To What Extent Can Laws Adequately Combat Terrorism - Essay Example

TERRORISM PART With recent terrorism incidents in Western countries, these countries are forming firm laws against terrorist activities. Other countries including the Middle East countries have changed, modified or reinvented their laws to suit the present threat hovering over the entire world. The European Commission’s ‘Framework Decision’ to prevent terrorism from taking root is a decisive step towards a trouble free Europe. This ‘Framework Decision’ has many procedures like sanctions, extradition, information exchange, penalties and arrests. Article 3 says: “the following offences… which are intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures of those countries will be punishable as terrorist offences." http://www.una-uk.org/archive/terrorism/terrorismhr.html Terrorism is perhaps the greatest danger mankind is facing today and it has become an enemy of human rights. Refugees and asylum seekers somehow seem to be seething under a sense of ill use and some of the countries to which they belong are now considered to be the breeding grounds of terrorismi. Public protection, national security and individual rights are clashing in Acts made for facing terrorism. This might even result in detention or deportation of people who are rather remotely connected with terrorism, or their refugee status could be revoked on suspicion. But war against terrorism has attained an expansive nature and encompassed the entire universe. David Blunkett, previous Home Secretary of UK, with good reasons, wanted the anti terror measures to be linked with combating illegal immigration, traffickers and granting of asylum. Most of the Western Governments and some of the Eastern nations like India, Nepal, and Srilanka are preoccupied with tackling terrorist activities. Adequately combating terrorism is not perhaps a proper phrase to be used. Terrorism and terrorist activities can never be eradicated fully, whatever could be the laws or however strict could be the security arrangements. A clever criminal can always find a loophole or two in the strong fabricii. In United Kingdom, there are many laws in place that should be able to effectively discourage terrorism. EU laws too cover UK laws and these laws over impose each other, and they should be able to create sufficient barrier against terrorism. But as we can see from recent events like London bombings, even though the laws might have prevented many crimes from erupting, they, predictably, failed to prevent the entire criminal plotting of terrorists from being executed. Terrorism today is globalized and the anti-terrorism laws cross the boundaries of the states and are in the periphery of International Law. They are dangerously interacting with the Human Rights in the process. “Compromising human rights cannot serve the struggle against terrorism,” said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (March 2005). http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGEUR450502005 THE TERRORISM ACT 2000: This act is considered to be the most important counter-terrorism legislation and contains tough counter-terrorism measures. It also changed the image of the police deeply rooted in popular mindsiii. As an answer to the growing international terrorism mainly in Northern Ireland, this Act came into being. Terrorist groups were proscribed according to this Act, bringing a control over various trouble making groups by branding the worst of them as illegal. Such outlawed groups found it difficult to operate from either United Kingdom, or from various parts of Ireland. Their money power too decreased drastically. As a result, international terrorist groups found it impossible to act without enough cash flow. Police powers were enhanced considerably like stop and search powers, detain suspects for up to 14 days without charging etc. even though magistrate’s approval is necessary in periods of more than two days. New offences like inciting terrorist activities, training or receiving training in terrorist organisations anywhere in the world, using any kind of weapons or training others to do so, have all become punishable offences. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search anyone in a specific area. “Despite the considerable military and law-enforcement successes against terrorist networks, the threat from terrorism persists. Attacks may include suicide operations, hijackings, bombings, kidnappings, shootings and attacks on commercial aircraft and shipping. They may also involve the use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials.” http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926 For example, Anthrax was a big threat not very long ago. Being a member of proscribed organisations, or any other group, that had been named by the Government, and makes it an offence punishable up to 10 years in prison, even though any crime has not been committed. Act gives the police the power to detain anyone on suspicion for seven days without being charged. But an approval of the Magistrate is still needed for a detention beyond two days. The Act makes it illegal ‘to incite terrorism abroad ….and to possess objects for terrorist purposes,’ and this also imposes a duty to disclose information of a suspicion that another person has committed a terrorist offence, including money laundering. (Based on http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=97&category=factsheets The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001: This is one of the first reactions to the September 11 attack