EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list; based on 'factual reporting from the press'. - Polidicks

[QUOTE] A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups. The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found. The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group. It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being. Hamas dominates Gaza and fought a 50-day war with Israel in the summer. Under its charter, the movement is committed to Israel's destruction. Israel, the United States and several other nations have designated Hamas a terrorist organisation due to its long record of attacks and its refusal to renounce violence. But Hamas also won the last Palestinian parliamentary elections, which were held in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006, and its supporters see it as a legitimate resistance movement. 'Satisified' In December 2001, the Council of the European Union - representing the governments of member states - adopted a "common position" and a regulation to combat terrorism. It established a list of designated entities and people whose funds would be frozen. Hamas' military wing, the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades, was named on the initial list, and its political wing was added two years later. Hamas contested the decision and on Wednesday the EU's General Court found it had been "based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet". The court said it was therefore annulling Hamas' designation but would temporarily keep existing measures against the group "in order to ensure the effectiveness of any possible future freezing of funds". This would be maintained for three months, or, if an appeal is brought before the European Court of Justice, until it was closed, it added. "The court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the common position." Hamas' lawyer, Liliane Glock, said she was "satisfied with the decision" "Every decision since 2001 imposing restrictive measures, including on the armed wing, have been annulled. I believe that this judgement shows the whole world that it exists and is legal," she told the AFP news agency. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30511569[/url]

Okay I can kind of see where they're going with this, but I was confused at first. Basically the Court said that Hamas should be on the terrorist organisations list if this has been verified by competent authorities, and not by basing your arguments on mainstream media? So they'd get right back on the list if the decision is motivated by actually looking for themselves instead of using BBC articles as proof, so to speak. EDIT: It's amazing how many people get upset without reading the damn article. This is why the EU gets bad rep. This incidentally proves why the Court has 0 trust in the objectivity of news articles.

I had to check if this was the Onion.

Damn what a confusing article, took me way too long to grok it. [QUOTE=deltasquid;46733540]Okay I can kind of see where they're going with this, but I was confused at first. Basically the Court said that Hamas should be on the terrorist organisations list if this has been verified by competent authorities, and not by basing your arguments on mainstream media? So they'd get right back on the list if the decision is motivated by actually looking for themselves instead of using BBC articles as proof, so to speak.[/QUOTE] It's the complete opposite isn't it? Hamas was [B]on[/B] the list because they didn't look at the facts.

[QUOTE]The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group. It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.[/QUOTE] So what's even the point of taking Hamas off?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;46733721]So what's even the point of taking Hamas off?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=deltasquid;46733540]Okay I can kind of see where they're going with this, but I was confused at first. Basically the Court said that Hamas should be on the terrorist organisations list if this has been verified by competent authorities, and not by basing your arguments on mainstream media? So they'd get right back on the list if the decision is motivated by actually looking for themselves instead of using BBC articles as proof, so to speak.[/QUOTE]

But, they sorta are terrorists

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46733976]But, they sorta are terrorists[/QUOTE]Whether or not they're terrorists is immaterial to the point the GCEU was making, namely that the Council should not be basing such decisions on information from the Internet and the press.

Why not just review their status as a terrorist group rather than take them off the list only to, inevitably, put them back on.

They're not saying Hamas aren't terrorists they're simply saying the wrong evidence was used to put them on it. Due process and all that.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46733976]But, they sorta are terrorists[/QUOTE] One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46733995]Whether or not they're terrorists is immaterial to the point the GCEU was making, namely that the Council should not be basing such decisions on information from the Internet and the press.[/QUOTE] So murdering some jews in a sinagogue with hatchets to promote their political agenda of "all jews must die" is not terrorism?

^ As far as I'm concerned, this is just technical to fact-check everything. Still, with all the recent support of Hamas from a few of the extremer Arabic countries, I'm slightly frightened that something like this might happen one day. You can be pissy about the way the IDF are handling things in Palestine, but denying that Hamas is a terrorist group is insane.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;46734112]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.[/QUOTE] One mans terrorist is still another mans terrorist, the Palestinian people have suffered more than the Israeli people because of these guys

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46734287]So murdering some jews in a sinagogue with hatchets to promote their political agenda of "all jews must die" is not terrorism?[/QUOTE]Again, that's irrelevant to the point, which is the court based it's decision on the Council relying on the press and the Internet for their decision; when what they should be doing is actual fact-checking via their own methods and accredited authorities, which is well within their capabilities. In this instance it's obviously going to return the same result, which is why the court did not lift the funding restrictions; or to quote from the article: [quote] The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.[/quote] A well-funded governing body does not need to, nor should they, rely on the news or the Internet as to whether an organization should be deemed a terrorist group. In this instance, they could probably just rely on Hamas' own charter, since it lays out their intentions clear as day. To give another example, the UN body investigating North Korean human rights abuses doesn't rely on all the news stories we hear from NK, but reviewed eyewitness testimony, video footage and other hard evidence; even if news sources include these testimonies and footage. Essentially, going straight to the source rather than getting the information second-hand, even if it's not in any way twisted or distorted from it's original source.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46734550]Again, that's irrelevant to the point, which is the court based it's decision on the Council relying on the press and the Internet for their decision; when what they should be doing is actual fact-checking via their own methods and accredited authorities, which is well within their capabilities. In this instance it's obviously going to return the same result, which is why the court did not lift the funding restrictions; or to quote from the article: A well-funded governing body does not need to, nor should they, rely on the news or the Internet as to whether an organization should be deemed a terrorist group. In this instance, they could probably just rely on Hamas' own charter, since it lays out their intentions clear as day. To give another example, the UN body investigating North Korean human rights abuses doesn't rely on all the news stories we hear from NK, but reviewed eyewitness testimony, video footage and other hard evidence; even if news sources include these testimonies and footage. Essentially, going straight to the source rather than getting the information second-hand, even if it's not in any way twisted or distorted from it's original source.[/QUOTE] I thought there was enough objective evidence, after all the conflict is quite old.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46734665]I thought there was enough objective evidence, after all the conflict is quite old.[/QUOTE]There is, which makes it odder the Council was scraping shit from the Internet.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46734670]There is, which makes it odder the Council was scraping shit from the Internet.[/QUOTE] Either way it seems like a pointless move that doesn't change anything, maybe it's not even newsworthy and it's basically some bueracratic stuff.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46734684]Either way it seems like a pointless move that doesn't change anything, maybe it's not even newsworthy and it's basically some bueracratic stuff.[/QUOTE] The process has to be followed to ensure it is fair and just.

I think they would have done this more so in contrast something like ISIS

[QUOTE=Lalelalala;46733691]Damn what a confusing article, took me way too long to grok it. It's the complete opposite isn't it? Hamas was [B]on[/B] the list because they didn't look at the facts.[/QUOTE] Fact: Hamas attacks civilian population centers to effect political change in the region. Pretty sure that's the definition of terrorism.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46734684]Either way it seems like a pointless move that doesn't change anything, maybe it's not even newsworthy and it's basically some bueracratic stuff.[/QUOTE] The most important thing is basically the court saying "You can't use news articles as proof for bureaucratic/judicial decisions" Like imagine convicting someone for a crime because the media pinned him as the perp. It's exactly the same, except on a larger scale with an organisation. The judge probably KNOWS Hamas are a terrorist organisation, but you have to justify putting them on the list with more than news articles, you know?