Zareen Ahmadzai, who spent  three years fighting in Afghanistan, has admitted using a Kalashnikov rifle and firing rockets, as well  as supplying weapons and food to the Taliban.

The Home Office rejected his claim for asylum, and when his appeal also failed, Ahmadzai  was detained at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre in  West London while awaiting  deportation.

Threat: Taliban fighters, like the ones pictured, are said to be a threat to Ahmadzai

Yet when the 30-year-old – who  initially did not speak English – mounted a fresh appeal, he was able to overturn the Home Office’s case on the grounds that his life would be at risk if he returned home.

The decision is another setback for Home Secretary Theresa May, who is under pressure to reform human rights laws following a  series of high-profile cases in which Muslim extremists have avoided deportation.

Ahmadzai arrived in Britain illegally in May 2010 after travelling from Afghanistan in lorries.

Two days later he was arrested  at an address in Wolverhampton  and claimed asylum. When the Home Office ordered he be deported, he appealed to the immigration court. 

Although a judge rejected his appeal, Ahmadzai took his case to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

The tribunal heard Ahmadzai joined the Taliban after his father, who was a commander in Helmand province, was shot dead by US  soldiers during a battle. He said  that he killed people during his fighting with the Taliban as well as  supplying the group with weapons, water and food.

Home Secretary Theresa May is under pressure to reform human rights laws following a series of high-profile cases in which Muslim extremists have avoided deportation

The court ruling said: ‘He believed that he was advancing the cause  of Islam. He said that his father  was shot during fighting against  the Americans.

‘The appellant used to fight for  the Taliban. He said that he had killed people. On different occasions he had used a Kalashnikov and  also a pistol.’

The ruling continued: ‘He was involved in fighting over a three-year period according to need. 

‘He indicated that he had been  in “a lot” of battles, sometimes two  or three a night as well as daylight fighting.’

Ahmadzai claims that when he tried to leave the Taliban after he realised innocent people were being killed, he was taken to a mountain and tortured. 

He alleges that shortly afterwards he fled the country but cannot return because his life would be in danger from both the Taliban and the Afghan National Security Forces, who oppose the Islamic extremist group. 

The court ruling said: ‘He was asked why he could not relocate,  for example, to Kabul. He asked  rhetorically if a murderer could expect to relocate in London.  

‘He said the police would look for the murderer just as the Taliban and the authorities would look  for him.’

Psychologists who have examined Ahmadzai say they believe he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which is caused  by highly stressful or frightening events, such as armed combat. 

Although the Home Office disputed Ahmadzai’s story and did not believe he was wanted by either the Taliban or the ANSF, Senior Immigration Judge Jonathan Perkins ruled that he must not be deported. The case was heard at the tribunal in June last year but the judgment was only announced in March.

Combat: Ahmadzai killed people during his fighting with the Taliban and supplied them with weapons and food

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of Migrationwatch UK think-tank, said: ‘This case is one of the absurdities that brings the whole immigration, appeal and Human Rights Act process into disrepute.

‘Most sensible people would think the Human Rights Act was never intended for this type of case. 

‘The sooner that we can organise ourselves to do something about the Act and how it intervenes to allow people who should not be here to stay, the better.’

A UK Border Agency spokesman  said: ‘We are extremely disappointed with the court’s decision. 

‘We did not believe that this  individual needed or deserved  refuge in this country.

‘We always seek to remove those who have no right to remain in  the UK and last year removed more than 52,000 people.’

UKBA would not disclose whether it knew where Ahmadzai now  lived. However, it is understood  that he is legally free to live anywhere in Britain.

Labour Party MPs demanded an emergency recall of the Chilcot inquiry last night after new revelations that Tony Blair blocked the Government's most senior lawyer from explaining to Cabinet the legality of the war in Iraq. According to the newly published full version of Alastair Campbell's diaries, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wanted to "put the reality" to cabinet ministers that there was a case against, as well as for, military action in March 2003. But, according to his former spin doctor, the then Prime Minister feared that the legal opinion was too "nuanced" and would allow the war's ministerial critics Robin Cook and Clare Short to say that the case had not been made. The disclosure is significant because, while it has long been suspected that Mr Blair and his inner circle put pressure on Lord Goldsmith to change his legal advice, this is the first evidence that the PM actively blocked the Cabinet from hearing the full details of the case for war. MPs from all parties urged Sir John Chilcot, who has finished taking evidence and is now preparing his report into the Iraq war, to reconvene a special session to hear from Mr Blair, Mr Campbell and Lord Goldsmith. The former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "According to the diaries, Tony Blair was determined that the decision should not rest with the Cabinet and overruled his Attorney General. Sofa government prevailed at the expense of constitutional requirements. The diaries prove that once a decision to go to war against Iraq had been taken, intelligence and legal advice was manipulated to support that decision." Lord Goldsmith presented a longer legal opinion to Mr Blair on 7 March 2003 in which he said he believed there was a "reasonable case" in favour of military action, but that "there was also a case to be made the other way". According to Mr Campbell's diaries, Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair that he did not want the Prime Minister to "present it too positively" in favour of military action because there was a "case to be made the other way". Mr Campbell wrote: "TB also made it clear he did not particularly want Goldsmith to launch a detailed discussion at Cabinet, though it would have to happen at some time, and ministers would want to cross-examine. With the mood as it was, and with Robin [Cook] and Clare [Short] operating as they were, he knew if there was any nuance at all, they would be straight out saying the advice was that it was not legal, the AG was casting doubt on the legal basis for war. Peter Goldsmith was clear that though a lot depended on what happened, he was casting doubt in some circumstances and if Cabinet had to approve the policy of going to war, he had to be able to put the reality to them." But Mr Campbell added that this was blocked by Mr Blair and his gatekeeper, Sally Morgan, during a meeting of Mr Blair and his closest aides on 11 March: "Sally said it was for TB to speak to Cabinet, and act on the AG's advice. He would simply say the advice said there was a reasonable case." Following the 11 March meeting, Lord Goldsmith produced a new, one-page legal opinion which put the "reasonable case" for war – which was discussed at Cabinet and used in Parliament to justify military action. In his own memoir, A Journey, Mr Blair did not reveal details of how he tried to block Lord Goldsmith. He said only that the Attorney General had "set out the arguments for and against and on balance came out in favour". When he gave evidence to the Chilcot inquiry in January 2010, Lord Goldsmith was asked by inquiry panel member Sir Roderic Lyne whether anyone asked him to "restrict what you said to Cabinet to the fairly limited terms in which you presented this to Cabinet". Lord Goldsmith replied: "No." Sir Menzies added: "There seems to be a substantial difference between the contents of the diaries and the evidence given to the Chilcot inquiry, and the inquiry would be well advised to reconvene itself." Last night Clare Short said she was not surprised that Mr Blair had been "deceitful" in presenting the case for war. Peter Kilfoyle, a minister in the Blair government, also called for the Chilcot inquiry to be recalled. "There is a straightforward contradiction between the two positions and it needs to be corroborated." The Conservative MP Patrick Mercer said: "New facts have come to light and this makes me question whether we know enough about the then Prime Minister's attitude that justified the war." Mr Campbell said last night: "Peter Goldsmith's legal opinion is in the public domain and it was no secret he had concerns at various points. This is entirely consistent with what he and Tony Blair said to the Chilcot inquiry."

Turkey has called a meeting of Nato member states to discuss its response to the shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syrian forces on Friday. Ankara has invoked Article 4 of Nato's charter, under which consultations can be requested when an ally feels their security is threatened, officials say. Earlier, Turkey's foreign minister said the F-4 Phantom was in international airspace when it was shot down. Syria has insisted the jet was engaged while it was inside its airspace. It has also said no act of hostility was intended, noting that as soon the military discovered the "unidentified" aircraft was Turkish its navy joined efforts to rescue the two crew members. The Turkish coast guard is still searching for them in the Mediterranean Sea, though hopes are fading of them being found alive. Turkish news channels are reporting that the wreckage of the jet has been located in Syrian territorial waters at a depth of 1,300m (4 265ft), according the Reuters news agency. 'Training mission' Nato spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said the North Atlantic Council, the principal political decision-making body within the military alliance, would meet in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss the incident. "Turkey has requested consultations under article 4 of Nato's founding Washington Treaty," she told Reuters. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote This outrageous act underlines how far beyond accepted behaviour the Syrian regime has put itself” William Hague UK Foreign Secretary "Under article 4, any ally can request consultations whenever, in the opinion of any of them, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened." Turkey wants to be sure of the strongest backing once it decides its official response, reports the BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul. The government has promised that it will be strong, decisive and legitimate, and that it will share all the information it has with the public. Earlier, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu asserted that the unarmed F-4 Phantom had "momentarily" entered Syrian airspace by mistake on Friday but had left when it was shot down 15 minutes later. "According to our conclusions, our plane was shot down in international airspace, 13 nautical miles (24km) from Syria," he said. According to international law, a country's airspace extends 12 nautical miles (22.2km) from its coastline, corresponding with its territorial waters. Mr Davutoglu also insisted that the jet had not been on a "covert mission related to Syria" but had instead been carrying out a training flight to test Turkey's radar capabilities. He said the plane had not "shown any hostility", been clearly marked as Turkish, and that he did not agree with the Syrian military's statement that it had not known to whom it belonged. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Syrian military's actions were "outrageous" and underlined "how far beyond accepted behaviour the Syrian regime has put itself". "It will be held to account for its behaviour. The UK stands ready to pursue robust action at the United Nations Security Council," he said.

