Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

CIA planned assassination in Germany

by Magnifico Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 03:16:32 PM EST

After the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency planned an assasination of an al-Qaeda financier. The CIA carried out this operation in Germany without the knowledge of the German government, but with the help of Blackwater and it's CEO Erik Prince.

"This program died because of a lack of political will," according to an anonymous source quoted in the article, "Tycoon, Contractor, Soldier, Spy", by Adam Ciralsky in the January 2010 issue of Vanity Fair.

Among the team's targets, according to a source familiar with the program, was Mamoun Darkazanli, an al-Qaeda financier living in Hamburg who had been on the agency's radar for years because of his ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers and to operatives convicted of the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa. The C.I.A. team supposedly went in "dark," meaning they did not notify their own station--much less the German government--of their presence; they then followed Darkazanli for weeks and worked through the logistics of how and where they would take him down.


Working for Blackwater were Rob Richer, the second-in-command of the CIA's clandestine service and J. Cofer Black, the former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

Off and on, Black and Richer's onetime partner Ric Prado, first with the C.I.A., then as a Blackwater employee, worked quietly with Prince as his vice president of "special programs" to provide the agency with what every intelligence service wants: plausible deniability. Shortly after 9/11, President Bush had issued a "lethal finding," giving the C.I.A. the go-ahead to kill or capture al-Qaeda members. (Under an executive order issued by President Gerald Ford, it had been illegal since 1976 for U.S. intelligence operatives to conduct assassinations.) As a seasoned case officer, Prado helped implement the order by putting together a small team of "blue-badgers," as government agents are known. Their job was threefold: find, fix, and finish. Find the designated target, fix the person's routine, and, if necessary, finish him off. When the time came to train the hit squad, the agency, insiders say, turned to Prince.

Some background:

Since 2002, the EU has restricted Darkazanli's assets and movement due to his alleged association with al-Qaeda and the Taliban of Afghanistan.

Darkazanli was arrested in October 2004 by the Germans, but freed nine months later after the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany because they ruled the "European Arrest Warrant violated German law". Darkazanli was fighting extradition to Spain where he was indicted for his alleged involvement in financing the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

The NY Times reported after the ruling that —

An EU spokesman insisted the arrest warrant would survive the German court ruling. Spokesman Martin Selmayr said the ruling did not declare the warrant unconstitutional, but merely the German national law that implements it."From a first reading, it's a judgment that declares null and void the German implementation law, not the European arrest warrant," Selmayr said in Brussels.

He said the ruling was a blow to European anti-terror plans in the short term because the warrant will not apply in Germany until a new national law on implementing it is introduced. But in the longer term, he said, the ruling could strengthen the warrant by making clear the protection offered to suspects' rights.

As a consequence, Spain ended fast-track extraditions to Germany.

Darkazanli resides in Hamburg and "has never been tried in a court of law for the allegations leveled against him." He is still wanted by Interpol.

Questions:

  1. How can the European Union legal system effectively work if member states refuse to honor extradition requests made by other member states?

  2. Has Germany passed a new law to implement the European Arrest Warrant?

Display:
2) Yes, it is in force since 2 August 2006.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 04:37:04 PM EST
Darkazanli resides in Hamburg and "has never been tried in a court of law for the allegations leveled against him."

Watch the framing. Actually, in 2006, the German prosecutors closed the case for lack of evidence, after studying the files sent from Spain too: though Darkazanli had connections with al-Qaida-related companies, there was no evidence that he had any knowledge of a terroristic background.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 04:52:31 PM EST
The Germans have their own framing. In 2007, it turns out Spain tried to extradite Darkazanli again.

From the AFP, Germany rejects latest Spanish request for Al-Qaeda suspect.

Spain has accused Darkazanli of being Osama bin Laden's "permanent interlocutor and assistant" in Europe and having provided the Al-Qaeda network with logistical and financial support between 1997 and 2002...

After Germany amended its extradition legislation to recognise a new European Union arrest warrant, Spanish authorities tried once again to have him handed over.

Has the new German enactment of the EAW been tested for extradition?

German federal prosecutors have said that Darkazanli was a close associate of Al-Qaeda leaders between 1993 and 1998 and knew the members of the so-called Hamburg terror cell that plotted the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

But they said they found no evidence to support claims that he had aided the attackers or founded a terror cell on German soil.

Belonging to a foreign terrorist organisation such as Al-Qaeda has only been illegal in Germany since 2002.

