Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.3.3-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would just like to say on behalf of the Commission that I am sure that one can conclude from this debate that the measures that have been taken at European level and in the Member States concerning the fight against terrorism have been adopted with a strict respect for the rule of law and the characteristics of an open society. Nobody can criticise the measures adopted by the Union or the Member States as being emergency or exceptional rules. They are fully integrated into our common legal framework. Of course, they demonstrate that democracy is not weak when it comes to fighting organised crime or terrorism. A perception by citizens that democracy is not efficient enough in fighting terrorism and organised crime is one possible source of disaffection.
As Commissioner Patten said, terrorism represents a transnational global threat, requiring transnational global answers. This fact is slowly being accepted by the Member States. We cannot deal with terrorism as if it was business as usual. We need to use police and judicial tools, but they are not enough. We also need to mobilise military and other resources. We need exchanges of intelligence at European level. You know from your own national experience how difficult it can be to ensure proper exchange of intelligence between police forces and secret services in your own Member States. The cooperation between intelligence-gathering services and police forces at European level in the fight against terrorism since 11 September can be successful. However, we need to recognise that there are two other very important areas.
The first is the fight against the financing of terrorism, which is much more complex. It requires extra efforts. The Commission will give priority to this issue in 2003.
Secondly, multilateral action. We share Parliament's view that we should give priority to this. The United Nations is the first stage. It is a source of concern that the negotiation of a global convention on terrorism is currently blocked in the United Nations. We must not forget the important role of the Council of Europe in the fight against terrorism. I hope that the negotiations in progress in the Council of Europe on a convention on terrorism will be successful.
In the dialogue with the United States of America on the fight against terrorism and on police and judicial cooperation, we should recognise the important contribution the American debate on civil liberties can make to our own European debate on fundamental rights and civil liberties. We should not minimise the ongoing debate in the United States on those key issues or leave them isolated. That is why we are engaged in a dialogue with the United States on a mutual legal assistance agreement and an extradition agreement in which we defend our own points of view and our values. We will also test the political will of the United States to accept and respect our positions.
The test case for Mr Pomés Ruiz in the implementation of the decisions taken at European level will come fairly shortly. As you know, the framework decision on terrorism will have to be transposed into the national laws of the Member States by the end of this year and the European arrest warrant by the beginning of 2004. However, seven Member States have, as you know, committed themselves to adopting the European arrest warrant in their legal systems in the first half of 2003. The Commission can only encourage them to stick to those commitments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples