Bush's 'War on Terror' is a Blind Criminal Policy

"The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists." - Hillary Clinton

Graves of Tamil Tiger war heroes in Sri Lanka.

(MELBOURNE) - After the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, President George Bush's 'War on Terror' was blindly applied to all liberation movements, whether it was a righteous war or just pure terrorism to enforce their dogma or religious ideology on others. Senator Hilary Clinton's statement on Tigers to the British Guardian makes her point very clear.

Tamil Tigers protected the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka for three decades.

She said, "I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking."

Another statement one has to ruminate is on Prof. David Selbourne's prophetic statement in 1985: "For the bitter truth is that a military solution - that is the random butchery of Tamil civilians, men, women, and children - is the politics of Colombo; they have, and intend, no other," the random butchery, may perhaps provide the most legitimate and potent means to reach the end goal of Tamil struggle, by asserting the right of remedial sovereignty. That is the right to pick up arms.

Now ECJ fixes hearing date for EU ban case on LTTE. Continuing with the ban five years after the war has ended is extremely ridiculous. Still incarcerating Tamil youths in jails in European countries for attempting to supply arms to the LTTE to protect the Tamil people against Sinhalese butchery, is itself a crime against Humanity. Please read the Tamil Net report on what advocate Victor Koppe is attempting to do.

[TamilNet, Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 14:21 GMT] Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ) is scheduled to hear the case “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) vs Council of the European Union” (Case T-208/11-9) on 26 February 2014, legal sources in Europe said. The case was filed in 2011 by Victor Koppe, the Amsterdam-based Bohler advocaten attorney and the ECJ determined that he could legally represent the Europe-based political wing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The demand for annulment of the inclusion of LTTE in the EU's terrorism list is partly to stop the prosecution of Tamils in The Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, and other member countries, Mr Koppe has told earlier.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 in so far as the name of the applicant is maintained on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant and/or the Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict.
   
   
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organisation as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. In this regard the applicant submits that its activities do not amount to offences under international humanitarian law and national criminal law, which does not apply to situations of armed conflict.
   
   
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.
   
   
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant since the Council did not conduct any review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The applicant contends that, as it no longer uses military means to achieve its goals and is no longer directly active in Sri Lanka, such a review would have led to the conclusion that it must be removed from the list.
   
   
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in violation of Article 296 TFUE.
   
   
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant because it infringes upon the applicant’s right of defence, the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.