The case has created tension between Berlin and Madrid.

It seems to me that Spain believes they have a case against Darkazanli and Germany disagrees. Again, I ask how the EU legal system can work when one country blocks another country's attempts to prosecute?

by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you think extradiction should be automatic?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 20 says "everyone is equal before the law."

Now this does not seem to be the case for certain privileged states, such as Germany, within the EU. A citizen of a privileged state can commit crimes in one state and then escape to their the safe haven.

Personally, I do not understand how a justice system can work in the EU if extraditions are blocked. I think either EU member states trust the justice systems in their fellow EU states, or they don't.

If some states protect their citizens from prosecution by other states, when other states do not, how is this equality?

 

This is how extradition is handled in the U.S., 18 U.S.C. § 3182:

Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.

So, if a person allegedly commits a crime in one state he or she cannot hide out in another state and expect to escape justice within the Union.

by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the EU, Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters is a work in progress. The newly approved Lisbon Treaty is a huge step in advancing this agenda.

Regarding extradition, I'm sure a number of states are not allowed either by their constitutions or by their laws to extradite one of their own citizens. This should become a bone of contention at some point in the future.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In Germany's case, there was a constitutional amendment relativising this prohibition.

This doesn't seem to apply her, but I note the EAW includes this:

EUR-Lex - 32002F0584 - EN

(12) This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(7), in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.

This Framework Decision does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These seem to be the relevant articles:

EUR-Lex - 32002F0584 - EN

Article 3

Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant

The judicial authority of the Member State of execution (hereinafter "executing judicial authority") shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases:

...

2. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing Member State

Article 4

Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant

The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:

1. if, in one of the cases referred to in Article 2(4), the act on which the European arrest warrant is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the European arrest warrant shall not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing Member State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing Member State;

2. where the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant is being prosecuted in the executing Member State for the same act as that on which the European arrest warrant is based;

3. where the judicial authorities of the executing Member State have decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings, or where a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings;

...

5. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a third State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country;

...

7. where the European arrest warrant relates to offences which:

(a) are regarded by the law of the executing Member State as having been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State or in a place treated as such; or

(b) have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside its territory.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see this wasn't commented.

From the word choice of the German federal justice ministry ("zwingendes Bewilligungshindernis" = mandatory obstacle to approval), it seems Article 3, point 2 applied.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would be curious how the 2007 decision was commented in Spain. It appears at least that the case died in 2007.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This strikes me as a large loophole. A person could commit crimes in another state with tacit approval by their own state.

3. where the judicial authorities of the executing Member State have decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings

However the no double jeopardy is good, but I hope "final judgment" aren't weasel words. I would expect a "final judgment" to be a court decision.

or where a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings;
by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
3. where the judicial authorities of the executing Member State have decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings

This is about dead laws and toleration, like blasphemy or use of light drugs. (I note that the EAW is controversial for over-use in drug cases, including light drugs.) No European judicial authorities have decided that the crime of joining a terrorist organisation shall be non-punishable.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Darkazanli was no fugitive from justice, and I'm not sure he was accused of having done anything in Spain... (as opposed to having contacts with the leader of the Spanish terror cell.) Though the question of being a fugitive featured in another failed extradiction under the EAW, that of an Irish manager who ran over and killed two children with his car in Hungary. (That one led to a change in Irish law.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another omission from last night: the USA? too, has double jeopardy in similar cases, even if with constraints.

Double jeopardy - Wikipedia

Non-final judgments

As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty. Cases dismissed because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders. Also a retrial after a conviction has been reversed on appeal does not violate double jeopardy because the judgment in the first trial has been invalidated. In both of these cases, however, the previous trials do not entirely vanish. Testimony from them may be used in later retrials such as to impeach contradictory testimony given at any subsequent proceeding.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 07:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, the original comment ("person could commit crimes in another state with tacit approval by their own state") may apply precisely in the case of the U.S., as in the case of terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carrilles.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 07:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I should also repeat: the 2006 decision to close the case was also based on a study of the files from Spain, and concluded that there was no evidence that he had any knowledge of a terroristic background of his business partners, even if belonging to al-Qaida was no crime in Germany until 2002.

Regarding Spanish justice (more specifically: judge Balthasar Garzón) and al-Qaida, I should also remind of the sorry case of Al-Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Germans found no grounds in which they could prosecute, Darkazanli. Spain thought otherwise, but Germany decided that Spain would not allow their citizen to extradited to another EU state.

