Here's the thing -- this is not a law enforcement issue, let alone a human rights issue. These are war crimes, acts of war. There should be no recourse through the abominable and highly politicized international court of human rights. Human rights are for humans. If the European judges were to accept the argument of these jihadist bombers, they could rule that their human rights were breached and their conviction unsafe. They should have been hanged. This is not just mass murder and unimaginable destruction, this is treason. The objective of the invaders is to overthrow the government in the cause of Islam.
The three devout Muslims, along with Hussain Osman, attempted to blow themselves up on the London transport network just two weeks after the 7/7 jihad bombings in 2005, when four successful bombers killed 52 people on three Tube trains and a bus. The four Muslims tried to cause the same death and destruction with their knapsacks filled with explosives, but the bombs failed to explode.
Now they seek freedom through the human rights courts. Stark raving madness. The world has lost its collective mind.
July 21 failed suicide bombers fight conviction The TelegraphThree of the July 21 failed suicide bombers are using the European Court of Human Rights to try and overturn their convictions, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Muktar Ibrahim, left to right, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar Photo: AFP/GETTYBy Tom Whitehead, Security EditorLawyers for Muktar Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar are arguing the terrorists had an unfair trial because evidence from initial interviews should not have been used.
They have also claimed access to lawyers after their arrest was unfairly delayed.
An attempt to overturn their convictions on similar grounds was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in 2008 but the case has now been taken to Strasbourg.
If the European judges were to accept their argument they could rule their human rights were breached and their conviction unsafe.
The three, along with Hussain Osman, are serving at least 40 years after attempting to blow themselves up on the London transport network just two weeks after the 7/7 atrocity in 2005, when four successful bombers killed 52 people on three Tube trains and a bus.
The four men try to mirror the outrage but their rucksacks, packed with explosives, failed to detonate.
At their trial in 2007, they claimed it was a deliberate hoax to protest over the war in Iraq.
The human rights case now centres on evidence taken from so-called “safety interviews” which police first conducted after their arrests.
The interviews are allowed to be carried out in the absence of a lawyer and are based on the need to protect the public.
They enable police, in the circumstances of a potential terror attack, to urgently discover whether other suspects are still at large and whether an attack is still imminent.
The men were told before hand that anything they said could be used in a future trial but their lawyers are now arguing such evidence should have been inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal dismissed those claims and pointed out that the men lied throughout such interviews.
