| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Attempting to Justify the Unjustifiable |
| 2003-11-12 |
| New Zealandâs Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, addresses the Immigration & Refugee Law Seminar, refering to the case of Ahmed Zaoui, 5th Nov: Finally I thought that I should also mention Part 4A of the Immigration Act 1987, which was passed into law in 1999, and which has been the subject of considerable media scrutiny of late. This is the first time that a Security Risk Certificate has been issued in accordance with the Act, so it can be expected that there will be some anxiety about how the process will work in practice. I am disturbed about the extent of the media coverage that has been involved in the individual case and the campaign that is being mounted in the media against the provisions that enable the Director of Security to disclose âclassified security informationâ to the Minister of Immigration. No one should know his name, no one should have seen his photo and no one should have seen him appearing in court. Section 129T is clear and for good reason. Publicity may expose a claimant to risk, whether they are removed from New Zealand or not, and other family members or friends may be exposed to risk. On the other hand, publicity may be generated by the person him/herself in order to shore up a claim for status. The Minister objects to the level of publicity the case has received, referring to section 129T of the immigration act I would suggest that much of the interest in the case has resulted from the way in which the Government has handled the case, including the transfer from Papakura Police Station to Paremoremo with full police escort (including a helicopter overhead) and imprisoning Mr. Zaoui in solitary confinement in one of our toughest prisons for 10 months. Given how Mr. Zaouiâs case has demonstrated the failings and problems inherent in the current system, I am grateful that the process was not hidden away from the NZ public (as the Minister may have preferred). Part 4A acknowledges that there will be circumstances where classified security information will be relevant for immigration purposes. It also makes it clear that there are competing interests â the public interest and the individual interest. The individual rights sought to be protected are contained, in a New Zealand context, within the NZ Bill of Rights Act. Under that Act there is provision for all government Bills to be vetted for compliance with the Act. The Bill that introduced Part 4A was vetted for compliance. It met the test. The Minister of Immigration states that the Immigration Act was âvetted for compliance with the NZ Bill of Rights Act. However, the Bill of Rights Act states: Section 4 [Other Enactments] No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights), (a) Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or (b) Decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. Or simply: Any other legislation can override the Bill of Rights. I am not aware of exactly what the âvettingâ process involves, but it is clearly not intended to make the legislation respect the rights described in the Bill. From section 22 of the Bill of Rights reads almost as a list of rights the Mr. Zaoui has been denied: âEveryone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, âEveryone who is charged with an offenceâŠShall be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the chargeâ Section 25 [Fair Trial] is particularly relevant: Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (a) The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court: (b) The right to be tried without undue delay: (c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law: (d) The right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt: (e) The right to be present at the trial and to present a defence: (f) The right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution: (g) The right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty: (h) The right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both. Essentially the ability of âan independent person of high standingâ, (in this case the Inspector General of Intelligence & Security), to review the Security Risk Certificate, including the classified security information upon which it is based, coupled with an appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, are what protect the individualâs rights. However the public interest lies in New Zealandâs ability to receive classified security information, and such information must remain confidential for good reason. If New Zealand does not treat the classified security information it receives as confidential, how much intelligence will we receive in the future? How will we be able to issue warnings to our citizens considering travelling abroad? How will we be able to become aware of the connections between people and groups that have implications for our own domestic security? The Minister of Immigration speaks of it being in the âpublic interestâ for NZ to be able to receive classified security information. She asks how much intelligence we will receive in the future if this information is not treated as confidential. The implication is that people advocating for the fair treatment of Mr. Zaoui, would like the information to be broadcast publicly. This is not true â Although I am curious as to what the information is, there is no reason for me to see it . There is however, every reason for Mr. Zaoui and his lawyers to see it - and no reason that they cannot keep the information confidential. To follow the Ministers conclusion to