| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Two Failed Terrorism Trials Raise Worry in Europe |
| 2005-04-11 |
| Failed terrorism prosecutions in Germany and the Netherlands this week have highlighted Europe's patchy record in securing convictions and prompted some to ask if laws need to be tightened. Ihsan Garnaoui, a 34-year-old Tunisian, was acquitted in Berlin Wednesday of trying to form a terrorist group, even though judges considered it proven that he had planned to carry out at least one bomb attack in Germany at the start of the Iraq war in March 2003. The same day, Dutch teenager Samir Azzouz was cleared of planning attacks on Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, a nuclear reactor and government offices. He had been found in possession of machinegun cartridges, mock explosive devices, electrical circuitry, maps and sketches of prominent buildings and chemicals prosecutors said could be bomb ingredients. Legal experts and security analysts said such cases raise a difficult question: in the absence of an actual attack, how close must a suspect be to detonating a bomb before prosecutors can demonstrate guilt? "We cannot wait until attacks have been carried out and the dead are lying on the street," prosecutor Silke Ritzert said in her summing-up of the Garnaoui case. Maxime Verhagen, Christian Democrat leader in the Dutch parliament, said tougher laws might be needed. "I ask myself whether the men who flew into the twin towers could have been convicted in the Netherlands if their plans had been intercepted in good time," he said, referring to the al Qaeda attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Hundreds of terrorist suspects have been arrested in Europe since 2001, but only a small proportion successfully prosecuted. Some visible successes have come in Belgium, which jailed a Tunisian for 10 years in 2003 for plotting to blow up a NATO military base, and France, which convicted 10 men last December for planning to bomb Strasbourg Christmas market and another six last month for conspiring to blow up the U.S. embassy in 2001. Elsewhere, some prominent cases have collapsed for lack of evidence, like the trial of nine Moroccans accused of plotting to poison the water supply to the U.S. embassy in Rome in 2002. Prosecutors have often encountered the problem that intelligence which forms the basis for arrests may not amount to legal proof or may not be useable in court for fear of compromising secret sources. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #11 TGA, I respect your points as regards the German case, but I was speaking mainly of the Dutch one. The evidence in that case was more than enough to convict under any reading of criminal/terror conspiracy law. I find it hard to believe that Dutch law is so lax or weak as to let the defendant off in this case. |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-11 7:15:50 PM |
| #10 A jury didn't put O.J. away if I remember well. The difference? O.J.'s aquittal was final. Had this case been tried by German judges (actually in penal cases two "assistant judges" chosen from ordinary people) co-decide the case with the professional judge, so the people has its say) the prosecutor would have appealed. A jury is not our legal tradition. In some cases that's bad but not in all. Lawyers don't get to inflate their ego as much as in America. Often, the better lawyer wins in the U.S. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-04-11 7:02:39 PM |
| #9 TGA a Dutch jury of dutch citizens not lawyers/judges would have put him away. That is the problem. The state will not trust the people to decide on guilt or innocence. It's a pannel of Judges who don't have to worry about it. No one will ever hold them accountable for good or bad decisions. If you want law go to the courts of law. If you want justice look some other place. There is little if any justice in a court of law. Jury trials moderate the excesses of the law. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-04-11 6:53:30 PM |
| #8 I'd always be careful to call a decision of a judge "foolish". A judge applies the law as it is. A judge can believe that a defendant is guilty, but that's not enough, his guilt must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". (I bet Judge Ito did not believe that O.J. was innocent) In this case the evidence was not good enough, and the law says "in dubio pro reo". In those cases this is painful and the law will need to be adapted for better security. Where does "planning" start? Buying a map and drawing a circle around the White House? I would not be so quick to condemn European courts. You might actually get similar results if you submitted terrorist cases like that to regular US courts, with regular lawyers etc. The judges might very well apply the same high standards of judging evidence. How's that Moussaoui case going in Alexandria? The German case is not over btw as the Federal Prosecutor will appeal. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-04-11 6:30:56 PM |
| #7 I'd bet that the most "tolerant" European nations will soon become the most intolerant: watch the ordinary folks in the smaller multi-culti nations like Holland and Denmark to go berserk first |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-11 5:29:51 PM |
| #6 european peasants with pitchforks and torches assault the monster's lair? Sounds familiar... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-04-11 5:26:32 PM |
| #5 Common sense still exists among the people, if not among their judicial and political betters. Such foolish decisions only make polarization and civil strife more, not less, likely in Europe. How long before ordinary Europeans vent their disgust with such stupidity and start acting directly against the jihadist menace? |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-11 5:21:15 PM |
| #4 Dead bodies didn't seem to help that much in Spain. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-04-11 11:08:11 AM |
| #3 Failed terrorism prosecutions in Germany and the Netherlands this week have highlighted Europe’s patchy record in securing convictions and prompted some to ask if laws need to be tightened. In Europe's case, dead bodies would help. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-11 11:00:11 AM |
| #2 But,Grom,those were dead Jews. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-04-11 8:17:40 AM |
| #1 "We cannot wait until attacks have been carried out and the dead are lying on the street," prosecutor Silke Ritzert said in her summing-up of the Garnaoui case. Funny, I seem to recollect Europeans advising Israel to wait and "respect human rights" on numerous occassions --- while there were dead lying on our streets. |
| Posted by: gromgorru 2005-04-11 7:09:18 AM |