on United States and to some extent, it replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Act, especially where internment is concerned. Part 4 of the Act, which facilitated indefinite detention of foreign nationals either charged or not charged had been a highly controversial act, as it violates Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights that speaks against arbitrary detention. To opt out of it, in November 2001, Home Secretary declared a state of emergency, which still continues to operate. This also makes United Kingdom the only Member State, who has opted against Article 5 till date. 14 foreign nationals had been detained without being charged as ‘suspected international terrorists’. Even though these people were free to leave UK any time, they were not deported because Government is unsure that they would not be tortured or executed in their own countries. After being detained for three years, the House of Lords, the highest Court in Britain, declared this detention as unlawful. THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2005: Part 4 powers under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were repealed and a system of control ordersiv was placed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. These control orders can be used against any suspected terrorist, irrespective of nationality. They are applied to domestic and international terrorists or terrorist suspects bothv. At the end of relevant three-month period, Home Secretaryvi would be informing the Parliament about exercising these powers. One such stringent measure is the upcoming ID card and this is contested that it would be ineffective in stopping terrorismvii. The Prime Minister recentlyviii outlined the new measures trying to isolate the fanatics who are spreading racial and religious hatred. He hoped that instead of accusing him of scare mongering, people should support him in his ardent fight against terrorists. But in the House of Commons he was defeated by majority votes and was prevented from passing the anti-terrorism legislations. 90 days detention was questioned and words like ‘glorifying terrorism’ and ‘police state’ were heard against the Bill. House of Lords rejected any secret evidence that might have been obtained by torture. But the Prime Minister and Home Secretary implied that Britain missed a unique opportunity of effectively defending itself against terrorism, in a bid of not to come under ‘law of jungle’. John Tommon said further laws could harden the race relationsix. Dr. Ward said, UK laws should be used in conjunction with the Human Rights laws. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489719.htm But the Government still worried about extremism attaining upper hand. Prime Minister is pursuing a hard line trying to make stricter laws against terrorism. “Tony Blair recently warned judges he will renounce part of the European Convention on Human Rights and have "a lot of battles" with courts if they block the deportation of extremists” http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article305157.ece Government is also trying to use cooperation created by European Union and information that they could receive from Member States. British law is being accused of placing cyberterrorists or hackers the same as terrorists such as the IRA according to the broadened definition of terrorist organisations in The Terrorism Act 2000. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/20/hackers_are_terrorists_says_uk/ These laws had not been popular exactly. “One of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman remarked “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these,” http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=97&category=factsheets But the then Home Secretary David Blunkett said “Our duty is to protect our people”. The anti-terrorism acts gave more powers to police to intervene without much legal hindrance and the measures included: 1. Completely cutting off terrorist funding from all the sources. 2. Sharing the information with government agencies and departments if necessary. 3. Changing immigration procedures suitably to counter the terrorist threat. 4. Giving complete attention to the nuclear and aviation safety. 5. Security against dangerous substances that could be used by terrorists. 6. Extending police powers available to relevant forces. 7. Ensuring that European obligations in the area of police and judicial co-operation and international obligations to counter bribery and corruption. These laws have been put into practice as effectively as possible, though it does not mean that terrorism has been completely rooted out of UK. Still attempts from all directions have been focussed into targeting terrorist activities. Border control has become an important part of anti terrorist activities so that visitors and passengers do not become part of terrorism activities and cause security risk. Security Service (M15), Immigration and Customs and the Police can share intelligence, work with each other’s co-operation in any mode of transport or services. Airports and Ports have strengthened security and increased screening and searching facilities and the number of well-trained staff has increased. Searching powers of immigration and custom officers are increased. Sea Carriers and Flights are requested to share information about passengers, crew and freight to and fro UK. Immigration control is streamlined and controlled. Cross government initiatives are given importance to be ready for biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear or any other kind of violent attacks by terrorists. Mock attacks are staged and the machinery is tested. Police officers, fire fighters and medical staff are trained to face emergency situations. All the terrorist organisation funds are frozen at UK source. UK has created an unfavourable atmosphere for terrorists to function from here. This does not mean that internal terrorist organisations or group of individuals do not work. The recent London Bombings brought out the truth about some of the young people, British by citizenship, Muslim by faith. They have effectively planned and executed the bombings and intellegence agencies had no clue about it. No doubt, various acts are in place and are working very well. But it is almost impossible to know the movement of each person without contradicting their civil liberties. Now the situation has come to a peculiar pause. Civil Rights organisations want the civil liberties to remain untouchedx. People who are worried about terrorist attacks are asking the Government to take stricter measures to combat terrorism. A middle way, involving communities and religions has to be worked out with common consensus. PART 2 A (FC) V The Secretary of state for the Home Department [2004] Detaining of 10 foreign nationals The detention of 12 foreign nationals for almost three years without trial, on grounds of suspicion, created a commotion in the legal and political circles. There is no doubt that in cases relating to certain detainees, there had been substantial evidence, evoking suspicion, although it cannot be said about all the detainees. They could not be deported due to the hindrance of not knowing if they would be tortured or executed in their own homelands. They were not ‘conducing to the public good in United Kingdom’ and hence, Home Office had placed them under detention. These Belmarsh detainees had to wait for a long time, to be free mainly due to the recent Anti-Terrorist laws of the country. There were fears about their mental and physical health. “The prisoner’s physical and mental health are vital; enabling him to endure interrogation (and similarly the rest of his ordeal), to seize any opportunity for escape and – ultimately – allowing him to readjust to a normal life after his release,” Chutterbuck (p.71). The detention provisions in Part 4 are the highly controversial part of the ATCSAxi. “Detention depends on certification by the Home Secretary as a substitute for a trial. Under s.21 (1) the Home Secretary can issue a certificate in respect of a person on the basis of (a) a reasonable belief that the person’s presence in the UK is a ‘risk to national security’ and (b) reasonable suspicion that he or she is a terrorist,” Freedman (p.87). The Law Lords have severely criticised the administration for detaining 12 men without trial (The Belmarsh Detainees) for the only reason that they were not UK citizens and could not be deported because the UK Government was not sure if they would be tortured or executed in their home countriesxii. Secret intelligence information had implicated them and Government was of the opinion that the informationxiii was too sensitive to be publicised. Charles Clarke, Home Secretary promised that a change in legislation would be brought in. He suggested that Control Orders like house arrest, access to Internet and phone and tagging. House of Lords is of the opinion that Home Secretary’s action in detaining the 12 foreigners is unacceptable. http://sixthform.info/lawblog/b2print.php?p=157 There are supporters of Government action too. If the foreigners are not conducive with the local society and are known to be troublemakers and have links with terrorists, Government has no other option, other than either detaining them or deporting them. As their fate after reaching their home country is open to speculation, they have to be detained here, because leaving them lose in the society could cause much bigger harms. Certain circles are of the opinion that Government does not have much option left open, as it is the first duty of the Government to safeguard the security of the country and citizens. Here one cannot help feeling that the laws are either faulty or inadequate. Introducing new laws to tackle terrorism is one way of preventing it. Home Office websitexiv is full of plans to make the communities to lead response against extremism. The practical proposals they have entertained for ‘Preventing Extremism together’ are codified in the site. “The final proposals include: 1. A professional programme to work with imams and mosque officials in the UK; 2. A British Muslim citizenship toolkit to equip Islamic societies, mosques, parents and youth to deal with extremist tendencies. 3. An Islamic way of life exhibition to tour schools to increase understanding about Islam. 4. A national campaign to increase the visibility of Muslim women and empower them to become informed and active citizens. 5. Developing opportunities for young British Muslims to be leaders and active citizens. 6. Improving the quality of teaching and learning of religious education with an emphasis on life skills and citizenship. 7. Supporting places of worship to become community hubs”. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/communities-to-lead-response House of Lords, while giving their opinion on the above casexv, made a historical decision in Acts against terrorismxvi. The House of the Lords was of the opinion that foreign nationals should not be locked up indefinitely as ‘it is not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation’. They opined that it is inconsistent with obligations under the International Law and Article 14 of the European Convention. They upheld the minority rights and said the undeportable foreigners should be set free as charges against them are negligible and they declared section 23 of the 2001 Act incompatible with the right to liberty in Article 5(1) of the European Convention. Two different opinions are raging on this issue since the event took place, as there are two sides of this case. The edges of both the opinions are quite blurred and it is difficult to figure out where one ends and another begins. Both arguments are pertinent and important. To some extent, both sides sound right. One is of Human Rights and from this angle, it looks unacceptable that these unfortunate people should be locked up for years without being charged or a trial to establish their innocence. At the same time, Government had not foolishly arrested them. They had been arrested after receiving intelligence reports about their suspicious activities and with enough reasons and evidences. Some of them had undergone extensive training in the training camps of Pakistan for years, leaving a comfortable life in United Kingdom or elsewhere. It is impossible to fathom the reasons other than terrorist intentions why any individual should undergo such rigorous training. The Home office, Secretary and the authorities acted on the intelligence reports received by them, and from the national security point of view they acted correctly. People who are highly conscious of civil rights do not agree with such stringent measures. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the Anti Terrorism Acts are stifling Civil Liberties. It is frightening to watch the course these draconian laws are taking. It is even more baffling to speculate where would they end one day. The voice of Human Rights and Civil Liberties should never be stifled unless we would like to slide back into stone ages. They are the shining beacons of the present civilization. If we lose them, we would lose a considerable portion of human advancement and whatever else humankind might achieve, would be useless. So, guarding Human Rights and Civil Liberties is all the more important in this sensitive issue. Governments should also be careful not to play into the hands of terrorists. “Over-reaction would not only poison our way of life, it would also play into the terrorists’ hands, by building more public sympathy for them, and would increase what is now only a tiny trickle of recruits to their ranks,” Clutterbuck (149). The remaining alternative is to find out how to strike a balance between national security and civil liberty of the individual? Every Government is finding it extremely difficult to achieve this seemingly impossible goal. Terrorism has not stayed where it was. Prior to September 11 attack, terrorism restricted itself to traditional explosives and weapons and with that attack, the terrorist world showcased its modern arsenal. Terrorists had been reaching out towards sophistication and flawless planning for a long time. Their destruction machinery had not been limited to hand grenades or home made bombs any more. Instead, they had expanded their sphere into biological, nuclear and even chemical warfare and many such attacks had shown their complete expertise. “Of these, one of the most unnerving was the March 1995 nerve-gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, killing twelve but also affecting thousands of others,” Freedman (p.1). Hence, difficult laws are necessary to face this unprecedented situation. Then again, the laws and recent acts are conflicting with other more important concerns. `It is often told that terrorism places democratic values under pressure. Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA)xvii comes into conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and hence, had been targeted by Civil Liberty groups even after facing many acts of terrorism. At present, from every angle, including researching, plenty of exploration is being conducted on terrorism. Scientific Enquiry has come into the field of terrorism and many researches are being conducted by sociologists and psychologists to decipher the reasons behind an individual transforming into a terrorist or a suicide attacker. “The legal approach to terrorism and its consequences for national and international law can certainly profit insofar, as the social science stress the rational choice basis of many terrorist activity and its perpetrators. This means, that terrorists are – in principle – assessable, but they have also to be understood as members of a group, subjected to its dynamic laws,” Walter et al (2004, p.21). Special Immigration Commission has gained an all-important status in connection with Anti terrorism legislations. Detainees who cannot be deported from UK are tried by Special Immigration Commission for the assessment of evidences against them. “The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) plays a crucial role in this scheme, since in most instances it will represent the only means of challenging the decision to detain,xviii” Freedman (p.92). As democracies exist on human values and human liberty, it is a time of stress and strain for the lawmakers. It is not easy to for them to stretch the values and principles beyond a certain point, without jeopardising the inherent preciousness of mankind. “But since it is unarguable that counter terrorist measures such as detention without trial are opposed to human rights norms treated as fundamental by liberal democracies, they should be