itâs logical extent â we could also lock up New Zealand citizens based on overseas intelligence, without revealing any charges â in case revealing them jeopardises our relationship with the intelligence community! It is not a big step to convicting people of local crimes without revealing the charges or sources of accusation, so that undercover officers and informants can continue operating (in the public interest). The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service does receive information on a strictly confidential basis, and it is vital to New Zealandâs security that it can continue to do so. If anyone needs a reason for the use of classified security information in this way, we only need to think about September 11 or, for something closer to home, the Bali bombing. The only real counter to terrorism is intelligence. Terrorism is not like conventional war â it is underground, it is long-term in its planning and its participants are not only not afraid to die, they expect to do so in the name of their cause. The Minister refers to the events of September 11, and the Bali bombing as a justification for using classified security information. These two events were both a horrific failure on the part of the intelligence community. It is unlikely that these events were not detected because Intelligence organisations were unable to keep information classified. In referring to these two terrible tragedies, the Minister is appealing to our fear of the different and the unknown. These events may point to the need for reform of the Intelligence services worldwide, but they do not justify abandoning international Human Rights standards. I have asserted that in this case the media have been used to mount a case in the âcourt of public opinionâ, but that is not an appropriate jurisdiction, because only one side can be presented. For example, during the weekend when the RSAA decision was being edited for public release, (a delay and process that was agreed by everyone), the Sunday Star Times reported that they had been âallowed exclusive access to [the] file through his defence teamâ. The media couldnât even question an apparent inconsistency between the RSAA decision and comments attributed to the individual, because they didnât have the RSAA decision The Minister refers to media coverage of the case saying that case is being mounted in the court of public opinion. This is a distortion of the work activists are doing. The main thrust of argument is not whether or not if Mr. Zaoui is a security risk, but whether it is acceptable to treat anybody (genuine security risk or not) in the manner in which the Government has treated Mr. Zaoui. Although it is inevitable that discussion of the case will also involve discussing whether or not Mr. Zaoui actually is a security risk, the phrase most repeated is âfreedom or fair trialâ not âZaoui is not a security riskâ The website I run is called FreeZaoui.org â but the qualifier âor give him a fair trialâ is added. The public have heard both sides of the discussion on whether it acceptable to treat an individual in this manner. It is the process that causes the most concern â and this leads to questioning whether the process that will determine whether Mr. Zaoui is a security risk is fair, trustworthy, and holds to Human Rights standards. It is fair to say that some members of the public have become particularly anxious because of the length of time this has all taken. My preliminary decision to rely on the Security Risk Certificate was communicated to the individual in April this year. He appealed immediately to the Inspector-General, however, the matter was, with his consent deferred until after the RSAA decision was made. I would be among the members of the public who are âanxiousâ over the length of time Mr. Zaoui has been detained. However it is the way in which he has been imprisoned that is of most concern. The solitary confinement at Paremoremo, and the fact that he has still not been charged with any offence. It was, therefore, only when he was approved refugee status that the matter proceeded to be addressed by the Inspector General. I have no objection to this process. However, I have been receiving letters blaming me for the length of time he has been detained. These letters would probably be sent to her because she is the person in charge of the system that has imprisoned him for this length of time. She cannot distance herself from Mr. Zaouiâs treatment, because as Minister of Immigration, she is responsible for the refugee process. To suggest she is powerless over this process is simply ridiculous. Yet he is still the subject of a security risk certificate â the only difference is that he now has refugee status. The publicity centres on the latter not the former, and I cannot say why he is subject to the security risk certificate, because that is based on classified security information. I am caught between a rock and a hard place. That is why I have expressed frustration at the legal proceedings that are causing delays. The Minister expresses frustration at âdelaysâ due to legal action by Mr. Zaouiâs lawyers. The main delay appears to be the wait for the RSAA hearing, which cannot be blamed on Mr. Zaouiâs lawyers. Given that Mr. Zaouiâs life may depend upon the outcome of the process here in NZ, It should be expected that every possible avenue be explored. Part 4A of the Act did not envisage these delays. The Inspector General is required to conduct the review âwith all reasonable speed and diligenceâ. However there have been lengthy delays. I accept the lawyers have the right to pursue all legal