British intelligence followed the "jihadists John" from the movie "Islamic state"

British intelligence followed the "jihadists John" from the movie "Islamic state"

On Thursday, were made public the identity of the so-called "jihadists John": they allegedly turned Kuwaiti origin Briton Mohammed Emvazi. As reported by The New York Times , a man came to the attention of British intelligence in 2009, which gave rise to a heated debate about why the intelligence services failed to prevent his crimes.

British authorities did not officially confirm the information that the "jihadist John" and Mohammed Emvazi - are one and the same person. However, this information, which first appeared on the website The Washington Post, reporters have confirmed sources in the British law enforcement agencies and the US military intelligence, the article says.

Available to the press information about Emvazi far from complete, but we know that he was born in Kuwait, and at the age of 6 years with his parents moved to West London. There's expected future thug "lived an ordinary life, studied hard, and in 2009 graduated from the Faculty of Informatics, University of Westminster." In May of the same year, he and two friends had been detained in Tanzania. Young people explained the desire to arrange the trip "safari holiday", but the British authorities were evidence that the trio went to Somalia to join the terrorist group "Al-Shabab".

The author Steven Erlanger suggests that radicalization Emvazi began even before meeting with MI-5 in Tanzania. At this point it is fallen BBC published court documents in which Emvazi appears as a member of the cell called "Boys from North London", believed to be engaged smuggle money, equipment and volunteers from the United Kingdom in Somalia. One of the members of this community Bilal al-Berdzhavi in ​​February 2009, also traveled to Kenya "on safari", but was arrested in Nairobi and sent to London. In October, he still managed to get to Somalia.

Asim Qureshi, Director of Research at the British human rights organization, CAGE, not fully confident that under the guise of "jihadist John" is hiding Emvazi. He described the man as a hero article "very soft, very humble and very courteous." In this case, Qureshi did not deny the fact of his radicalization and expressed the opinion that the responsibility for it lies with the British security services. In autumn 2009 he Emvazi complained of mistreatment by the police that he "beat" and apply the "rear naked choke."

After expulsion from Tanzania Emvazi was again detained by law enforcement agencies - in the Netherlands. He then returned to Kuwait and began working in the specialty, but, according to Qureshi, "at least twice" came to London. In June 2010, agents of the Anti-terrorism again detained Emvazi, taking his fingerprints and perpetrate search. A month later Emvazi denied the right to return to Kuwait and he was forced to stay in London, where, by his own admission, "felt like a prisoner." According to Qureshi, the latest news from Emvazi he received in January 2012. By 2013, a man was in Syria, where he helped to protect the hostages, and in August 2014 directed the filming of the first video from their decapitation. Emvazi "desperately sought to ensure that by the system to change its position, but his system without a trace," - explained Qureshi.

Opponents head CAGE, including research fellow of the British Institute of Science Defence Research Raffaello Pantuchchi indicate that "such treatment in any way is not a valid reason or excuse for cutting head several taken hostage civilians." Agrees with him a senior fellow at the same institution Shashank Joshi. Qureshi arguments he called "rough and simplistic."

Emvazi case raises issues relevant to the intelligence of any of the countries of the West, whether Great Britain, France or the United States, writes The New York Times. "As and when it hardened, and is not there fault of British intelligence - maybe they were with him too sharply or quickly enough to recognize in it a source of serious threat? (...) How can employees and police counter-terrorism units differ from one another in cases where they have collected enough evidence to suspect someone, but not enough for legal action, or even to establish by law for such a man watching? "

Source: The New York Times