The determination not to extradite was made by bureaucrats outside of the courtroom.

 

So to understand the EU hierarchy of law, Germany's justice trumps Spain's justice.

 

Regarding Alouni, what kind of journalist becomes a courier for Abu Dahdah, moving $35,000 to Afghanistan, Turkey, and Chechnya?

by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So to understand the EU hierarchy of law, Germany's justice trumps Spain's justice.

For the case of a German citizen or resident, or just someone who happens to be in Germany.

For the case of a Spanish citizen or resident, or someone who happens to be in Spain, Spain's justice trumps Germany's justice.

As it should be as long as there is not a federal European justice that trumps both.

The same is arguably true in the US. It would federal law to force states to recognise each other's arrest warrants and it is federal law enforcement that would force one state to hand over a person to another state. As well as there being a federal police force (the FBI) with the ability to carry out an arrest.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So the EAW is not federal law of the EU?
by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is, but it has to be 1) transposed into national legislation; 2) interpreted and applied by the courts of the member states; 3) enforced by the member states.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Transposition into national legislation is not a trivial matter...

European Tribune - CIA planned assassination in Germany

Spokesman Martin Selmayr said the ruling did not declare the warrant unconstitutional, but merely the German national law that implements it.


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 05:33:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU is not federal in the way the US is. And even the US was not always fully federal in terms of criminal law and justice. How long ago was it still possible to escape justice in certain cases by crossing a state line?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 09:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since Article 4, Section 2 was written, a long time ago. I think it was in the original, not added by amendment.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.


I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The clause was in the original constitution, yet:

Extradition Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of the extradition clause was first really tested in the case of Kentucky v. Dennison [1860]. The case involved a man named Willis Lago who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He had fled to Ohio, where the governor, William Dennison, refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. In this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus to do so.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad Main article: Puerto Rico v. Branstad

In 1987, the court reversed its decision under Dennison. The case involved an Iowan, Ronald Calder who struck a married couple near Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The husband survived but the wife, who was eight months pregnant, did not. Following the incident, Calder was charged with murder and let out on bail. While on bail, Ronald Calder fled to his home-state of Iowa. In May 1981, the Governor of Puerto Rico submitted a request to the Governor of Iowa for extradition of Ronald Calder to face murder charges. The Governor of Iowa refused the request, forcing the Governor of Puerto Rico to file a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The Court rejected it, ruling that under Kentucky v. Dennison, the Governor of Iowa was not obligated to return Calder. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court felt differently, ruling unanimously that the Federal Courts did indeed have the power to enforce a writ of mandamus and that Kentucky v. Dennison was outdated.

So it wasn't until 1987 that interstate extradition was cleared up without confusion or loopholes.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I guess you could say the law didn't change, the Court did.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 05:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What you can fairly say, it seems to me, is that, even with a clearly federal constitution, it took the US two centuries to clear up the extradition question in practice, since states were (still are, in some cases), jealous of their rights.

The EU doesn't have a federal constitution: it's composed of sovereign states. Extradition procedures bring sovereignty into play. Getting each member state to apply the same procedures may take a little time.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 02:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the question was not the wording of the law but the evolving concept of Federalism.  However, by the time the matter was settled by the court in 1987, the 1860 court ruling was considered archaic and not representative of accepted thought on the role of the Federal Government.

I went back, after you quoted from the decisions, and looked at the 1860 opinion, which made for interesting but strange reading.  Given the political environment in 1860 and the nature of the case, it seems strange (to me) that the Court came down on the side of States rights. The issue that ultimately led to the Civil War was differing opinions (particularly by Lincoln) about the rights of States to secede.  That right was apparently the primary one that caused Southern States to believe they could withdraw from the Union without conflict with the US central government. Even after secession the Southern States were extremely guarded of their sovereignty, an often contentious matter between individual States and the Confederate Government that had a serious bearing on the conduct of the war.

Surprizing that it took the US so long to arrive at a USSC decision this important.  Thanks for your posts and patience.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 01:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Germany's justice trumps Spain's justice.

