DUTCH COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 002648

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/UBI, S/CT, D/HS, INL
JUSTICE FOR OIA - JFRIEDMAN
DHS FOR OIA - DSEQUEIRA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PTER PINR PINS PGOV NL KPRP
SUBJECT: DUTCH COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION


1. SUMMARY: Since the September 11 terrorist attacks in
the United States, the Dutch have steadily constructed a
solid framework of counter-terrorism (CT) laws. The
Netherlands has ratified and implemented all UN conventions
and protocols on terrorism as well as all legal instruments
in the European Council's counter-terrorism declaration of
March 2004. Additional counter-terrorism legislation --
passed in the wake of the Madrid bombings -- is on par with
that of other EU member states. Key provisions of
legislation passed in August 2004, for example, criminalized
conspiracy to commit a terrorist offense, made recruitment
for jihad a crime, and raised sentences for homicide,
hijacking and kidnapping when those crimes are committed
with "terrorist intent." The government's September 20
budget presentation for 2006 did not include new CT
legislative initiatives, but reiterated the government's
intent to seek Parliamentary approval for several
legislative packages already proposed. This cable
summarizes the provisions of counter-terrorism legislation
enacted in the Netherlands since 2001, and the GONL's
proposals for additional CT legislation. END SUMMARY.


2. The 2006 GONL budget, presented to Parliament on
September 20, indicates that the government will continue to
place a priority on strengthening the Netherlands' CT
capacity. The budget message noted the government's
expectation that Parliament would pass in the first half of
2006 two legislative packages that would permit expanded use
of special investigative methods, including phone taps and
surveillance, in terrorism investigations, facilitate police
detention of terrorist suspects, and allow greater use of
intelligence information in trials of suspected terrorists.
No new CT legislative initiatives were announced in the
budget message. The Justice Ministry budget for counter-
terrorism programs will be increased to 37 million euros in
2006 and 40 million euros in 2007, from 29.5 million euros
this year.

POST 9/11 CT LEGISLATION
--------------


3. Legislative and administrative measures implemented
since 2001 to strengthen the Netherland's counter-terrorism
capacity include provisions that:

--Increase (by up to 50 percent) the sentences for crimes
such as homicide, hijacking and kidnapping if the crimes
were committed with "terrorist intent;"
--Make conspiracy to commit a terrorist offense a crime,
punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment; this provision
allows prosecutors to bring charges against suspected
terrorists at an earlier stage;
--Make recruiting for jihad a criminal offense, punishable
by up to four years imprisonment (use of the term "jihad"
gave this provision a specific Islamic bent);
--Redefine criminal participation in a terrorist
organization to include the provision of financial or
other material support, making it easier to prosecute
those who finance terrorism;
--Allow courts to ban terrorist organizations on UN and EU
asset freeze lists, and criminalize financial support for
banned organizations;
--Provide tools -- including the deportation or
imprisonment of members - to disrupt the activities of
foreign organizations not listed on asset freeze lists
but whose activities have been ruled by the courts to be
illegal in the Netherlands;
--Improve AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency) capabilities,
including greater human resources, and improve
coordination and information sharing between intelligence
services and the police;
--Enhance protection of critical infrastructure and high-
level GONL officials;
--Expand monitoring of non-profit organizations; and,

--Strengthen efforts to integrate immigrants into Dutch
society to prevent extremism.

PENDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
--------------


4. In addition to the provisions already implemented, five
packages of legislation are pending. The first two were
submitted to Parliament for approval in 2005, the remaining
three have not yet been sent to Parliament.


A. A bill to permit the use of intelligence information in
criminal proceedings was approved by Parliament's Second
(lower) Chamber in May 2005. The bill would enable an
examining judge to assess evidence from intelligence and
security services without disclosing it to the defense. The
bill would also permit intelligence agents to testify
anonymously. The bill is currently before the Parliament's
First (upper) Chamber. The September budget statement
indicates the government's expectation that the bill will be
passed into law in early 2006.


B. A bill to expand investigative powers in investigations
of terrorist activities was sent to Parliament in June 2005.
The 2006 budget presentation indicates the government's
expectation that the bill would be passed by mid-2006. The
provisions of the bill would:

--lower the threshold for use of special investigative
methods, such as phone taps, infiltration and
surveillance. These methods would be permitted when
there are "indications" a suspect is involved in a
terrorist activity; current law requires a "concrete
suspicion" of involvement;
--authorize prosecutors to request data from banks,
companies, and other private organizations, currently
prohibited by the Privacy Protection Act, to obtain
information about terror suspects;
--authorize stop and search operations in high-risk areas,
such as airports and train stations, even if individuals
subject to these procedures are not suspected of a crime;
--lower the threshold for extending a terror suspect's
provisional detention. The bill would allow authorities
to hold a terrorist suspect for up to 24 days based only
on a suspicion of terrorist involvement. Under current
law, authorities may hold a suspect for only 14 days
unless more concrete evidence is presented to a judge.
The bill would not change the current 100-day limit
during which a judge can detain a suspect before a
prosecutor presents the full case to a judge.


C. In June, the Cabinet approved a draft bill to give
Justice Minister overriding powers. The bill would give the
Justice Minister broad decision-making power in the event of
a terrorist attack, including allowing the Minister to
independently cancel air traffic, cell-phone service, and
rail transport in the face of an imminent threat. The
Interior Minister would remain responsible for crisis
control after an attack. The Council of State, which must
review all legislative proposals before they are submitted
to Parliament for approval, is currently reviewing the bill.


D. The bill on preventive CT measures would control the
movement of individuals suspected of involvement in
terrorism. The bill would allow the government to issue
restraining orders, based on intelligence or police
information, prohibiting a terror suspect's physical
proximity to specific locations or persons. The draft
legislation was approved by the Cabinet in June and is now
before the Council of State for review.


E. A draft bill to penalize glorification of terrorist
offenses would impose curbs on freedom of speech. Justice
Minister Donner sent the proposal to advisory bodies for
review in late July. Specialized advisory bodies are
responsible for reviewing all proposed legislation before
final Cabinet approval and submission to Parliament. This
is the most controversial of the GONL's proposed CT
legislation. Critics of the proposed law have expressed
concerns about the broad scope of the bill's provisions,
which would make glorification, justification or denial of
terrorist attacks, genocide or war crimes a criminal act if
such comments could disturb public order. The offense would
be punishable by a year's imprisonment, and by removal from
office if an individual uses a position to foment hatred.
The proposed bill would also increase the penalties for
defamation and blasphemy.


5. COMMENT. The Netherlands has had relatively little
experience with domestic terrorism since the 1970's when
Moluccan separatists mounted a violent campaign for
independence from Indonesia on Dutch soil. Nevertheless,
the Dutch government has worked steadily to strengthen its
capacity to deter terrorist activities in the Netherlands.
Dutch counter-terrorism legislation has kept pace with that
of other EU member states. Officials at the British Embassy
note that Dutch and British approaches are remarkably
similar, though Dutch legislation does not go as far as that
of the UK. END COMMENT.

Blakeman