Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 08DUSSELDORF43, LIFE IN PRISON FOR "SUITCASE BOMBER" IN LANDMARK DECISION

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #08DUSSELDORF43.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
08DUSSELDORF43 2008-12-09 16:43 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED Consulate Dusseldorf
VZCZCXRO2046
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ
RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHDF #0043 3441643
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091643Z DEC 08
FM AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0176
INFO RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT 0004
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHDF/AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF 0192
UNCLAS DUSSELDORF 000043 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER PGOV KISL KPAO KVPR KCRM LE GM
SUBJECT: LIFE IN PRISON FOR "SUITCASE BOMBER" IN LANDMARK DECISION 
 
REF: A) 07 DUSSELDORF 38  B) 07 DUSSELDORF 34  C) 07 DUSSELDORF 30 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  In a landmark December 9 decision, the 
Duesseldorf Higher Regional Court sentenced Youssef Mohamad 
El-Hajdib, aka the `suitcase bomber' of Cologne, to life 
imprisonment for attempted murder in an undetermined number of 
cases in connection with a failed terrorist attack on two 
commuter trains in Cologne in July 2006.  This is the first time 
that a court in Germany has issued a life sentence in an 
Islamist terrorism case.  Agreeing with the Prosecution, the 
court found El-Hajdib guilty of having planned with an 
accomplice to kill as many `infidels' as possible in retaliation 
for the publication of the Mohammed caricatures in the Danish 
and German press.  The Defense announced it would appeal the 
verdict.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
2.  (U) Almost exactly one year after it began (Ref A), the 
trial against Lebanese national Youssef Mohamad El-Hajdib (24) 
ended before the Duesseldorf Higher Regional Court on December 9 
with his conviction and life imprisonment sentence.  Judge 
Ottmar Breidling, widely recognized as one of Germany's most 
experienced judges in terrorism-related cases (Refs B and C), 
presided over the trial at a specially designed high security 
court house.  The five-member panel of judges under Breidling 
found El-Hajdib, a former engineering student at the University 
of Kiel, guilty of having conspired with his Lebanese compatriot 
Jihad Hamad (22), a Cologne resident at the time, to execute a 
terrorist bomb attack on the German train system in retaliation 
for the previous publication of Mohammed caricatures in the 
Danish and other European press. 
 
 
 
3.  (U) Following the pronouncement of the verdict, Breidling 
presented a detailed account of the reasons for the judgment. 
Pointing out that Germany `has never been closer to a deadly 
Islamist terrorist attack' than in this case, he made clear that 
the court was convinced that Hajdib and his accomplice, who is 
currently serving a 12-year prison term in Lebanon for his 
involvement in the plot, intended to kill as many `infidels' as 
possible by placing two suitcases containing IEDs and incendiary 
material on two different commuter trains at the Cologne Central 
Station on July 31, 2006.  The bombs were to detonate 
simultaneously, but did not go off due to faulty construction. 
Experts said that a detonation would have caused a major shock 
wave and fireball that could have killed dozens of people, 
similar to the terrorist attacks on trains in Madrid and London, 
Breidling said.  He rejected as `false' claims by Hajdib and the 
Defense that the IEDs were dummies never meant to go off and 
that they were only to serve as a `warning signal' to the German 
public in connection with the Mohammed caricatures.  On these 
grounds, the Defense had pleaded for acquittal.  Immediately 
after the verdict, Hajdib's defense counsels announced they 
would appeal the December 9 decision with Germany's highest 
appellate court, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in 
Karlsruhe. 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
------- 
 
 
 
4.  (SBU) This high profile case marks the first time in an 
Islamist terrorist trial in Germany where the charges were 
attempted murder and where the defendant received a life 
sentence.  The verdict and sentence were clearly designed to 
send a strong signal that Germany, through this court, takes 
terrorism cases very seriously.  Although the evidence was clear 
and overwhelming, the trial took much longer than expected, 
largely due to delaying tactics by the Defense and the slow and 
hesitant responses by Lebanese law enforcement authorities to 
requests for legal assistance (there is no legal assistance 
agreement between Germany and Lebanon).  In his oral remarks, 
Presiding Judge Breidling called the procedural maneuvers by the 
Defense a reason to reform German criminal procedure.  He also 
observed that video surveillance, while often viewed critically 
in German society, played a critical role in resolving this 
case.  None of Breidling's judgments in terrorism cases has yet 
been overturned by the Karlsruhe court.  It remains to be seen 
whether this will also hold true for this verdict, with the 
maximum sentence possible under the German legal system. 
 
 
 
5.  (U) This message was coordinated with Embassy Berlin. 
 
BOYSE