Now you are really over the top. Read the EAW quotes I posted upthread.

what kind of journalist becomes a courier for Abu Dahdah

Read your own source. The accusation was that he brought money to al-Qaida, the defense claimed he brought money for widows. AFAIK there wasn't much evidence to support the first -- and the judgement is standing on shaky grounds. Unless you think anyone associating with a terrorist using a businessman's cover must be fully aware of him being a terrorist and all their dealings must be solely for the purpose of helping terrorism.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But yet the money was brought to Afghanistan, Turkey, and Chechnya. I didn't realize there was such a large number of expat Syrian widows. My mistake.
by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what kind of journalist becomes a courier for Abu Dahdah

For what it's worth...

El Supremo rebaja de 27 a 12 años la pena a Abu Dahdah y absuelve a otros tres condenados · ELPAÍS.com[Spain's] Supreme [Court] lowers the sentence of Abu Dahdah from 27 to 12 years and declares three others innocent - ElPais.com
La Audiencia Nacional en su sentencia, la primera que se dicta en España contra una célula de Al Qaeda, condenó a 18 de los 24 acusados e impuso la máxima pena, 27 años, al líder del grupo, Abu Dahdah. Para condenar a Abu Dahdah por el delito relacionado con el 11-S el Tribunal argumentó que éste "conocía los siniestros planes de inmediata ejecución" de los atentados en EE UU y "los asumió como propios, siendo puntualmente informado de los preparativos que antecedieron a los ataques perpetrados contra las Torres del World Trade Center de Nueva York y contra el Pentágono". Respecto a Alony, consideró probado que ayudó a varios miembros de Al Qaeda, a sabiendas de que lo eran, "para obtener de esos individuos exclusivas y enriquecedoras informaciones" sobre esta organización.[Spain's] National Court in its sentence [now being appealed], the first given in Spain against an Al Qaeda cell, convicted 18 of the 24 defendants and imposed the highest penalty, 27 years, on the group's leader Abu DahDah. To sentence Abu Dahdah for the crime related to 9/11, the court argued that he "was aware of the sinister plans of imminent execution" for the strikes on the US and "assumed them as his own, being timely informed of the preparations preceding the attacks on the WTC towers in New York and on the Pentagon". Regarding Alouni, [the court] considered proven that he helped various Al Qaeda members, knowing that they were, "in order to obtain from these individuals exclusive and profitable informations" on the organization.
La Audiencia afirmó en su sentencia que Alony, el único periodista que consiguió entrevistar a Osama Bin Laden tras el 11-S, no pertenecía a la célula liderada por Abu Dahdah, pero que "colaboró" con este grupo ayudando "de manera determinante" a varios de sus miembros. ...The [National] Court stated in their sentence that Alouni, the only journalist who succeeded in interviewing Osama Bin Laden after 9/11, didn't belong to the cell led by Abu Dahdah, but he "cooperated" with this group helping "in a decisive way" several of its members. ...

Deciding on this appeal, Spain's Supreme Court upheld the 7-year sentence on Alouni for collaborating with a terrorist organisation.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was in 2006. Articles from back then wrote that Alouni's lawyer wants to go one higher to the European court -- but can't find anything newer in English- or German-language sources. Can you in Spanish?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was the result of a search I conducted for news in ElPais.com about Alouni. The most recent one is this one, form 2006. El Pais even has a special aggregator page about him.

I see no reason why Alouni couldn't appeal to the European Court, but there seems to be nothing in the press about him after 2006.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then the same as elsewhere. In the meantime, I found however that there was to be an appeal to SPain's Constitutional Court, too -- that should come first doesn't it? They may refer to this in the sole post-2006 article I found now:

MFA Press Release Admin Page

June 27, 2008

...Mr Phil Lawrie, Al-Jazeera's head of global distribution...

...He withheld comment on Mr Alouni's case as it was still under appeal, but noted that Mr Al-Hajj was released last month without trial.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 07:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, an appeal to the Constitutional Court would come first, but only on the grounds that Alouni's fundamental rights have been violated.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 07:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alouni's lawyer lodged at least two redress appeals with the Constitutional Court before the Supreme Court decision, contesting the preventative prison decreed by the National Court as a violation of the rights to freedom and due process. The first was in January 2005 (referred to here), and the second was in January 2006. The second appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court in March 2007 on the grounds that, after the Supreme Court upheld the previous conviction on appeal, there was no longer a situation of preventative prison subject to redress.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 04:40:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is to say, I can find information about decisions, but not about open cases, so I don't know anything about the appeal which your source claims was pending in 2008.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 04:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is a newer one (though still preceding the June 2008 article). What is it oneabout? I couldn't make much sense of it with Google translate:

Sala Segunda. Sentencia 27/2008, de 11 de
febrero de 2008. Recurso de amparo 137-2006.
Promovido por don Taysir Alony Kate frente a
los Autos de la Sala de lo Penal de la Audiencia
Nacional que acordaron prorrogar su prisión
provisional hasta la mitad de la pena impuesta
por delito de colaboración con banda armada
(STC 152/2007).
Vulneración del derecho a la libertad personal:
prisión provisional mantenida con prórroga insuficientemente
motivada, mientras pendía recurso
contra la condena de instancia (STC 22/2004).


