulfilled his parents’ expectations. His father is proud of him and still believes in him, despite the fact that in 2003 he was arrested under anti-terrorism laws. Acting on a tip off the Metropolitan police raided Babar's home in Tooting and seized property and computer equipment. Their investigation found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime and he was released after six days. He alleged he was assaulted by one of the arresting officers and there is an ongoing investigation into this allegation. Then in the summer of 2004 Babar Ahmad was re-arrested. This time it was evidence gathered by the law enforcement authorities on the internet in the United States that was the trigger. He was accused of fostering support and raising funds for terrorist activities in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Anyone who threatens US interests through terrorist activity, no matter where in the world, can be brought before a US court. All that’s required is that the US authorities can get them into the US court that lays the charges. US interests On the 31st March 2003 David Blunkett signed a new extradition treaty with the United States. Under the terms of this treaty a British citizen accused of terrorist activity which harms US interests can be extradited to face trial in America. Ashfaq Ahmed and his family say they want detailed evidence of Babar's alleged crimes tested in a British court before he is extradited. They believe that the evidence would not be forthcoming and that Babar would have to be released. Whilst Ashfaq clearly believes his son is innocent (what British parent would want to believe their child is involved in terrorism) it is not the allegations he finds so offensive. It is rather the fact that his son, a British citizen, is being denied the right to a hearing before his peers. This treaty is described by the Home Office as being reciprocal. What goes for a British citizen accused of a crime should also go for an American accused of a crime. In principle the US would have to extradite an American citizen to the UK if the British authorities requested that extradition on the basis of there being sufficient evidence to justify a trial. The problem is Congress has not yet ratified this Treaty and the US constitution prevents a citizen of that country from being extradited on the say so of a foreign government. This suggests it would be nigh on impossible, for the moment, for an American court to allow such an extradition. Less equal This suggests that the rule of law in our respective countries is unequal, affording greater protection to US citizens than British citizens. This is possibly the first time since the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 that British citizens are actually less equal before the law than their American counterparts. Unfavourable taxation laws are what prompted the American Revolution. Under the terms of this Treaty there are circumstances under which a British citizen would not be extradited. For example, if they were under threat of torture or the death penalty. Babar's family worry that he may end up in Guantanamo Bay. Not withstanding the latest demand from the UN Secretary General for the closure of the prison, their lawyers will this week argue Guantanamo should be a powerful reason for the English courts to refuse his extradition. Babar's case has become a bit of a cause celebre. Within the Muslim communities of London there is a growing suspicion that they are not be dealt with fairly. This is not an argument about empirical evidence. It is a matter of perception. Babar Ahmad's case is for many, another example of the uneven treatment of Muslims in the current climate. In Ahmad's case, where there is an absence of hard evidence being subjected to public scrutiny these sceptics are being asked by the authorities to "trust us we know best". The problem is this is a leap too far for many Muslims. Losing faith This may have serious consequences for the fight against terror. The security services and the police all want and expect greater cooperation from the Muslim communities to help build a greater intelligence picture of the terrorist threat that we undoubtedly face. The problem is many Muslims say the Babar Ahmad case is a warning. If fresh intelligence leads to British Muslims being extradited to the US merely on the grounds of an accusation and without evidence being tested in an English court then there is no point in cooperating. Basically they are losing faith in the integrity of the system of justice once a British Muslim is accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. For justice to be done, they are saying, it needs to be seen to be done. Already a large group of MPs, the Mayor of London and now Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry are expressing their concerns about the 2003 Treaty. The government and not Parliament are responsible for ratifying international treaties. Parliament did not debate its contents before it was signed. It's become clear to the CBI that British businessmen accused of white collar crimes in the US could be extradited under these new rules of the game. City moguls and terrorist suspects fall into the same category if the US requests their extradition. Real danger Strange as it may seem these odd bedfellows have found common ground in their desire to uphold what they believe are the rules of fairness before the law. In all of this there are those who say it will be difficult to preserve the perception of justice in Muslim communities if without prima facie evidence being examined in our courts Babar Ahmed is extradited. The real danger is that if the perception of justice is undermined and the status of "victimhood" is given sustenance across whole communities, then identifying potential terrorists is likely to become a whole lot harder for the police and security services. There is no way of knowing at this juncture whether Babar Ahmad is innocent or guilty. At this stage all his lawyers are aiming to do is test the viability of the 2003 extradition treaty when it comes to British suspects. Should a British citizen be sent for trial elsewhere if the crime they've committed took place on British soil but the English courts will not prosecute for lack of evidence? The consequences of the High Court’s decision will stretch well beyond the question of one man’s liberty. | 
