A major terrorism trial will resume this week after its initiation on October 16. The hearing takes place under the Netherlands’s new, toughened terrorism laws, legislation that was enhanced after a trial in 2005 failed to convict Samir Azzouz, and others due to lack of evidence. Azzouz (20), the main suspect, is the leader of a group of six men who are now facing charges of belonging to a terrorist organization. The Amsterdam trial highlights several developments in Europe, some of which have been identified in these pages in the past. First, the advanced stages of uncovered plots, although at many points amateurish, convey worrisome indications of the relative ease with which radical elements are able to recruit willing co-conspirators, obtain weapons, and carry out attacks. Secondly, the accused are all young, a point that emphasizes the gravity of novices giving in to Islamic radicalism . Further, the suspects all come from the characteristic local Islamic community where tensions of day to day life for Muslims have been looming since the 1970s.
The Prosecution’s Disclosures Verifies Trends
Prosecutor Alexander van Dam opened the proceedings by stressing the seriousness in what has been dubbed the Piranha network case: “The organization had as its aim to carry out terrorist crimes such as murder, explosions and threats. They are also accused of trying to recruit warriors, instigation to commit crimes, and forgery” (source).
More specifically, the accused allegedly had plans of killing several politicians, including Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, Lower House speaker Frans Weisglas, and Amsterdam Alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb (source). The prosecution also contends that the Piranha network planned to blow up the Dutch security service headquarters (AIVD) in Leidschendam, pointing to the ambitions of the group. Weapons found in the defendants’ possession, counterweighs the perceived amateurishness and establishes a certain degree of capability.
Evidence has further revealed that some of the accused have links to the so-called Hofstad terrorist group whose leader, Mohammed Bouyeri, was sentenced last year to life in prison for the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh . Nourridin El Fatmi (23), who is already serving a five-year sentence for being a member of Hofstad, is now being charged with his girlfriend, Soumaya Sahla (17). The three other accused, who are being described as similarly young, are Mohammed Hamdi, Brahim Harhour, and Mohamed Chentouf.
Part of the prosecution’s evidence is Samir Azzouz’s video testament. He is shown dressed in traditional clothing with a machine gun by his side, urging jihad and announcing his intent to carry out a suicide bombing (source). The video noticeably mimics al-Qaeda videos and other testaments seen in which proclamations are made ahead of carrying out martyr attacks. The evidence, found during Azzouz’s arrest in June 2004, seems to substantiate plans that a suicide bombing had been in works. Police found chemicals, floor plans of government buildings, and maps; however, he was acquitted because judges deemed that his crude plans for an attack did not represent an authentic threat. The 2004 ruling seemed illogical especially since this was Azzouz’s third arrest on terrorism-related charges. Consequently, there was a chorus of disapproval against Netherlands’s lax anti-terrorism laws, and as a result, new laws came into place that allows suspects to be tried for attacks that security forces believe are being planned.
The Bigger Picture
The third trend highlighted in this case is part of a bigger picture. Local Muslim communities are, in fact, disfranchised and segregated but have also chosen to isolate themselves by discarding the basic democratic values of their host country, values that include tolerance toward all, women’s rights, and separation of church and state.
After the van Gogh assassination, Dutch authorities began to reconsider their previous standpoints. Considered one of the most liberal and immigrant-friendly nations of Europe for years, the public and political perception has shifted. The public is growing increasingly inpatient with the verbal and physical attacks they see against their democratic society and are now fearful of further consequences. Politicians across the political spectrum are joining the debate that was once exclusively led by the far-right in contesting generous immigration laws. Forceful new amendments are being made?for example, legislation that requires new immigrants to undergo 500 hours of Dutch language instructions and 50 hours of social orientation. (These proposals are also not exclusive to the Netherlands; Germany, specifically, is also witnessing such mandates.) Early this year, Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk expressed a desire to implement statutes for the general public to underline gender equality, tolerance, and the importance of the Dutch language. Other measures are the newly passed bill that bans extreme forms of veiling in public and the ongoing revision of the public funding for Islamic schools.
All of these amendments, tougher laws against terrorism acts, and diverse legislations regulating immigrants’ stays in Netherlands are part of the national attempt to evade what they accurately see as a rapidly growing threat: a direct attack coming from within their own homegrown communities, which they have failed to assimilate so far.