avenues on behalf of their client, afterall it is the first case to test the law that was written in 1999. But he remains the subject of the Security Risk certificate â so I cannot sit back and accept criticism for the decision to detain him, when the matter could have been determined by now. I expressed my frustration during a Radio New Zealand interview a couple of weeks ago, and I want to make it clear that I did not intend to criticise or call in question the integrity of the legal team or their right to take the steps they have. But this is the consequence, which is not one envisaged by the Act, a matter that is reinforced by the fact that if the Inspector General upholds the certificate, I have to make my decision in three days. Returning to the objectives of the special procedures in cases involving concerns, I believe that Mr Zaouiâs rights are protected by the appeal to the Inspector General who is a retired senior High Court judge and who has access to all the information including the classified security information and will hold a hearing. If he holds that the Security Risk Certificate was not properly made then the individual will be released. In concluding the Minister states she believes Mr. Zaouiâs rights are protected by his appeal to the Inspector General. Many people and organisations in New Zealand and internationally would disagree - including Amnesty International, one of the most respected and trusted organisations in the world, who have launched a campaign calling for either a freedom or fair trial for Mr. Zaoui Balanced against his individual rights remains the public interest. I personally believe that I speak for the majority of New Zealanders when I say that in this age of international terrorism, we have a right to know who is entering our country, where they are from and why they are here. I agree with the Minister that we have a right to âknow who is entering our country, where they are from and why they are here.â However, I donât believe that we have the right to deprive these people of their basic Human Rights, incarcerate them in solitary confinement for 10 months, and then judge them without telling them what they are accused of. The questions can be answered within a proper framework of Human Rights, so it is inexcusable to operate outside of them for any reason â even in this âage of international terrorismâ And if we are to have access to international intelligence to support us in that task and to protect New Zealandâs domestic security, we have to accept that both the source and content of classified security information must be kept confidential. It is a matter of balance. Whatever decision the Inspector General reaches, and whatever decision I reach, if the matter comes back to me, I am confident that New Zealanders will want to retain a mechanism that enables us to utilise classified security information for immigration purposes, while ensuring that individual rights are protected to the greatest extent possible. Yes, we do want to âretain a mechanism that enables us to utilise classified security information for immigration purposesâ â But we can do so completely within the framework of Human Rights. Basic rights as set down by the United Nations (and elsewhere) are not designed to shield real criminals from justice â but to make sure that a fair process is used to find out if they really are criminals. It is, as with all immigration matters, a question of balance and overall I believe that the balance is right. "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." The same is true of Human Rights - To deny even one person of one right, is to undermine the whole framework. We cannot pick and chose which rights apply to who - All Human Rights apply to all people. see www.freezaoui.org.nz |
| Posted by:Alex Davidson |
| #21 Adding to what Jarhead said: People who are not associated with a country, but wage war against the people of that nation, are not 'combattants' under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but criminal combattants, and may be shot. People fighting against a government in a rebellion or coup must meet three criteria before being accepted as "lawful combattants": They must wear a distinctive uniform, they must act in a lawful, military manner (I.E., no rounding up and shooting civilians, no looting and burning, etc.), and they must have a military organization that accepts responsibility for the actions if its members. Otherwise they're just a bunch of loonies with guns, and fair game for anyone with a gun. If captured, they are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention, which ONLY applies to "lawful combattants". Al-Qaida is a criminal organization, not an organization of "lawful combattants". Anyone captured as a member of Al Qaida can be treated just about any old way the capturer wishes, including milking them dry then hanging them. AI wants to change that. The proposed changes would significantly increase the ability of terrorists to operate, and hamper the ability of "lawful combattants" to engage them. Until AI can understand that some people just like to kill people, and need to be wiped from the face of the earth, they have no credibility. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-12 9:07:50 PM |
| #20 I'm for getting up early. Let's shoot them all before dawn. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2003-11-12 7:01:44 PM |
