Danish Politics

[Jacob]

The Ahmed Samsam case

A Syrian born Danish citizen - with a troubled background - travels to Syria on three occasions.

He is arrested in Spain and convicted for various terror related causes, primarily accused of fighting for Islamic State. Since then he's been transferred to a Danish prison where he is serving the rest of his time.

Samsam, for his part, is making the following claims:

1) In Syria he was not part of IS, but rather anti-Assad forces.

2) The second and third time he went he was there on behalf of Danish intelligence (both military and police). In fact, they funded his travels.

Samsam is currently suing the Danish state for - among other things - failing to reveal that information to Spanish prosecutors when he was convicted.

Several Danish media (including our BBC equivalent) have sources that confirm Samsam's story.

Additionally, two men (at the time it was reported I think it was implied they were associated with the intelligence services, but that's not mentioned now) went  to the prison to give Samsam some money, though no explanation has been offered. The implication is it was some sort of

Samsam's lawyer is also attempting to get the intelligence services to confirm that he worked for them (it's basically agreed that if he was in Syria on behalf of them, then he shouldn't be imprisoned).

Additionally, Samsam has recently identified his handler from Danish intelligence. This handler is a (now former) member of Danish intelligence services. He is currently accused by the intelligence services of having revealed confidential information to the public, apparently because he's disatisfied with how Samsam's case has been handled.

The opposition is demending an commission to investigate the case, while the government insists that no such thing is necessary - using the argument that the publicity will compromise national security.

[The Brain]

1. If he was in fact not fighting for IS, then the conviction seems wrong. What does the appeal process look like?

2. If he didn't do anything illegal in Syria then it shouldn't matter if he was working for Danish intelligence or not, see 1. If he did in fact do something illegal in Syria, does working for Danish intelligence change the illegality of it? He was convicted in Spain under Spanish law?

3. Without knowing anything about this specific case, it doesn't seem impossible for situations to arise where acknowledging assets can put other assets in jeopardy, harming both the mission and those other assets. Is "If you get caught we will deny knowing you" always just Hollywood?

[Jacob]

1. If he was in fact not fighting for IS, then the conviction seems wrong. What does the appeal process look like?

It's under way now I suppose, though his sentence is done in Nov 2023.

2. If he didn't do anything illegal in Syria then it shouldn't matter if he was working for Danish intelligence or not, see 1. If he did in fact do something illegal in Syria, does working for Danish intelligence change the illegality of it? He was convicted in Spain under Spanish law?

My impression is his conviction in Spain came down to "you're back from Syria" + "you posed for photos in front of a black 'IS-like' flag" and that was enough under Spanish law at the time. But my impression is also that if Danish intelligence had said "he's one of ours" then he wouldn't have been convicted.

3. Without knowing anything about this specific case, it doesn't seem impossible for situations to arise where acknowledging assets can put other assets in jeopardy, harming both the mission and those other assets. Is "If you get caught we will deny knowing you" always just Hollywood?

Yeah that's the least damning explanation I guess. Danish intelligence services seem to be in a bit of disarray recently, so I wouldn't rule out something a little more damning. But I obviously don't know.

[Jacob]

New development in the Samsam case.

When he went to Syria in 2012-2014 he joined the group Kaitab al-Imam. The Guardia Civil investigated and noted that the group Kaitab al-Imam Ali wasn't formed until 2014, and thus concluded that Samsam was not telling the truth - presumably to fight for the Islamic State (which is what he waws found guilty of).

It is true that Kaitab al-Imam Ali wasn't formed until 2014. The problem is that Kaitab al-Imam Ali and Kaitab al-Imam are completely different groups - and in fact, the groups were on different sides of the fighting. Kaitab al-Imam Ali is a Shia group primarily active in Iraq, though it did participate in the Syrian civil war allied to Assad; meanwhile, Kaitab al-Imam was fighting against Assad.

Apparently when the Guardia Civil investigators gave their evidence, this was not translated for Samsam. And, according to interviewed experts, while the two groups sound similar, anyone with a passing knowledge of the area and/ or access to google should be able to distinguish between the two.