The war on terror vs. the rule of law: Judicial proceedings against defendant Mohamed A.

The fight against terrorism seems to increasingly invade the domain of the rule of law. In order to combat terrorism effectively, measures are adopted that allow for more intrusive methods of investigation; other measures facilitate judicial cooperation among friendly nations in their combined efforts to fight terror.

A defendant’s safeguards against abuse of such far-reaching measures have been a matter of debate and study ever since the attacks of September 11th fuelled the war efforts of western governments. The extent to which fundamental rights can be denied terrorists or those suspected of terrorism is largely determined by the effectiveness of the anti-terrorist measures that would violate those rights. The case of Mohamed A. demonstrates that we have not yet seen the end of the shift of focus from a defendant’s rights to an efficient criminal investigation, as the Dutch Supreme Court leaves a clear violation of the safeguards surrounding the exchange of evidence between nations without reprimand.

Particularly in legal proceedings between nations, this difference of opinion is becoming more clear. The case against defendant Mohamed A. is of great importance in this aspect, as extradition to the United States of a suspect who may have links to the Al Qaeda network is refused, and the compliance of the United States in providing fundamental legal rights is called into question.

Download at .doc format

The war on terror vs. the rule of law