| #19 "If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless." -It's a little broader then that. If I get shot at while on a patrol by someone not in uniform, they can be construed as an enemy combatant. There's a couple requirements that need to be met (or anyone of them). 1) irregulars or combatants dressed as civilians 2) weapons on hand or in the vicinity 3) intent to harm U.S. personnel or aid & abet the enemy (i.e. old lady or young kid running an rpg to an enemy position). 4) Occuring on foreign soil or on U.S. soil by non-U.S. civilians. -I'm not sure if Padilla falls into this last category. Was he a U.S. citizen, a former citizen who renounced his American citizenship, or dual citizen? I thought he was a Mexican national. I could be wrong. Some of you more familiar w/him may know. I think Walker-Lindh could've been seen as someone renouncing their citizenship. I will say this (& I'm not the only who feels this way) - if I am shot at by combatants dressed as civilians (i.e. illegal combatants), unless they can be reasonably detained for intel purposes - they're dead. I'd have to read the formal jargon for the rest of the policy J.G. mentions, I'm not sure that it can be twisted as far as he says in order to allow opposition political party members to be arrested by the president. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-12 5:45:33 PM |
| #18 "If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless." It depends what "its own say so" means. If they have a reasonable, standardized way to make the call (which, BTW, need not be the same as the military tribunals to determine crimes and punishments) Im not sure that isnt acceptable under Geneva. In any case, IIUC, that is STILL not what is it issue in the appeal to the Supreme Court, but rather the question of jurisdiction. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-12 4:24:48 PM |
| #17 Re: Robert Crawford Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to. They could all be shot at dawn tomorrow, and it would be perfectly legal. Assuming that enemy combatants have no right uhnder the convention this does not answer the question of who should decide their status. If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless. United States citizens held on United States territory are protected by the Constitution, but the government alleges that its designation of persons as enemy combatants is essentially not reviewable by the courts. If the treatment of Jose Padilla is defensible, gone is due process and basically democracy. Under the government's policy, where courts would have either no meaninngful power to review designations of persons as enemy combatants, the president would also have the right to designate members of the opposition party as enemy combatants. If this seems far fetched, remember that's exactly the government's position -- that it's constitutional to lock up persons without lawyers and due process. Or could you suggest any limiting principle. And no, the argument that we don't have to worry because the executive should be trusted on his own words is not tenable. The reason for amending the Constitution with a Bill of Rights was precisely distrust of government and the potential for abuse. |
| Posted by: John G. 2003-11-12 3:59:54 PM |
| #16 The poster is new... does he know Rantburg charges $23/column inch? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-12 3:54:24 PM |
| #15 This thread is bigger than New Zealand... |
| Posted by: Grunter 2003-11-12 2:51:52 PM |
| #14 Alex, you are quite simply wrong. You actually answer yourself with this: The point is, if you don't apply the GC to the enemy, you should hardly be suprised if the enemy responds in kind. EXACTLY! Al'Qaeda violated the Geneva Conventions spectacularly on 9-11-2001. You might remember what happened that day; it was in all the papers. So, no member of al'Qaeda is due the protections of the GC. This is what "illegal (or unlawful) combatants" means -- someone who has violated the GC. To give terrorists the protections due a lawful combatant is to say that an honorable soldier is no different than a thug that shoots a child in her bed. It's a lie, it's immoral, and it's dangerous. under international law, many actions taken by developed countries could be viewed as 'illegal' and therefore their soldiers could be described as 'illegal combatants.' Only if you have a warped and incorrect idea of what the rules of war state. However, in all cases, human rights can be maintained while finding, judging and punishing criminals. This is not law enforcement; it's war. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 2:48:54 PM |
| #13 I would respectfully counter that AI is not "full of sh**" - The people released as result of their work might well agree. As regards Guantanamo - My limited understanding is that people accused must either be treated as crimminals or under the Geneva Convention. Powell has been quietly pushing to have these men treated in accordance with the convention. The point is, if you don't apply the GC to the enemy, you should hardly be suprised if the enemy responds in kind. Calling them illegal combatants is just convenient excuse to do what they like with them - under international law, many actions taken by developed countries could be viewed as 'illegal' and therefore their soldiers could be described as 'illegal combatants.' However, in all cases, human rights can be maintained while finding, judging and punishing criminals. |
| Posted by: Alex Davidson 2003-11-12 1:51:40 PM |
| #12 RC wrote: Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to. The fly in the ointment is that one has to confirm that the people you're holding don't enjoy the protection of the GC's. That means a tribunal, and one can't delay that forever. As I recall the GC doesn't specify the elements of a tribunal, but most military folks know what it means so we can't try anything clever. It may be that the USSC will order the President to convene tribunals, and that will be the extent of their involvement. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-11-12 11:41:09 AM |
| #11 They do have rights (under the Geneva convention) the govt maintains (I think with some justification) that are being upheld in Gitmo. Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to. They could all be shot at dawn tomorrow, and it would be perfectly legal. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 9:56:31 AM |
| #10 charles - Of course foreigners have rights (though not the rights of citizens, like voting rights) on US soil. The question is what rights apply to foreigners detained on foreign soil. They do have rights (under the Geneva convention) the govt maintains (I think with some justification) that are being upheld in Gitmo. The question is not whether the detainees have rights, but whether US courts have jurisdiction in this situation - IE while the US has treaty obligations to respect the rights of foreigners abroad, thats for the Executive branch to self-monitor under the treaties - not for domestic judges to get involved in. IIUC the lower courts have all held that the judiciary has NO jurisdiction over foreigners detained abroad. There is some controversy, IIUC, as to whether Gitmo is legitimately overseas, or is in fact US territory - I mean the bearded cigar smoker has for years wanted us out of there, and we havent left. Is Gitmo really Cuban territory? Why is the SC stepping in? 1. They disagree with the lower courts, and will declare Gitmo IS US territory (for this purpose). The likely result is that the Gitmo detainees would have to be transferred to Bagram. Very inconvenient for DC based interrogators, but not fatal. 2. The agree with the lower courts, and feel this is important enough that the SC must affirm the lower courts. 3. They will basically agree with the lower courts, but are uncomfortable with the way things are handled at Gitmo, and they will try to press the govt to make SOME changes, but less than would be required if Gitmo were US soil. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-12 9:44:54 AM |
| #9 "Which is puzzling, because I wasn't aware Foreigners had the rights of a US citizen." -Charles, their not supposed to but the ultra-left believes the constitution gives them the right while on U.S. soil. Bunch of b.s. "We the people" is for we, the citizenry of the U.S. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-12 9:34:31 AM |
| #8 Murat not a troll???????????? Have you seen any of his posts in the last two months? |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-12 9:24:12 AM |
| #7 RC, the Gitmo detanees are having their case heard before the Supremes. Not one US citizen is among the defendants either. Which is puzzling, because I wasn't aware Foreigners had the rights of a US citizen. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-12 9:01:09 AM |
| #6 To answer your remark on Guantanamo - I have not studied the case in enough detail to comment here, but Amnesty International has a major campaign. And AI is full of shit. The Gitmo detainees have no legal status, under any law or treaty. But, hey, AI's all about funding, not human rights. You can bet their "worries" about Gitmo are more prominent in their brochures than any concerns over Castro's concentration camps, or the North Korean gulag. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 8:35:58 AM |
| #5 Is zaoui kiwi for mumia? |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-11-12 8:29:05 AM |
| #4 I have to commend your website for it's willingness to engage in dialogue over this case. However, I believe and most of the posters are woefully under-informed on this case. I would recommend anyone to read the Refugee Status Appeal Authority decision on the case. To those unfamiliar with this case - with all the 'facts' you hear about this case, you must remember that Mr. Zaoui is the subject of a dedicated campaign of misinformation by the Algerian military dictatorship. This campaign has been very sucessful. It is ironic that a website that seems to be so hard-line on terrorism, is inadvertently aiding terrorism by repeating lies disseminated by a terrorist regime. The information repeated by 'tipper' can be traced back to forged press releases, faked media statements. This information is then repeated through various media, including this website, and in the process the sheer volume seems to lend some kind of legitimacy to the information contained. Although given the length of the RSAA report, I guess none of you will actually read it - I can assure you that if you read it, you will have to concede, that the very least, it raises serious questions about the allegations levelled at Mr. Zaoui. I do care about whether or not Mr. Zaoui is a terrorist - Although it is not the key problem with the case. The information I have studied (including the allegations) leads me to beleive very strongly that he has always advocated peace over violence. There are problems in revealing top secret information to the accused and his lawyers, but the NZ Government will not even reveal a summary of the accusations. Even so, if it is not considered OK to hide the charges in a criminal trial, why is it allright to do so just because the person is refugee? To answer your remark on Guantanamo - I have not studied the case in enough detail to comment here, but Amnesty International has a major campaign. This case is part of a slippery slope of 'security' legislation that is steadily increasing government control, and intelligence agency power. If we don't stand up at some point and object, they certainly won't stop. To the person who complained - I will attempt to keep any future posts down in size - it looked smaller before I posted it. |
