The BBC defends Hamza

More evidence of just whose side the BBC is on in the war on terror.

In a puff piece on Hamza, Peter Gould an alleged BBC News Online correspondent, tries to imply that the only evidence against Hamza is a tenuous link to a satellite phone.

From The BBC

It was in a sweltering courtroom in Yemen that I first saw the satellite phone that is now a key part of the US case against Abu Hamza.

With a flourish, the state prosecutor pulled it from a tatty plastic bag that must once have held groceries.

The court was told that the phone demonstrated the involvement of the London-based cleric in terrorism in Yemen.

The phone is only one piece of evidence among the many charges against Hamza. There are 11 charges in all but Peter wants to ignore the rest.

Notice the use to the phrase "with a flourish", implying the prosecutor produced the phone like a "rabbit out of a hat". How does that add any information to this story Peter Cottontail? Ooops! My bad. Peter Gould.

Later on he produces his own rabbit out of a hat.

The Yemeni authorities were anxious to establish a link between the London-based cleric and the kidnappers, whose trial was taking place separately in Zinjibar.

Where is the proof that the authorities were "anxious to establish a link"? Peter is trying to imply that they were out to get Hamza. Yet he offers no proof of this. Just says it is so and we are expected to believe him.

It was alleged that the hostages were taken to try to secure the release of the British Muslims.

In the gang's camp, they had seized what they regarded as a damning piece of evidence.

It was an expensive satellite telephone, allegedly supplied to the terrorists by Abu Hamza.

Peter, an alleged correspondent, is representative of the inept reporting we have come to expect form The BBC; an alleged news organization.

Notice how the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army have gone from an army to terrorists and are now simply a gang.

Also notice the "it was alleged" the kidnapping was to secure the release of British Muslims. Here again Peter demonstrates his lack of investigative skills.

From The Yemen Gateway and attributed to the Guardian:

A statement in the name of the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army claimed responsibility for seizing the tourists last Monday and said the action was partly aimed at freeing Islamic Jihad members under arrest in Yemen, but also at ending 'Western aggression against Iraq'.

Peter goes on to say that the satellite phone was "allegedly supplied" by Hamza. Maybe he supplied it and maybe he didn't but one thing is for sure he was linked to it.

From The Guardian

The tourists who survived the shoot-out said they were abducted by up to 23 men, some of whom spoke English. Hours after the kidnap Abu Hassan liaised by satellite phone with Abu Hamza. It is not known if Mr Hamza also spoke to his son.

And why weren't charges brought against Hamza then?

In a case such as this, any intercepts of satellite phone conversations would not be admissible in a British court.

There's a loophole that should be closed.

One can only speculate that the BBC bars its' "alleged reporters" from reading news from other news organizations. How else can you explain Peter's complete lack of knowledge of the case against Hamza. The BBC could use a little help from news sources such as CNN.