On Tuesday night WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange applied for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after failing in his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex crime allegations. The 40-year-old Australian is currently inside the building in Knightsbridge, having gone there on Tuesday afternoon to request asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration. The country's foreign minister Ricardo Patino told a press conference in the South American country that it was considering his request. In a short statement last night, Mr Assange said: "I can confirm that today I arrived at the Ecuadorian Embassy and sought diplomatic sanctuary and political asylum. This application has been passed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the capital Quito. I am grateful to the Ecuadorian ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application." The computer expert, who was on £200,000 bail after failing in several attempts to halt extradition, attracted several high-profile supporters including Ken Loach and socialite and charity fundraiser Jemima Khan, who each offered £20,000 as surety. Other supporters included Bianca Jagger and veteran left-winger Tony Benn. The Swedish authorities want him to answer accusations of raping a woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in Stockholm in August 2010 while on a visit to give a lecture. Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, says the sex was consensual and the allegations against him are politically motivated. The Supreme Court last month ruled in favour of a High Court ruling that his extradition was legal. Last week the Supreme Court refused an attempt by him to reopen his appeal against extradition, saying it was "without merit". He had until June 28 to ask European judges in Strasbourg to consider his case and postpone extradition on the basis that he has not had a fair hearing from the UK courts. A statement issued on behalf of the Ecuadorian Embassy said Mr Assange would remain at the embassy while his request was considered.

The former commander of the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade was sentenced to a $300,000 fine and issued a formal reprimand Thursday after being found guilty at a court martial of multiple counts of fraud, conduct unbecoming of an officer, bigamy and other charges related to an alleged long-term extra-marital affair he had with a woman he met in Iraq when they both lived in Europe. As part of the sentence, Col. James Johnson III will have to serve five years in jail if the fine is unpaid, said Army spokeswoman Hilde Patton. He had faced possible decades in prison and dismissal from the Army as a maximum sentence. The panel of five colonels who presided over the court martial in the city of Kaiserslautern did not explain their decision. Johnson had pleaded guilty to 13 counts against him and was found guilty of two other counts by the panel of officers hearing the case. Twelve other counts were dismissed as the proceedings opened Sunday. The West Point graduate was relieved of his command of the Vicenza, Italy-based, 173rd in March 2011 amid the investigation. Johnson, the son of retired Lt. Gen. James H. Johnson Jr., who led the Fort Bragg, 82nd Airborne Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was seen as a rising star in the Army before the charges were levied. He was accused of having carried on an affair with an Iraqi woman he met in Iraq in 2005-06, who was the daughter of his cultural adviser, and pleaded guilty to marrying her before being divorced from his own wife in a ceremony that was carried out by proxies for both of the two in Montana in November. The woman, identified in court documents as Haveen Alladin Muhammed Al-Atar, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Among the charges that Johnson admitted to was the accusation that he made numerous trips to visit the woman in the Netherlands using official vehicles and travel cards, which are government-issued credit cards. He also acknowledged arranging official transport worth thousands of dollars for the woman and paying tens of thousands of dollars of contracts for her father for things that "were neither produced nor received." The panel also found him guilty of giving the family an Army cell phone on which they ran up more than $80,000 in charges.

Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.” Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge. Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana. Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification. “In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant,” reads the legislation. Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space. “There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.” Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry. “In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.” Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” “It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police President Tim Downs adds. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”