Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Extraordinary European Council of 21 September 2001 in Brussels – Preparatory work for the European Council in Ghent2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011003.2.3-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-03-Speech-3-0642
lpv:speaker	lp:José Pacheco Pereira2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Social Democrata (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in light of the seriousness of the terrorist attack of 11 September, there are several important questions to be discussed and clarified, relating to our intention to resolutely fight terrorism. The first question is the need to find effective means to combat terrorism, which do not necessarily entail legislative reform on matters of security. It is worth recalling clearly that it is not effective, and never has been in democracy, to curtail freedoms in order to fight the enemies of democracy itself. Indeed, we think the problem lies elsewhere. It is not only the lack of legislation at national or European level, or the lack of coordinated policing at international level. The problem has much to do both with hesitancy and weakness in the fight against terrorism, which manifest themselves in laxity towards activities of a terrorist nature, in the hope that terrorist acts would always be carried out in the country next door, or in the slow deterioration of methods of defence and security, police forces, information services and armed forces. European governments which thought that wars had ended once and for all and which often cut the financial resources available for defence and safety cannot, of course, talk loudly about terrorism. The second question concerns political awareness of the times in which we live. If we denounce what happened in New York and Washington merely as a criminal act, we will from the start be limiting the scope, the meaning and the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism. What happened is in reality an act of war, no doubt of a war different to previous wars but, unfortunately, all wars are different to previous wars. They are usually more deadly, affecting more civilians and not hesitating to use any means to massacre. They are increasingly total wars. To classify what happened as an act of war is not a mere question of semantics. It has had major implications, starting with the right of the nation or nations affected to respond with military actions, if necessary, in relation to the country or countries shown to be responsible for supporting or carrying out terrorist acts. At present this is a basic condition for effectively fighting terrorism, which cannot attain the magnitude of the attack of 11 September without the support of one or more States. Unfortunately, there has been little discussion on this subject, but it is necessary to know the position of the Council, Parliament and the Commission concerning the need for military intervention against States which perpetrate or support terrorist acts."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph