EU wins first test of 'terrorist cases'

[Dreamer128]

21.09.2005 - 19:12 CET | By Teresa Küchler EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Member states must freeze the funds of all individuals named on UN lists of suspected terrorists without judicial review, according to a verdict from the European court of first instance in Luxembourg on Wednesday (21 September).

It is the first of the so-called "terrorist cases" to be tested, and the Court in Luxembourg ruled in favour of the EU. The complaints of the plaintiff, Ahmed Yusuf Ali, were rejected.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali's funds were blocked with immediate effect in November 2001, after his name had appeared on a list of persons suspected to be linked to terrorists.

Since 1999, the UN Security Council has adopted numerous Resolutions regarding organisations with suspected links to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

These resolutions demand all Member States of the UN to freeze the funds of the people named in a list established by a Sanctions Committee of the Security Council.

The list was established by the UN Security Council and was directly transferred into EU law by the bloc's member states.

Mr Yusuf Ali, a Swedish former worker in a Barakaat International Foundation office, operated a money transfer facility used by Somalis world-wide, and was later suspected of sponsoring terrorist groups with the money.

His funds - for example his bank savings - were then frozen by Swedish authorities.

Mr Yusuf Ali has claimed that the sanctions are in breach of the Rome treaty, which states that EU law cannot lead to disciplinary actions against single individuals,

In Wednesday's verdict the court of first instance stated that European Community law is entitled to order the freezing of personal assets to fight international terrorism, and that this issue falls outside the scope of judicial review.

Yusuf Ali's lawyers also say that the fact that Yusuf Ali has not had a chance to prove his innocence in a court room is in breach of the European Charter of Human Rights. The court disagrees.

Critics have claimed that the sanctions are in breach of human rights, notably the right to dispose of possessions, the right to defence and the right to an effective judicial remedy.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali's defence lawyer, Thomas Olsson, told Swedish wire agency TT after the ruling on Wednesday morning that "they [the EU] have imposed a system that denies people their legal rights. It is a pitiable verdict, and Ahmed Yusuf is a loser. But the biggest loser is the EU itself.

"It is completely unacceptable. We have not yet read the verdict or the motivation, but the result raises questions about the EU's position as regards the rule of law".

Ahmed Yusuf Ali will appeal the case to the European Court of Justice.

[Sir Degrader]

An excellent first step, though more European autonomy would be nice, as opposed to relying on the UN. Perhaps a greater focus on NATO or their own domestic intelligence services?

[Melcheor]

I don't know, by giving up our human rights in persuit of justice for terrorism, aren't we just compromising the very ideals the terrorists want to destroy themselves?

(Edit - needed a question mark)

[ 09-22-2005, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Melcheor ]

[Timber Loftis]

This is not the EU's "first test," merely the first one they passed. Like the US, EU countries have let suspected terrorist off the hook already, all based on lack of evidence because evidence could not be produced because it was a secret national secretive secret or some stupid such as that.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Melcheor: I don't know, by giving up our human rights in persuit of justice for terrorism, aren't we just compromising the very ideals the terrorists want to destroy themselves? (Edit - needed a question mark)

I agree with the point you're making, but when our openness and freedoms give them unrestricted access to doing us harm...

It's a problem I've spent alot of time thinking about, and still have no answer. IIRC it was Timber that had a rather well known Ben Franklin quote in his sig line (which I'm probably butchering), "Those who give up essential liberty for temprary security deserve neither liberty nor security" How does that jive with monitoring potentially dangerous groups to ensure the safety of the nation. In this there is no easy answer and any compromise must be made with the knowledge that there really isn't a "right" answer, in world war 1 German immigrants to the states were put into internment camps and watched, in WW2, Japanese in america were put through the same treatment, and many went to great lengths to prove their loyalty and served admirably in the European theater, both of those events went against the ideals of the founding fathers, and in retrospect seeing the efforts those groups went to in order to prove loyalty to the state they weren't necessary. (at the time they were viewed as such for instance several japanese immigrants unknowlingly provided intelligence that would prove incredibly useful to the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor). With the current groups that are the source of terrorist attacks we've seen nothing but posturing and complaints of victimization from the public fronts (CAIR, MBC, CAIR Canada, etc), and very little real effort from individuals within those communities. So does that put those groups in suspicion and make them deserving of the treatment we gave to other groups we warred against 60-90 years ago? I wish I had an answer, but all I get is more questions when I ask myself about topics like this.

[Melcheor]

Its tricky. In this country, recent policy regarding iraq, terrorism, islam and the sidlining of human rights in the persuit of security is having the effect of further segregating and alienating the islamic part of society. In the short term, an approach based on trust and freedom may well do us harm and cost a few lives, but it may also help build bridges with those groups we are trying to protect ourselves from. This is the only way we can truly solve the problem. By creating a segregated society we are in danger of making a currently moderate and cooperative muslim population more extreme, as well as hardening the resolve of those who are already fanacics.

There will always be those who do not agree with our way of life, just as many of us do not agree with theirs. What seems to be lacking is the respect that can and should exist between opposing opinion. Sadly, it is minorities on both sides which sour this. Increasing security is the only way to catch these people, but doing so will turn more to their views.

[Morgeruat]

But see it's not just recent policy, don't forget the storming of the US Embassy in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. The first WTC bominb in 1993, the Embassy bombings around the world throughout the 90's, The marine barracks in Suadi that got bombed in the 90's, the USS Cole, etc etc, all of which occured before present US policy in Iraq.

There has been terror groups operating under the nose of US intelligence groups for decades, with the occasional freezing of assets, and declaring of open support for several being illegal, this all says nothing about where loyalties or sympathies are placed, and whenever you hear a spokesman for a muslim advocacy group talk they are very careful to dance around issues in a manner that would be the envy of most politicians, and makes John Kerry look like a clumsy dolt.

The main problem is that we never thought to try and gauge where sympathies lay within our muslim groups until we really got serious about the "war on terror" and now our actions are widening the schism, or at least that's what the muslim groups are claiming as the cause.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: ...But see it's not just recent policy...

And I think that might be part of the problem... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Black Baron]

At last some proper action.

Now if everyone agreed that we need to invade Iran...

[Timber Loftis]

You mean that Israel needs to invade Iran? Go right ahead. You got enemies on all sides, if you want to stir the hornets' nest have at it.