In the covert world, silence is the norm. Yet silence, from time to time, creates a conundrum when a former operative gets caught up in the switches of the law. This is what happened to Ahmed Samsam, a Danish citizen of Syrian descent, who was convicted in Spain in 2018 for alleged affiliation with ISIS. What Spanish prosecutors didn’t know at the time of his arrest, and what Denmark only publicly confirmed in September 2025, was that Samsam had previously operated as a covert asset for Danish intelligence services: PET (Politiets Efterretningstjeneste, Denmark’s domestic security and intelligence service) and FE (Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, the Danish Defence Intelligence Service responsible for foreign intelligence and military operations). Samsam’s mission, carried out between 2013 and 2014, was to gather intelligence on Danish foreign fighters in Syria. He was compensated with cash payments and logistical support.
Denmark contacted Spain’s CNI after the trial had begun, but the content of that service-to-service communication has not been disclosed. What we do know is that it did not result in prosecutorial withdrawal or case reversal.
Protecting an Asset is a Moral and Ethical Obligation
Samsam’s operational role, according to available information occurred between 2013 and 2014, he traveled to Syria under Danish direction, collecting intelligence on jihadist networks and Danish nationals embedded within them. According to Denmark’s Supreme Court ruling in September 2025, Samsam received compensation for his work, bank transfers, cash, and operational support. By 2015 or 2016, the relationship had ended. Denmark was morally and ethically required to protect the identity of Samsam. Whether the Dane’s provided any formal offboarding or post-operational contact plan is unknown.
In 2017, Samsam was arrested in Málaga, Spain while vacationing.
Spain prosecuted him based on encrypted communications, travel history (dates not provided), and alleged propaganda involvement.
There is insufficient information to determine if Samsam continued to stay in contact with jihadist networks during the years following the termination of his covert relationship with Denmark.
Denmark’s Silence and the Legal Fallout
Samsam’s family contacted PET in early 2018, requesting intercession. The agencies acknowledged the outreach but did not formally intervene, beyond contactingthe CNI as noted. If Samsam continued his contact post-Danish relationship, then the rational is clear why the Danes remained silent. However, if his relationship with the Islamic State terminated when is covert relationship terminated, it could also have placed the Danes in the ethical dilemna of choosing between two equally unsatisfactory actions. Acknowledge Samsam publicly and place him at risk with ISIS or remain silent.
Samsam was convicted and sentenced to eight years. He served most of that time in Denmark, released in 2023. During those years, media coverage intensified. Investigative reports from El País, AP, and Dagens Nyheter began to surface, questioning the conviction and pointing to Samsam’s covert past.
The Danish Supreme Court Ruling
In 2023, Samsam appealed to Denmark’s Østre Landsret. He lost. The court refused to examine the intelligence relationship. But in 2025, Denmark’s Supreme Court reversed course. In a landmark ruling, it declared that Samsam had indeed worked for PET and FE, and ordered the agencies to confirm the relationship publicly.
They did. In a joint statement, PET and FE acknowledged Samsam’s role and compensation. This was a historic breach of Danish intelligence protocol, which traditionally avoids comment on agent relationships.
Samsam is free and, on the streets, he was released in 2023. He has been confirmed to have been an intelligence asset of the Danish services targeted against the Islamic. His legal team, led by attorney Rene Offersen, has indicated that their next objective is to pursue a reversal of Samsam’s conviction in Spain.
The Persistent Threat
While ISIS and their footprint in Syria have largely been dissolved, the organization remains active in a decentralized fashion. Denmark’s silence protected their covert relationship and Samsam. Samsam’s efforts and success at being identified and acknowledged as a compensated asset of Denmark targeted against ISIS, albeit more than a decade prior, may place him at personal risk.
The Ethical Questions We Must Ask
The Samsam case doesn’t indict Spain’s justice system, nor does it expose a failure of Danish intelligence operations during the mission itself. What it reveals is the ethical ambiguity that emerges when covert relationships end, and legal systems collide.
So, we ask:
When the mission is over, when does the moral obligation to protect the asset end?
When the asset want’s public attribution which would put their life at risk, what is the moral obligation to their safety?