subjected to the most rigorous tests for proportionality: an immediate and effective in combating it and should go no further than necessary to meet it,” Fenwick (p.101). Viewed from the opposite standpoint, it is not possible to be indifferent to the threats of terrorism and keep the liberties intact. Every Government of the world is facing this crucial question today. “On the other hand, if a government fails to protect its citizens, those citizens may take the law into their own hands by forming, first, vigilante groups and then, as law and order breaks down, their own private armies. This was the road to Nazism,” Clutterbuck (1975, p.149). The tough laws eat away into many human freedoms. The main target had been the privacy of people. The extensive data stored in various agencies including Social Work Department, Police, Intelligence and Home Office and Foreign office, every bit of it, is a rude encroachment on human privacy and individual dignity. “Moreover fingerprints and photographs are retained and filed, unlike the position of a person who has been charged with an offence and is subsequently acquitted where the police are obliged to destroy the fingerprints,” Hain et al (1979, p.141). The Acts are effective if they are given proper execution. But in United Kingdom, there are many institutions that would check them from being executed completely. European Union laws bring more obstructions in the form of Human Rights. “Whilst EC/EU law has an impact on domestic law only within fields of European Union competence, the Human Rights Act 1998 can be used directly to challenge any Government action which has an impact on Convention rights” Wadham (p.114). So, it is a war between the Acts and Human Rights and Civil Liberties facing each other and the terrorists attacking both from every angle. It is an unfortunate situation that terrorism has come to stay. Till now, there is no indication that terrorists could be slowing down. “Their creed is negative – to destroy society as it is, but without having any clear idea of what they want to substitute in its place. Violence and disruption, in themselves, provide their main satisfaction. Unlike the nationalist movements, therefore, they are unlikely to cure themselves or to be cured by a discovery that logic shows their activities to be counter-productive,” Clutterbuck (1975, p.146). In the Parliament, a Joint Parliamentary Committee of Human Rights exists to assess matters relating to human rights and proposals for remedial ordersxix. This is another check on Government laws to make sure that human rights are untouched. There are demands to have an extensive database providing information about terrorists, or suspected terrorists to any Governments who need them and eventually this has to happen, as terrorism is being internationalised. The present case has effectively shown the strengths and pitfalls of the existing Acts. It also has showcased the need to tighten the laws in certain aspects and liberalise in other areas. No doubt, there is no definite formula to combat terrorism, which has shown an unbridled tendency of growing in leaps and bounds. But with experience and skill, administrations should be able to control terrorism, without harming civil liberties and human rights of the suspected lot. It would definitely take some time before such balance is achieved. Eventually, the world has to curb terrorism some way or other, to maintain peace and security of people. To achieve that distant end, it would require Herculean effort from all concerned. It would definitely be achieved one day. But here we are concerned about the means adopted to reach the end. Sometimes, means are more important than the end itself. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Clutterbuck, Richard (1975), Living with Terrorism, Faber & Faber, London. 2. Freedman, Lawrence (2002), ed., Superterrorism: Policy Responses, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 3. Hain, Peter, Humphry, Derek and Rose-Smith, Brian, Policing the Police, Vol. 1, John Calder, London. 4. Moxon-Brown, Edward (1994), European Terrorism, G.K. Hall & Co., New York. 5. Moon, Gay (1998), ed. Race Discrimination, Developing and Using a new legal framework, vol. 1, Hart Publishing, Oxford. 6. Walter, Christian, Silja Voneky, Volker Roben, fank Schorkoph (2004), Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security versus Liberty? Springer, London. 7. Wadham, John, Mountfield, Helen and Edmundson, Anna (2003), The Human Rights Act 1998, Oxford University Press. JOURNALS AND NEWSPAPERS: 1. Daily Mail 2. IRR News ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.una-uk.org/archive/terrorism/terrorismhr.html 2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489719.htm 3. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article305157.ece 4. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/20/hackers_are_terrorists_says_uk 5. http://news. amnesty.org/index/ENGEUR450502005 6. http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926 7. http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=97&category=factsheets 8. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-1.htm 9. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/communities-to-lead-response 10. http://sixthform.info/lawblog/b2print.php?p=157 http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:yh0CdznIxw4J:www.oup.com/uk/booksites/content/1841741833/resources/Updateschaps/chap08+A+(FC)+V+The+Secretary+of+state+for+the+Home+Department+%5B2004%5D&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=7   .  Read More