Terrorism and the Law II

[This is the second of two postings on the terror Bill- first one posted below]

The Terror Bill

Criticism of British Terror Laws Prior to July Attacks
In June 2005 the European Commissioner of Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles, published a damning report on Britain’s terror laws. He discerned a background in which ‘human rights are frequently construed as, at best, formal commitments and, at worst, cumbersome obstructions. It is perhaps worth emphasising that human rights are not a pick and mix assortment of luxury entitlements but the very foundation of democratic societies.’

The report criticised control orders-used to limit the freedom of movement of the once detained Belmarsh suspects- plus other aspects of Britain’s legal attempts to combat terrorism. Another report, by the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, attacked the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act(ATCS) 2001 for the treatment of detained suspected terrorists. It condemned the use of evidence obtained through torture in other countries as ‘entirely indefensible’ which could never be ‘admissable’. Such admissability was granted by the 2001 Act ‘provided it was not committed or connived at by British officials’.
In response the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said:

‘There is a balance to be struck between the human rights of individuals and the human rights of citizens to be protected against terrorist threat. That is a difficult balance, but we believe our legislation achieves that balance. It is always difficult to achieve but you have to bear in mind both sides of human rights.’(Guardian 9th June 2005).
However, also to be weighed in the balance is the other acts already on the statute book. Lord Lester, on 25th October questioned the Home Secretary repeatedly as to why the bill was needed when all the necessary powers to combat terrorism were already available to the police. Moreover, the Identity Card legislation- much criticised within the governing party and by Chris Huhne MP, as the ‘largest intrusion into citizens’ lives in peacetime’(Guardian 26/10/05)- would not have prevented the July bombings.

Reaction to July Attacks
All this was before the attacks which occurred in London 7th and 21st July. The government were allegedly scared voters would blame Blair for taking the country into a conflict which had stimulated such acts of barbarism. Government spokesmen and Blair himself denied any connection between the Iraq war and such acts of terrorism pointing out that Al Quaida had been trying to destroy targets in west as long ago as 1993 when the first attack on the World Trade centre took place. As it happened, the opposite occurred. Most people did make the connection between the two events. Polls showed a majority-over 60%- believed the war had made Britain more of a target- a conclusion which it would be foolish to deny. But, it seems, Blair was not blamed personally. Having struggled to reassert his popularity after his election victory on 5th May, Blair suddenly found his response to the underground bombings, whilst chairing the G8 summit in Edinburgh, had impressed the public with its gravitas and toughness. ‘The rules have changed’ warned Blair some time later and indeed, a rule change was just what he had in mind. His initial meetings with opposition parties won their support for more legislation but this consensus soon fractured when the outlines of what was being proposed became clearer. Main purpose of new law was the catch those indirect supporters and facilitators of terrorism.

‘Glorifying Terrorism’
A series of measures was proposed which were debated in the press and parliament during the late summer months. Charles Clarke was determined to appear tough and to tighten laws affecting those who might try to engage in terrorism. An offence was mooted seeking to outlaw those who encouraged terrorism through ‘glorifying’ it. Critics pointed out that such a law would even catch supporters of Nelson Mandela’s struggle against apartheid and those who celebrated Guy Fawkes Night on 5th November. On 6th October Clarke climbed down and redefined the clauses relating to this. But he had not given up. On 10th October he sought to ban 15 more ‘terror organisations’ and stated he would seek to ban also those groups providing ‘succour and support’ by ‘glorifying terrorism.’ Groups banned included Ansar al-Islam, a radical Sunni group active in Iraq plus groups in Somalia and Morocco. Of special concern to British civil rights activists are Hizb ut Tahrir and Sheik Omar Bahakri’s al Muhajiroun. These last named are groups which have condemned terror but which are militant supporters of Islamic jihad efforts.

Terms of the Terror Bill

The Bill is a complex and extensive document the main terms of which are:

1. Definition: includes those inflicting serious damage to property or people in an effort to influence the government or to threaten the public in relation to a political, religious or ideological cause.

2. Encouraging Terrorism
More tightly defined to relate only to statements which ‘glorify the commissioning or preparation of acts of terror’. Max penalty to be 12 months. Police will have to prove statements were intended to incite further acts of terrorism.

3. Disseminating Terrorist Publications
Aimed at bookshops and websites dealing in terrorist publications. Television programmes on Al Quaida recently exposed websites which show hostages being beheaded in Iraq by insurgent groups. The one run by Dr Masari from London was, according to him, ‘excellent for recruiting purposes’. The bill aims to outlaw such websites.

4. Preparation of Terrorist Acts
Aimed at those who intend to carry out such acts, provide facilities for the execution of or financial assistance.

5. Training for Terrorism
Designed to catch those who either offer training or receive it or provide instruction or materials. Attending a terror camp will carry a sentence of 12 years.

6. Making and Possessing nuclear devices or materials for terrorist purposes.
Will not affect those who demonstrate outside nuclear installations and sites. Carries life sentence.

7. Consent to Prosecutions
Both director of public prosecutions and attorney general needed for prosecutions under terrorist offences to provide ‘safety valve against hasty... decisions’

8. Proscribing Extremist Groups
Ability of Home Secretary to ban groups will be extended to those whose activities ‘glorify, exalt or celebrate terrorism’. Aim is to reduce the chances of young people coming into contact with such negative influences.

9. Immigration law Changes
Power for Home secretary to remove nationality of those with dual nationality from those considered to be ‘not conducive to the public good.’