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 05:23:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whoa.

This is about the second redress appeal above, and in this case the Constitutional Court rules that 1) Alouni's right to freedom was indeed violated; 2) the preventative prison decrees from October and November 2005 are overturned.

However, the Constitutional Count says it is up to the lower court to decide whether this means Alouni should be freed - and the actual conviction or its confirmation by the Supreme Court are not overturned so that persumably won't be the case.

So the damage Alouni is now ruled to have suffered is to have been imprisoned preventatively pending appeal of his first conviction by the National Court. The actual problem here is the slowness of the justice system. I wonder whether Alouni can now seek compensation...

This is not two rulings by the same court on the same case, but 1) an earlier procedural decision (Auto) that, given that the conviction was now upheld, Alouni couldn't be freed; a final sentence ruling on the substance of the appeal (Sentencia) which refers to the previous Auto in section I.5.

What should be interesting in this case are the "legal grounds" (fundamentos jurídicos) of the sentence, which become jurisprudence for future cases.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 06:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, likewise, maybe Darkazanli is more useful to Germany free than standing trial and serving time in Spain.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh!?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure German, like US intelligence, can find uses for "connected" persons.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 05:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stranded in Hamburg? What for?

But nevermind. As explained both upthread and downthread, it was the constitutional court who foiled the first extradiction resp. the (government-independent) Attorney General who killed the case in Germany (thereby foiling the second extradiction), while the politicians and local law enforcement were for it (and already booked his flight to Spain on the first instance).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 05:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was just an off-the-cuff comment DoDo. In the US, intelligence has been accused occasionally of protecting certain bad boys who have agreed to do them favors - so to speak.  Sometimes, they have, allegedly, been able to protect such persons from arrest.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Spain, at least, is allowing the prosecution of the six architects of U.S. torture policy. Which is not so much of an endorsement of Spanish justice, but more of a rebuke of the American justice system.
by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 07:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for turning a blind eye, that's the universal War on Terraist framing. It was used by American, Spanish, as well as German Warriors -- including the Hamburg interior minister (CDU) who had to write the actual letter of rejection to Spain.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Turning a blind eye" is a common idiom in English and predates the war on terra by about 200 years.
by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Its application for each and every case of someone catching the suspicions of the Warriors on Terra is post-9-11, however.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 06:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but is that because it is such a common idiom in English, or because it is inextricably linked to the terror war framing?

I think the former. The phrase is used roughly 18.5 percent of the time in connection with terrorism based on a Google search.

According to teh Google, there are about 49,700,000 uses of the phrase. 9,200,000 uses of the phrase in connection with the word 'terrorism'. Compared to 16,000,000 uses of the phrase in connection with the word 'crime' or  21,600,000 uses of the phrase in connection with the word 'parent'.

by Magnifico on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 07:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is that because it is such a common idiom in English, or because it is inextricably linked to the terror war framing?

It's because for the Warriors on Terra, every suspect is certainly guilty, and "turning a blind eye" is a convenient explanation when someone else disagrees.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 07:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Last night I was too tired for a coherent criticism of a simplification of the situation as Germany vs. Spain, but now some words. There are several players here - here with nice numbering.

Even in Spain, though AFAIK the terrorism charges for those indicted along with Yarkas were disputed only from outside the judicial branch (journalists and parliamentarians in the Alouni case), the quality of evidence had been contentious: Garzón (S.2) said police investigators (S.1) overstated their case, and then the public prosecutor of the Supreme Court (S.3) said that

"The evidence considered by the court ... is weak and inconsistent ... and does not fulfil the level of requirement that it must reasonably and necessarily meet to persuade and convince," the prosecutor said of the conspiracy conviction.

In Germany, originally, the Hamburg prosecutors (G.1) and justice minister (G.2; from the CDU) would have been more than happy with Spain taking care of Darkazanli, and the federal justice minister (G.3; from the SPD) went along them -- after all, his flight to Spain was already booked when the first extradiction was stopped. It was stopped by the German Constitutional Court (G.5), and checking articles from back then, all the players who'd liked to have Darkazanli dumped to Spain (as well as the neocon-friendly parts of the media) talked about a big embarrassment.

Another player is the Federal Attorney General. (Unlike the American one, who is in effect also the justice minister, this is an independent post.) Or more precisely, two players, because there was a replacement. The previous Federal Attorney General, Kay Nehm (G.4a; in office from 1994, hence a Kohl/CDU appointee) oversaw and pursued the cases of the men from Atta's circle still in Hamburg; I note that that included convictions on similar contentious circumstantial evidence as the Alouni case. In the articles I read back yesterday, I find Nehm at first didn't want to deal with Darkazanli for lack of evidence, then was pushed into it by the colleagues from the states (G.1) and the justice ministry (G.3) -- again with not much result. The case was taken up again by his successor from 2006 (towards the end of the EAW implementation law re-drafting), Monica Harms (G.4b). From the articles, this happened not against the wishes of the Spansh colleagues, who pressed for a prosecution of Darkazanli in Germany after the failure of the extradiction.

While Spain issued the second EAW, Harms closed her case. Ignoring that, the Hamburg justice minister (G.2) wrote a letter to his federal colleague (G.3), urging her to get the extradiction moving. The reply was that there is no playing room and the request must be denied because Harms's ruling is a "mandatory obstacle to removal". The Hamburg justice minister then wrote his letter denying the extradiction request, and then immediately went to the media to express his disapproval and to attack the federal justice minister -- a nice political show, but apparently he couldn't afford to attack Harns (not to mention getting the prosecutors of his own state to find any prosecutable evidence).

In the background of all this, there was another group of players -- in America. That included neocon politicians regularly accusing recalcitrant 'allies' of turning a blind eye on terrorism, including any case when a suspect wasn't found guilty; CIA agents plotting renditions or assassinations in the dark -- and a judiciary that might issue an extradiction request, which EU members would have to deny if the death penalty or torture were among the possibilities.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 04:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
the public prosecutor of the Supreme Court (S.3) said that

"The evidence considered by the court ... is weak and inconsistent ... and does not fulfil the level of requirement that it must reasonably and necessarily meet to persuade and convince," the prosecutor said of the conspiracy conviction.
But also

Spanish prosecutor wants Sept 11 conviction quashed - International News - redOrbit

In a legal filing published on Thursday, the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court agreed with Yarkas that the conviction for conspiracy should be overturned but said the conviction for leading a terrorist group should remain intact.

...

But the prosecutor said he did not agree with the arguments used by lawyers for Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in their bid to overturn his seven-year sentence for collaborating with a terrorist group.

Which is substantially consistent with El Pais' account I translated elsewhere on this thread.
Regarding Alouni, [the court] considered proven that he helped various Al Qaeda members, knowing that they were, "in order to obtain from these individuals exclusive and profitable informations" on the organization.


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 05:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wrote:

though AFAIK the terrorism charges for those indicted along with Yarkas were disputed only from outside the judicial branch

(And that includes Barkazanli as well as Alouni.)

As for critics outside the judicial branch, even the conviction of the main suspect was criticised for the use of circumstancial evidence:

Spain's 9/11 trial called 'a failure' | csmonitor.com

[El Mundo] said one problem was that the court's argument regarding Yarkas' role in September 11 rested on 'two weak pieces of circumstantial evidence.' One was that his number was found in the phonebook of a person who had lived with Mohammed Atta, the plot leader. The other was a tapped phone conversation that Yarkas allegedly had in which another person talks of entering 'the aviation business.'

To consider this a reference to September 11 was 'a flight of fantasy for anyone with common sense, and raises immense doubts about the seriousness of the verdict,' El Mundo said.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 05:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I can find, Spain's second European arrest warrant, issued after the secong German implementation of the law, was rejected in 2007 based on the above mentioned decision of the German Federal Prosecution.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I would have thought that the real legal issue here was the planned covert extrajudicial execution of a foreign national on the sovereign soil of a friendly nation (by a private contractor, no less), and not the finer points of the European Arrest Warrant.

But apparently, I would have thought wrong.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 06:45:18 AM EST
LOL, I was thinking that this morning...

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 06:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry if my impression is mistaken, but the diary seems to imply the argument that the extrajudicial action was justified by a failure of the European justice system...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 07:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be the narrative in the US media reports about the case. In any case, the timeline seems to imply that the US was planning to assassinate Dakanzali well before Spain sought his extradition from Germany:

January 2010: Adam Ciralsky on Blackwater | vanityfair.com

When Prado left the C.I.A., in 2004, he effectively took the program with him, after a short hiatus. By that point, according to sources familiar with the plan, Prince was already an agency asset, and the pair had begun working to privatize matters by changing the team's composition from blue-badgers to a combination of "green-badgers" (C.I.A. contractors) and third-country nationals (unaware of the C.I.A. connection). Blackwater officials insist that company resources and manpower were never directly utilized--these were supposedly off-the-books initiatives done on Prince's own dime, for which he was later reimbursed--and that despite their close ties to the C.I.A. neither Cofer Black nor Rob Richer took part. As Prince puts it, "We were building a unilateral, unattributable capability. If it went bad, we weren't expecting the chief of station, the ambassador, or anyone to bail us out." He insists that, had the team deployed, the agency would have had full operational control. Instead, due to what he calls "institutional osteoporosis," the second iteration of the assassination program lost steam.

Sometime after 2006, the C.I.A. would take another shot at the program, according to an insider who was familiar with the plan. "Everyone found some reason not to participate," says the insider. "There was a sick-out. People would say to management, `I have a family, I have other obligations.' This is the fucking C.I.A. They were supposed to lead the charge after al-Qaeda and they couldn't find the people to do it." Others with knowledge of the program are far more charitable and question why any right-thinking officer would sign up for an assassination program at a time when their colleagues--who had thought they had legal cover to engage in another sensitive effort, the "enhanced interrogations" program at secret C.I.A. sites in foreign countries--were finding themselves in legal limbo.

The Dakanzali operation seems to have been conducted before 2004.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 09:31:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I must say the extradition discussion struck (and still strikes) me as more of a tangential discussion than an argument.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 10:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I thought the potential illegality of the U.S. plotting was obvious and thus I did not have any questions regarding it. The point I did not understand was the relatively new law surrounding EAW and that's why I asked questions regarding it. I truly appreciate the tireless efforts of DoDo and Migeru to help explain what is going on, even when I seemed to have become snippy and exasperating.
by Magnifico on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 02:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to perspective. As somebody noted above, European law is a work in progress and conflicts between national and supranational jurisdiction are frequent enough that those of us living in Europe see nothing surprising in them.

Conversely, the multiple levels of lawlessness of the contemplated assassination stands out all the more when viewed from within the context of Europe's legal scrupulousness.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the situation embodies at least the following aspects, all of which I find worth consideration:

  • Extrajudicial execution = violation of due process and the rule of law - a fundamental universal (for the purposes of this discussion) principle.
  • Assassination of an individual on the territory of a sovereign nation: assassination of the citizens of another country is a casus belli with historical precedent (think WWI); the present situation might very well be conceivably construed as an act of war.
  • Delegation of war-making powers to a private contractor: a can of worms in and of itself.


The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 05:21:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Extrajudicial execution = violation of due process and the rule of law...

On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition. Of course if Darkazanli had been murdered by the CIA, that would too have been more than a violation of due process. It would have been a criminal act. However, isn't plotting to murder/assassinate also a criminal act?

Assassination of an individual on the territory of a sovereign nation...

In my view, the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan are acts of war and according to the NY Times, the U.S. is expanding the use of drones in Pakistan.

... assassination of the citizens of another country is a casus belli with historical precedent (think WWI); the present situation might very well be conceivably construed as an act of war.

However, are you suggesting that if the Bush administration when through with their assassination plan in Germany, Germany would have seen it as an act of war?

Delegation of war-making powers to a private contractor: a can of worms in and of itself.

In the specific example in the diary, the private contractors were responsible for the training, not the actual operation according to the Vanity Fair article.

by Magnifico on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 11:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition.

On the contrary, due process was upheld: the petition for extradition was duly examined by a German court - and rejected as inadequate. One may disagree with that decision, but it was arrived out through a scrupulous application of the rule of law.

Personally, I find such a decision comforting: if a court has the courage to stand up to prosecutors on behalf of an Islamic (alleged!) terrorist with a funny name, we can depend on them to be an effective check on executive authority.

