EURO-TURKISH PROSECUTORS' ANTI-TERRORISM ROUNDTABLE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 ANKARA 000262

SIPDIS

JUSTICE FOR DAAG SWARTZ/OPDAT ALEXANDRE/OIA WARLOW
TREASURY OTTF


SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PTER KTFN TU FR NL UK
SUBJECT: EURO-TURKISH PROSECUTORS' ANTI-TERRORISM ROUNDTABLE

Ref: Ankara 6496 and previous


1. (SBU) Summary: On January 25-26, the US Department of Justice,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training

("OPDAT") through post's Resident Legal Adviser, hosted a
legislative
roundtable on methods to investigate and prosecute terrorist
organizations, particularly the PKK. . This was a first-ever
meeting in which terrorism
prosecutors from Turkey met with French, Dutch and British
terrorisms
prosecutors to discuss strategic applications of their respective
laws in
fighting terrorism. At the last moment, several members of the
Turkish
Ministry of Interior attended the roundtable as well as two members
of
Turkish intelligence and a French diplomat. The two- day workshop
was
filled with candid discussions on expediting flows of information,
the
possibilities and caveats in using classified information in
prosecutions and
specific cases. The Netherlands, France and the UK gave detailed
case
presentations of on-going and past investigations, highlighting the
need for
closer relationships and quick access to Turkish counterparts in
order to
build stronger prosecutions. The European participants had not been
to
Turkey before and most of the Turkish officials had never spoken
with
European prosecutors one-on-one. The round table format allowed
everyone the opportune to speak on all aspects of terrorism and law

enforcement. We believe this roundtable was an important first step
in improving counterterrorism cooperation between Turkish and
European prosecutors. End Summary.

--------------
Participants from Turkey and Europe
--------------


2. (SBU) Turkish MOI presented an in-depth look at the PKK and
the Turkish prosecutor from the Diyarbikar region gave a
presentation
on the terrorist threat presented by the PKK. Deputy Public
Prosecutors
who all handled terrorism and organized crime from the eight
districts in
Turkey participated. Those regions include Adana, Ankara,
Diyarbakir,
Erzurum, Istanbul, Izmir, Malatya and Van. The Ministry of Justice
representatives included co-moderator Ozcan Avci, Director of
International Training, Fahri Tosun, Deputy Director
of International Training, Deputy and Ergin Ergul, Deputy General of

International Law and Foreign Affairs. European experts included
France's Philippe Dorcet, Liaison Magistrate, Embassy of France in
Turkey, Anne Kostoumaroff, Chief of Anti-terrorism section, Paris
Ministry of Justice and Francois-Xavier Reymond, Second Secretary,
Embassy of France in Turkey; The Netherlands' Eric Noordhoek,
National Public Prosecutor AML/CFT and Anton C Maan, Senior
Public Prosecutor; and the United Kingdom's Susan Hemming, Head
of Counter Terrorism Section and Colin Gibbs, Senior Lawyer,
Counter Terrorism Section. US participants included Suzanne Hayden,

Resident Legal Adviser US DOJ/OPDAT, Embassy Ankara and James
Silverwood, Regional Director, OPDAT Washington DC. Each of the
participants described their laws and their desire to work with the

Turkish prosecutors to build better international cases.

--------------

ANKARA 00000262 002 OF 004


Prosecutive Issues in Europe
--------------


3. (SBU) The Dutch experience involved a detailed look at a
prosecution
of Al-Haramain and a discussion of the difficulties encountered when

the court demanded information deemed classified and unavailable by

another country. The Dutch prosecutor discussed looking for
alternative
methods of addressing terrorist entities or businesses including
administrative procedures such as licensing, if insufficient
evidence
existed for a criminal prosecution. The prosecutor who serves as a

liaison between the prosecution service and the intelligence
community
detailed the investigation of a PKK training camp located in the
Netherlands. He explained the difficult rulings of the court, the
demands
of the defense attorneys and the lack of international cooperation
in
obtaining information and/or access to witnesses. Note: This
presentation made it clear to Turkish participants that
international
media descriptions of the case did not accurately reflect the
lengths to
which the prosecution went to try maintain custody of the suspects.

End Note


4. (SBU) The French described a series of search warrants leading to

information believed to be linked to PKK members, requested
follow-up
information from the Turks and described French legal practices
that
would ensure non-disclosure of information received from Turkey.
Both French participants indicated that they (France MOJ) had
important information for the Turkish authorities and hoped to hear
from
them. They stressed that they were committed to the investigation
and
prosecution of the PKK and would go forward regardless. The Paris
chief prosecutor inquired about known links to the PKK and drug
trafficking. She described specific examples of evidence recently
found in a long-term investigation. Note: Press activity February
4,
2007 indicated the arrest of 13 individuals linked to the PKK. This

case was probably the one referred to in the French presentations.
End Note.


5. (SBU) The British prosecutors described their system as a middle

ground between the Dutch and French regarding requirement to
disclose
information to the defendant. They acknowledged that they did not
have
domestic issues with the PKK, but they had a number of terrorist
organizations that they were actively working. They both discussed

the need to be creative in charging: to prosecute for an underlying
or
typical organized crime if terrorism charges could not be made. The

recurrent theme was "Don't be afraid to try something if the
alternative
is nothing." They provided a detailed discussion of the on-going
case
regarding last summer's plot to bring liquid explosives onto
airplanes.
Although the case will not be tried for several years, the
prosecutors
wanted to share non-public information and theories with this group

ANKARA 00000262 003 OF 004


of
their peers.

--------------
Free flows of Information and Freedom of Speech
--------------


6. (SBU) The Turkish prosecutors repeatedly inquired into formal and

informal mechanisms to share information, extradition problems and
the
granting of asylum to putative terrorists. While the US and
Europeans
urged the use of informal channels to elicit information for leads
or to
confirm suspicions, the Turkish participants questioned the legality
and
practicality. Ergin Ergul, the primary representative for the MOJ
section
dealing with MLATS and other formal request channels, agreed with
the
European participants that informal methods were acceptable and
important
when speed was necessary. He acknowledged that the formal channels

were slower than informal but necessary to produce evidence for
trials.
He agreed that sometimes requests "languished" or were misplaced and

that informal methods, i.e. a telephone call, were appropriate.
Contact
details for all participants were provided and each European
participant
urged their Turkish colleagues to contact them with questions. Ergul

urged his colleagues to make use of such contacts.


7. (SBU) The issue of "freedom of speech" versus incitement was
raised
by the Turkish participants a number of times. All non-Turkish
participants
discussed in general terms the limiting nature of their own "freedom
of
speech" issues and how they have dealt legislatively with printed
media,
clothing signifying terrorist association, and aiding and abetting
acts of
terrorism. All agreed that in order to act (i.e. a criminal
prosecution) against
an entity or organization there have to be clear demonstrable links
to terrorism.

--------------
The Way Forward
--------------


8. (SBU) The "roundtable" format was a new one for all of the
Turkish
participants and the French participants. The initial
get-acquainted period
was shortened because all participants stayed in the same venue as
the
workshop. The MOJ furnished their Hakim Evi ("Judges' House") and
paid for full room and board for all the participants. The Consul
General
hosted a reception at her Residence and invited several
Istanbul-based MOJ,
MOI and European counterparts. The formal and informal exchanges of

information that flowed for 36 hours set the stage for next steps.
The RLA
was contacted by MOJ, MOI and several of the European participants
to
request that this meeting should be the first of many such
gatherings.


ANKARA 00000262 004 OF 004


--------------
Comment
--------------


9. (SBU) This format proved a valuable tool to advance DOJ/USG goals
to
encourage Turkish and European coordination in prosecuting terrorist

organizations. By moderating the discussion, the US was able to
support all
of the participants, clarify the issues and remain unobtrusively
involved in the discussion. No one felt that this was "led" by the
US, but rather felt simply that
the opportunity for a dialogue was provided. Without exception, the
six
European participants excelled in their presentations, their
patience and their
grasp of the unique situation that the Turkish participants found
themselves confronting. The parties were able to talk candidly and
express concerns for
their own position. The Turkish participants were able to raise
issues regarding
EU countries and to discover directly through interaction with three
EU
members, that each country had different laws and practices in
investigating
and prosecuting terrorism. Non-Turkish participants reiterated at
every
opportunity that they would assist in any way they could but that
Turkish
officials should be willing to assist the Europeans if prosecutions
could only
take place outside of Turkey. The roundtable opened possibilities
for future workshops between Turkish participants and different EU
members. Such
workshops could address legislative tools that work well or may need

amending, "following the money" to identify leadership and funding
of
terrorist organizations and enhanced cooperation. The roundtable was
also a
tangible example of U.S. ability to facilitate Turkey and European
countries cooperation against the PKK.

WILSON