10. Detention without Charge
Maybe the most controversial of the measures, will allow suspects to be held without charge beyond the current 14 days up to a limit of three months. After 48 hrs police- superintendent or senior rank- can ask for weekly extensions. Such a wait could be necessary if waiting for DNA test results.

11. Independent annual review of the legislation

Other Countries’ Laws

Detention Without Charge

France: 48 hrs but can be extended for two further periods of 24 hrs on authority of a judge. But can be held up to four yrs awaiting trial.

Germany: Usually 24 hrs but can be held up to 6 mnths on review of judge.

Greece: 24 hrs before seeing a judge but can then be held up to 12-18 mnths

Morway: 48 hrs but then judge can grant further weekly periods of detention.

Italy: 24 hrs only.

Spain: 13 days incommunicado. Can be held four yrs awaiting trial.

Reactions to the Bill

The above shows British laws will prove to be the toughest in Europe. UK will also be alone if it presses ahead with plans to deport terror suspects back to countries which may use torture against them. Home secretary also announced 12th October plans to deny asylum to anyone involved in terrorism anywhere in the world.

Lord Carlile, the official independent reviewer of the terror laws was in broad agreement with the bill
but
a) he questioned the clause about training camps. What if the training camp is in support of a cause we support eg ANC in days of apartheid.
b) worried about deportation of suspects like Belmarsh 10 who were under ‘control orders’ in the absence of ‘no torture’ memorandums with countries to which they would be deported to- in this case Algeria. Critics say such agreements would be of little use as police are often beyond control in such countries.
c) thought the 90 days detention without charge provision would be struck down under the Human Rights Act. He argued much tighter judicial control would be necessary to safeguard the rights of people detained.
Others point out 90 days is the equivalent of 6 months of a standard sentence. Why hold them so long?

Police in favour of measures which ‘recognise the changing nature of the terrorist threat.’ They applaud new powers to ‘root out terrorists before atrocities occur.’

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabati predicts the measures would have a severe effect on community relations. it will criminalise support for non violent political parties. Very dangerous route the government is taking.

Seamus Milne, Guardian, 13th October 2005.
Milne argues Blair tends to legislate when not sure what to do. Strategy seems to be to flagrantly overstate and then modify in face of outrage until something that can be passed has been arrived at. Not a good way to pass laws.
Mark Oaten Lib Dem opposed to the 3 month detention measure though pleased the glorifying clause rewritten. But ‘anyone who voices support for armed resistance to any state or occupation, however repressive or illegitimate, will be committing a criminal offence punishable by 7 year prison sentence.’
‘terrorism is defined as any politically motivated violence against people, property or electronic systems anywhere in the world’
Blair’s statement in Washington that he was totally opposed to the ‘caliphate’ or imposition of sharia law, suggests the war on terror is really one on Islam.

Cherie Blair, leading human rights lawyer: has made a number of statements suggesting she is opposed to the draconian nature of the proposed laws, attacking laws which will ‘undermine our most deeply held values’. She is adamant judges must be in control of the process.

Panorama 9th October 2005
Examined the bill and produced a number of criticisms:
a) Three jurors from the 14 month ‘Ricin case’ expressed worries regarding the attitude of the authorities. They sat through months waiting for killer evidence to be produced but none came and they concluded the trial was illiberal and unnecessary. In the end it collapsed without a result.

b) Moazem Begg, Guantanamo detainee, said he would defy the law if not allowed to assist muslims under attack or occupation.

c) Lord Lloyd said defining ‘glorifying, celebrating or exalting’ was virtually impossible and therefore ‘silly’.

d) Lord Steyn was sure it would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, article 10. He felt the government could not be trusted.

e) David Bickford, former MI5 adviser felt the act would alienate the Muslim community for intelligence purposes. It would make us ‘less safe’.

f) Douglas Hurd: said trying to nab people like Omar Bakhri Mohammed, radical imam, was pointless- better to ignore him. Intelligence is key to fighting terror but this won’t help. In favour of using phone taps in court as is Lord Lloyd who sees the non-use as ‘dotty’..

g) Lord Lloyd said the 90 days provision ‘looks like internment’ and is ‘intolerable’.

Internment?
Introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972 and caused huge backlash; this is not a good omen for the new law as many Muslims might be alienated by the measure.
Special Powers Act under which internment was introduced dated back to 1922 and was indeed draconian having nine sections under which the Minister of Home Affairs could: arrest without charge; intern without trial; prohibit the holding of coroner’s inquests; flog, execute, destroy buildings; requisition land or property, ban any organisation, prohibit meetings, publications or even gramophone records. In addition it enabled the home Minister to do what he ‘thinks necessary for the maintenance of order’, even without the agreement of Stormont.

It was annually renewed until 1933 when it was made permanent. They were dissolved in 1973 but then many of their provisions were reinserted into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1974.
What is being proposed is maybe in breach of the HRA but it is no return to internment. However, it seems too close for comfort and that is bad news enough.

Already the bill has been diluted in a number of ways and key clauses redrafted but it still seems likely to incense the Muslim community and may well be more severe than we require or need to prevent acts of terror. But this is a hugely disputed matter and, quite probably the public will follow their usual practice of treating their civil rights in a casual, cavalier way in pursuit of their own security. All this could prove to be counter productive and a whirlwind will be reaped at a later date.

Bill Jones
20/10/05