Magnifico:

In my view, the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan are acts of war

I entirely agree.

Magnifico:

However, are you suggesting that if the Bush administration when through with their assassination plan in Germany, Germany would have seen it as an act of war?

No I'm not, merely that they would be within historical precedent if the chose to do so.


The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 12:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PN time.

dvx:

Magnifico:

However, are you suggesting that if the Bush administration when through with their assassination plan in Germany, Germany would have seen it as an act of war?

No I'm not, merely that they would be within historical precedent if the chose to do so.

I would argue that since the murder of Franz Ferdinand was done by a terrorist organisation with headquarters in the other country, not by a state agency, it is a bad example.

A better example might be the alledged assassination attempt on Bush senior, which was part of the massive list of reasons for the Iraq war:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Or the sinking of US ships used as motivating the US entry into WW1:

Woodrow Wilson Urges Congress to Declare War on Germany - Wikisource

Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be. The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.

It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way.



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 12:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition.

With the CIA assassination considered in 2004, the possible extradiction blocked by Germany was that to the USA. Given that the USA has the death penalty, that blocking would be mandatory, too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 02:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The extradition request was made by Spain.

I have no problem with blocking an extradition request made by a country where the defendant would be facing the death penalty.

by Magnifico on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 02:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The extradiction to Spain was blocked in late November 2004. The EAW itself was implemented only in August 2004.

The article doesn't say when the Darkazanli assassination attempt was, but it was before Prado left the CIA for Blackwater, also in 2004. I doubt you can fit the decision for, preparation and execution of the assassination attempt and Prado moving to Blackwater in the 40 last days of 2004.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition.

Could you expand as to why?

I have little experience with extradition processes so I would find it interesting to see your argument spelled out.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've tried to explain my thoughts regarding this in other comments to this essay, for example here:

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 20 says "everyone is equal before the law."

Now this does not seem to be the case for certain privileged states, such as Germany, within the EU. A citizen of a privileged state can commit crimes in one state and then escape to their the safe haven.

Personally, I do not understand how a justice system can work in the EU if extraditions are blocked. I think either EU member states trust the justice systems in their fellow EU states, or they don't.

If some states protect their citizens from prosecution by other states, when other states do not, how is this equality?

And here:

The Germans found no grounds in which they could prosecute, Darkazanli. Spain thought otherwise, but Germany decided that Spain would not allow their citizen to extradited to another EU state. The determination not to extradite was made by bureaucrats outside of the courtroom.

And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws", I think it is a loophole that can be exploited. As an interested outsider, I would rather see the EU explicitly state what and what are not extraditable crimes, ruling out such "dead laws" as blasphemy, than leaving such a loophole in place.

Again this is a matter of perspective. My argument is based on what I see as working in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state. There is 'trust' that justice will be done between the states of the American union. Without the trust between EU states that another state will mete justice fairly and accordingly, then I do not see how the EU legal system can work well. But then, maybe that is the point.

America's prisons are full.

by Magnifico on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I see it extradition is quite an infringement on a persons liberty and should thus be treated in some form of legal process (like say, warrants for searching someones home). If this process is handled in the state where the crime is committed or where the accused lives, or both, matters less as long as it is the same for everyone.

Thinking about it, I think I prefer it to be handled in both states - one issuing the warrant, the other trying it - as both state apparatuses are involved in the infringement of liberty.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state

Please see, however, my exchange with gringo above.

Interstate extradition in the US only lost its major "loophole" a little over twenty years ago. And the EU is made up of sovereign states, so harmonizing law on such matters is even more difficult than under the federal constitution of the US.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've tried to explain my thoughts regarding this in other comments to this essay

When you quote these earlier positions, does that mean that your views haven't changed even after the "tireless efforts of DoDo and Migeru to help explain what is going on"?

And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws"

No dead laws clause was involved in the Darkazanli case... that was an explanation I gave to a clause you quoted. What was involved apparently was the mandatory non-execution of the EAW clause, with the double jeopardy sub-clause being my obvious guess.

where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state.

As I quoted Wikipedia upthread, in the USA, too, double jeopardy may apply even if a case is closed against someone before it even gets to trial in one state.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 06:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry DoDo, I had missed your Wikipedia link about dismissal due to lack of evidence and double jeopardy. I withdraw my statements regarding the Darkazanli case and German obstruction of justice.
by Magnifico on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]