8 British Terrorism Suspects Remanded

LONDON —  Eight Britons accused of conspiring to commit murder and mount terrorist attacks against financial targets in the United States appeared in court here Wednesday and were ordered held at least until a hearing next week.

The eight men, arrested Aug. 3 under Britain’s Terrorism Act of 2000, appeared under heavy guard in London’s high-security Belmarsh Magistrate’s Court for a reading of the charges, which included plotting to carry out attacks using explosives and radioactive, biological or chemical materials.

Prosecutor Sue Hemming told the court that police had a great deal of evidence to sift through and that what they had found so far was “only the tip of the iceberg.” Police were examining material from more than 100 computers and thousands of files, and “investigations will be going on for some time,” she said.

Presiding Judge Timothy Workman ordered the defendants held until a preliminary hearing next Wednesday in London’s Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey. None of the men entered a plea or applied for bail.

The charges, which were filed Tuesday, link the arrests to an Aug. 1 terrorism alert in the United States that suggested possible attacks on the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup’s headquarters in New York, World Bank and International Monetary Fund offices in Washington and the Prudential Financial Inc. building in Newark, N.J.

The defendants arrived for Wednesday’s court appearance in two convoys, escorted by police cars. Police helicopters hovered overhead throughout the proceedings.

In court, each man appeared in the dock behind a plate-glass window, flanked by officers wearing body armor.

Abdul Aziz Jalil, 31, from the town of Luton, north of London, appeared first, a slight figure in a white T-shirt and gray jogging pants. He sat quietly while the court clerk read out charges of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy “together with others to cause a public nuisance by the use of radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and explosives.”

Hemming asked that Jalil be denied bail, saying that although he had no prior convictions, he had a “strong and deeply held ideology” and was likely to commit “dangerous” acts to further it.

Nadeem Tarmohamed, 26, a shorter, more burly figure, appeared next and was read the same two principal charges of conspiracy to commit murder and to plan terrorist attacks, plus a further allegation that he was in possession of a “reconnaissance plan of the Prudential building in New Jersey and information of a kind materially useful to a person committing an act of terror.”

Zia ul Haq and Qaisar Shaffi, both 25, from London, spoke only to confirm their names and give their dates of birth. They appeared together in white sweatshirts and gray jogging pants and were read the same principal charges.

In addition, Shaffi was accused of possessing excerpts from a terrorism handbook containing “information on explosives and other weapons materially useful to someone committing crimes contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000,” the clerk said.

The other four defendants, who appeared together and heard the same principal charges of conspiracy to commit murder and plot attacks, were Dhiren Barot, 32; Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 24; Omar Abdul Rehman, 20; and Junade Feroze, 28. Barot was also accused of possessing records and documents on the Prudential building, as well as plans of the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund offices and the Citigroup building.

Barot, who has been identified by other names, including Abu Eisa al Hindi, has been labeled a senior Al Qaeda operative in several published reports.

A ninth man, Matthew Monks, 32, from London, who was arrested with the eight terrorism suspects, appeared ahead of them and was charged with possession of an air gun that could be converted to a firearm. He was not alleged to be one of the suspected conspirators. He was released on bail to appear in central London’s magistrate court Sept. 28.

Lawyers for the eight other defendants said in a statement after the hearing that the charges would be contested and that it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.