Interrogation Procedures and Anti-terrorism Laws of the United Kingdom - Term Paper Example

In light of the concerns placed on the legality of UK interrogation procedures in relation to anti terrorism laws, “rule of law”…… Table of Content Chapter Page No. Introduction 02 Anti-Terrorism Provisions 03 The Forgotten Detainees 05 Creating Terrorist Suspects 06 Reflection 07 Conclusion 08 Bibliography 09 ”Citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts. The incorporation of the European Convention will establish a floor, not a ceiling, for human rights”. 1997 Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto ”Should legal obstacles arise we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights”. Prime Minister Tony Blair, 5 August 2005 (United Kingdom, Human Rights: a broken promise, web.amnesty.org) We have never had a trial. We were found guilty without one. We are imprisoned indefinitely and probably forever. We have no idea why. We have not been told what the evidence is against us. We are here. Speak to us. Listen to us. Tell us what you think and why. The Forgotten Detainees, Belmarsh Prison 1.0 Introduction The attrition of human rights by the government policy inclined to fight terrorism developed over decades in relation to the conflict in Northern Ireland, and this was given renewed impetus by the UK’s actions in response to the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001.Then came the events of 7 and 21 July 2005 in London and its suburbs, when a series of explosions rocked a business-like morning in London. Ever since the 11 September 2001 catastrophe, the UK authorities have passed a series of new laws, even though the UK already had some of the toughest "anti-terrorism" laws in Europe. These laws contain sweeping provisions that contravene human rights law, and their implementation has led to serious abuses of human rights. The shooting and killing of an innocent man in broad daylight by police officers is a stark reminder of the law and order in the UK today. People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have found themselves in a Kafkaesque world. They have been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute. After the events of 7 and 21 July 2005 in London, more draconian measures were proposed. These included a new Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament. Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial (United Kingdom, Human Rights: a broken promise, amnesty.org, referred on 15.04.2006).1 2.0 Anti Terrorism Provisions “In 1974 when the Irish Troubles once more flared up, the UK government responded with a Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The PTA made it an offence for any individual to belong to a banned group and contained special powers of arrest and detention. After 9/11, however, the Terrorism Act (TA) was hastily augmented by Parliament in the form of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) in 2001. ATCSA made further provision for dealing with terrorism by freezing terrorist owned funds and property, disclosing of information, stop weapons of mass destruction, and enhancing police powers. Parliament introduced a new regime called "Control Orders" under PTA of 2005.Under this legislation the Home Secretary can, subject to judicial oversight, make orders which place a wide range of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals suspected of being involved in terrorist related activities. Any individual within the UK, including British citizens, can be subjected to a Control Order. Control Orders can prohibit individuals from using specific article or substances, place restrictions on his/her work, and monitor the people they are associated with, tap their communication links, and curb their freedom of movement. A Control Order can also require that a person reside at certain place, effectively under house arrest. This bill did not last the distance and had to be amended. The Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament by Home Secretary Charles Clarke on 11th October 2005. In this Bill, Clause 1 sought to punish those abetting terrorism, while Clause 2 prohibited the dissemination of terrorist publications incompatible with the Human Rights Act by the courts” (Richard Edwards, Jurist Legal News and Research, New Rules of the Game: The UK Terrorism Bill, jurist.law.pitt.edu, referred on 15.04.2006)2 “The complexity of this Act can be interpreted using Clause 1(1) that seeks to punish anyone who publishes a statement that can instigate an act of terrorism. This can be construed as a direct or indirect encouragement or inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.’ A terrorist act is one that falls within the scope of the broad definition of terrorism contained in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Thus the Act will apply to not only Islamic militants who praise the 7/7 attacks but also to animal rights extremists. Clause 1(2) states that the public will have understood any statement of glorification, whether it includes any praise or celebration of either the commission of such acts or statements that seek to persuade others to commit such acts. It is irrelevant whether the statement is understood as encouragement or indeed whether anyone is encouraged. This Clause is seen as breaching the liberty on free speech” (Richard Edwards, Jurist Legal News and Research).3 3.0 The Forgotten Detainees 11 March 2005, the remaining nine detainees were granted bail after three and a half years of detention without trial. After the Law Lords ruled in December 2004 that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) contravened the European Convention on Human Rights, the Home Office found it difficult to oppose this move to grant bail. Abu Qatada and Abu Rideh, plus the other remaining seven suspects were bailed out. Despite being granted bail, Abu Rideh and another suspect have remained in Broad Moor mental hospital. There are strict conditions set for their bail. The suspects have electronic tags on them; they are made to stay at home, and have to be indoors from 7pm to 7am. Other restrictions include disclosing movements while leaving and entering their home, restricted contacts with outsiders, reveal names, addresses, photos and date of birth of people intended to meet, and request permission to attend pre-arranged meetings of up to ten people except when going to Mosque. The list of inhumane treatment for these suspects goes on and on (Fairtrials.org.uk, referred on 16.04.2006)4. 4.0 Creating Terrorist Suspects The ‘War on Terror’ Act introduced by the government promotes a racist culture of suspicion towards migrant Asian and Muslim communities. It generates and manipulates public fears to justify a perpetual state of war. Suspects will then be classified as terrorists by: Non-distinguishing of anti-government protests and organised violence against civilians Placing entire communities under suspicion of associating with such terrorism Using intelligence obtained by torturing detainees abroad Waging psychological warfare Using anti-terror powers to detain people The Terrorism Act 2000 had already extended the definition of terrorism to include “The threat of serious damage to property”, designed to influence the government for a political cause. Organisations can be banned on the basis that their activities in other countries. It extended police powers to detain suspects incommunicado. This has led to the attack on free speech in this country. Activists suspected as being terrorists and been booked under the Terrorist Act and put in jail. 5.0 Reflection A few instances to prove the misappropriation of the Act are shown below: 1. In 2002 campaigners for Kurdish rights were prosecuted for terrorist links, on the grounds that they had held placards listing several banned organisations. In reality they had been among 6000 demonstrators ridiculing the ban on various organizations. They were seen sporting T-shirts which said ‘I am the PKK’ (Kurdistan Workers Party). 2. Distributors of the Turkish-language magazine Vatan were being harassed since 2000. In December 2002, some distributors were arrested on grounds that they were promoting and financing a banned organisation by selling the magazine. 3. After the 11 September attacks, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001 granted further powers of detention and surveillance. It even mandated that all were to inform of any suspected terrorist activities. Under this law, Muslim charities had their bank accounts temporarily frozen under suspicion of financing terrorism abroad. 4. The ATCSA of 2001 authorised the internment of non-UK citizens in circumstances where the Home Secretary suspected terrorist links but inadequate evidence for a prosecution. Armed with this power, several foreign nationals were interned for an indefinite period. Internment breached the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (Creating Terrorist Suspects: The “War on Terror” at Home, cacc.org.uk, referred on 16.04.2005).5 6.0 Conclusion Many of the measures introduced since September 2001 involved punishment of people against whom there was insufficient evidence to present to a court but who the authorities had decided were a threat to national security. A fundamental principle of criminal law is that offences should be clear that everyone knows what behaviour is criminalised. The anti-terrorism legislation passed since 2000 had included an increasing number of broad and vague terms. A criminal justice system that includes such features is neither fair nor just nor lawful – and soon results in the loss of public confidence. The UK has attempted to reverse the legal ban on the admissibility in judicial proceedings of evidence obtained through torture and other ill-treatment. The UK is seeking diplomatic assurances that foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activities will not be subject to serious human rights violations, upon deportation from the UK. These assurances are unenforceable, and seriously damage the prohibition of torture. The global impact of the UK’s counter-terrorism measures and its actions abroad should not be underestimated. By undermining fundamental human rights at home and abroad, the UK has effectively given a green light to other governments to abuse human rights, while its own credibility in promoting human rights world-wide has been seriously weakened (web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur450042006)6 7.0 Bibliography United Kingdom, Human Rights: a broken promise, http://www. web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur450042006 Richard Edwards, Jurist Legal News and Research, New Rules of the Game:The UK Terrorism Bill, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/new-rules-of-game-uk-terrorism-bill.php Fairtrials.org.uk Creating Terrorist Suspects: The “War on Terror” at Home, cacc.org.uk Read More