Pilot sues US over 9/11 arrest

[Skunk]

Had he been arrested in the US, he would probably still be in gaol - because he wouldn't have had access to a lawyer.

Pilot sues US over 9/11 arrest
A UK-based pilot wrongly accused of training the 11 September hijackers has begun a $20m (£12.5m) legal action against the US.
Lotfi Raissi, who spent five months in London's Belmarsh prison, is suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the US Department of Justice.

Arrested at the behest of the FBI, 10 days after two airliners smashed into New York's Twin Towers, Mr Raissi said he was attacked and verbally abused while in prison.

'Psychological suffering'

A British court said there was no evidence to back up the US extradition claim and now Mr Raissi wants compensation and an apology for his ordeal.

He is alleging false imprisonment, false arrest and malicious prosecution among other charges.

Mr Raissi has always argued the US planned to make him a scapegoat because he was a Muslim pilot.

Since his release, he has been treated by a psychiatrist and says he is unable to find work flying planes.

Solicitor Jules Carey told BBC News Online: "He has certainly suffered psychologically. The case that was ordered against him has been ruinous both professionally and personally.

"At the moment he is unable to find work and as a result of the proceedings he has built up huge debts.

"His father is ill and at the time of the proceedings both him and his family were under huge pressure."

Mr Carey said Mr Raissi's wife had been detained for five days and his brother was detained for three days.

Minor charges

The solicitor said legal action was also planned against the Crown Prosecution Service and police in the UK.

The Algerian-born pilot was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at his home on 21 September 2001.

When no terrorist charges had been brought against him after five months in jail, he was freed on bail.

But the US Government said he was still a suspect and sought extradition for falsifying an application to the Federal Aviation Authority for a US pilot's licence.

But it transpired this charge related only to a spent conviction for stealing a briefcase in 1993 and a knee operation he had not mentioned on the form.

In April 2002, a district judge at Bow Street Magistrates rejected the extradition bid and discharged Mr Raissi.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I wish him luck. At least he brings this into the light.

I will say, however, that even though it is a legally impermissible assumption to think "because he commited crime before, he probably did it again," it is a perfectly normal layman's conclusion. And, as a layman, I gotta say the dude got convicted for theft, so it ain't likely he's a choir boy.

So, he'll sue and to gubbermint will give him a relatively large settlement for the nuisance value of the case, even though it would win outright (under national security legal theories) if they took it to trial. Hey, at least he won't need to steal anymore.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, I wish him luck. At least he brings this into the light. I will say, however, that even though it is a legally impermissible assumption to think "because he commited crime before, he probably did it again," it is a perfectly normal layman's conclusion. And, as a layman, I gotta say the dude got convicted for theft, so it ain't likely he's a choir boy.

Would it help to point out that he was only 16 years old at the time of the theft and has never been convicted of anything else?

[Timber Loftis]

It would if I had not suspected it already. But with news, it's all in the presentation, ain't it? News story last night: Indiana college kid drank himself to death over the weekend. Wow. That's horrible. Then they follow up with the news that he was a 5th-yr senior who was arrested 2 weeks ago for a DUI. Me and my wife both groaned and rolled our eyes. Now, perhaps that was the only trouble he ever got into -- but it was all in the presentation. Where the information sat in relation to the story, and what informaiton was not included, is where the problem is, wouldn't you say?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Where the information sat in relation to the story, and what informaiton was not included, is where the problem is, wouldn't you say?

I'd say that you've been following the Hutton Inquiry too closely!