| Posted by: Alex Davidson 2003-11-12 3:21:02 AM |
| #3 Someone CHOP THIS or delete it - its WAY too long and rambling. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-12 2:32:29 AM |
| #2 Cheeky bugger, is our Zaoui. Here's a bit of form on him. Needless to say the Anglican Church is pulling out all stops to get him released. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3047160&thesection=news&thesubsection=general The name Ahmed Zaoui is linked to terrorist cells that have carried out bombings, beheadings and throat slitting from Algeria to France. The name crops up in connection with Osama bin Laden's suspected Southeast Asian army, and a book published this year links the name indirectly to suspects in the assassination of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud. Ahmed Zaoui's terror activities appear to have begun in the bloody and brutal Algerian civil war, which began in the early 1990s and has claimed 100,000 lives. The militant Muslim is listed in various internet articles as one of the leaders of the shadowy Armed Islamic Group (GIA), although a BBC report said he had denied being part of this organisation. The GIA was formed in 1992 after the Algerian military refused to accept the results of the first free parliamentary elections, won by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and staged a coup. While the West supported the military, political parties formed and split and extremists wreaked havoc. The GIA is said to have carried out numerous assassinations, and not only of political figures. Among their targets were journalists, intellectuals, a psychiatrist, a singer, priests, other Christians, foreigners and many more. The 1995 issue of the Executive Intelligence Review said the trademark terror signatures of the organisation were throat-slitting and beheading. Mass attacks were usually carried out by bombing. It listed Abou Houdhaifa Ahmed Essaoui as a leader, and said his alias was Ahmed Zaoui. He went into exile after an Algerian court condemned him to death for supplying weapons from Europe to guerrillas in Algeria. It appears Zaoui slipped out of Algeria in the early 1990s - he was reported to have been arrested in Belgium in 1995. He was also reported to be not only the head of the GIA for Belgium but also for Europe. Some reports say he fled from Algeria via Saudi Arabia to Belgium. In 1995 a series of bombings in France, three at Metro rail stations, were attributed to the GIA, apparently in response to the arrests of militants. That year Zaoui was given a four-year suspended sentence by a Belgian court. In 1997, he slipped out of Belgium and into Switzerland, where he sought political asylum. Switzerland deported him to the African state of Burkina Faso, allegedly because it was a safe country for him and because it had agreed to take him. The Swiss Government is said to have paid for him and his family to live there. A BBC report about his deportation from Switzerland said he was questioned in 1997 by a French magistrate in connection with alleged terrorist activity in France. It said he admitted being a member of the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front, but not the GIA. A report from the North Africa Journal in 1999 said he met with representatives of Amnesty International and complained he and his family had been treated like "rubbish" and were "buried" in Burkina Faso. He claimed it was not safe, that his life was in danger and that he could be a target of Algerian special forces. The report also said he was one of Algeria's most dangerous Opposition figures and had opposed a truce agreed to in the late 1990s: "He prefers a continuation of the conflict." Last year, he was linked to Osama bin Laden and activities in Southeast Asia, allegedly fronting a new group called FIDA, or Sacrifice, and was being investigated in Malaysia. FIDA is linked to a coalition of Islamic groups the Asian Post reported as being investigated for links to the September 11 attacks on the United States. A book, Who Killed Massoud? published in France in May this year, links Zaoui to a man called Tarek Maaroufi who is said to be a supporter of the GIA and who was suspected of helping to plan the bomb attacks in France. The book says Maaroufi is in turn linked to a man involved in the death of warlord Ahmad Shah Massoud in Afghanistan. "Names and addresses of GIA members in Europe are found in his address book. When he is arrested he is with Ahmed Zaoui, a member of the GIA." |
| Posted by: tipper. 2003-11-12 2:07:37 AM |
| #1 Boy, I miss Mike Rogers, his wife Yuko, Stevey Robinson and the rest. Do we have a new Kiwi troll? Welcome! Try to keep your posts a little shorter. (By the way, Aris and Murat are not trolls. They occasionally make good points, despite ideological blindness and occasional partisan shouting matches). Mr. Davidson sounds a tad concerned about the erosion of basic rights. This Zaoui case hardly sounds like the first step down the slippery slope towards a Kiwi Police State. Do you really not care if he is a terrorist or not? Do you see no problem whatsoever with providing top-secret intelligence info. to him and his lawyer? I can just imagine what you would have to say about Guantanamo. |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro 2003-11-12 1:50:53 AM |