The War on Terror - Case Study Example

Even though many would revert to the Machiavellian argument of ends justifying means, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the curtailment of human rights in the name of the War on Terror. Western governments such as the United States and the United Kingdom have been, ever since the events of 9/11, gradually undermining the very foundations of the human rights doctrine which they historically espoused. Indeed, as this essay will argue, the counter-terrorism measures which both these countries adopted in the wake of September 11th constitute a direct violation of the very principles of human rights and, accordingly, are solid grounds for concern. The United States and the United Kingdom have been the two countries most committed to the War on Terror. Prior to the attacks of September 11th experts in terrorism said that modern democratic governments were not prepared for the potentially catastrophic threat of international terrorism. It was suggested that “effective systems that integrate international, federal, state, local resources, and institutional capabilities for intelligence and warning; prevention and deterrence; crisis and consequence management; and coordinated acquisition of equipment and technology” be implemented in an attempt to foil terrorist plots, or to limit the potential damage inflicted.1 Unfortunately, the events of September 11th proved that democratic governments were not prepared for such a large-scale attack. As a result, within weeks of the a1 Qaeda attacks on the United States, the United States Congress signed into law the USA Patriot Act. Subsequent to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the United Kingdom also implemented three new anti-terrorist acts. However, there was a divide between the Bush Administration policies and that of the United Kingdom. Unlike the Bush Administration, which advocated preemptive intervention, through their “spit on the sidewalk” policy, the United Kingdom, along with most other European governments, focused on a counterterrorism strategy based on a law enforcement model emphasizing detection, containment, disruption and prosecution of terrorist activities. 2 Nevertheless, both governments advocate that these measures are required to protect national security, while civil rights activists rightly argue that the security measures are infringing upon human rights and civil rights around the world. In response to the attacks of September 11th Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, Act more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT ACT.3 The Act was signed into US law, by President George W. Bush, on October 26, 2001. The primary purpose of the law was to provide US law enforcement, national defense, and intelligence agencies with both new and improved tools to catch terrorists, and other dangerous criminals, in order to prevent another attack on US soil. The PATRIOT Act passed quickly through Congress and was heavily supported by both political parties and by a significant majority of the American public.4 A significant portion of the PATRIOT Act was devoted towards amending the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA), in order to give the President greater surveillance powers.5 FISA became law in 1978 and its primary purpose was to provide guidelines concerning surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering, while at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans from unauthorized surveillance by their government. This was in response to the previous misuse of power, when the FBI used surveillance methods in an attempt to discredit civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.6 The first significant amendment made to FISA was to give President Bush greater executive powers. For example, the executive was now able to eavesdrop on the phone conversations of Americans for up to 72 hours without prior court authorization. It also implemented “roving” surveillance, so that the government was not restricted to eavesdropping on one telephone number, but was also authorized surveillance on all numbers connected to the suspect. The justification for this capability was that it was a surveillance tool already being practiced when investigating drug dealers. Drug dealers were known to constantly change phones, so that they could operate freely during the time that the agents were applying for surveillance approval of the new telephone number. Therefore, the law was changed so that agents only needed permission for surveillance of the target and not the specific numbers. This law now applied to suspected terrorists as well.7 Another provision included the authority to investigate and prosecute anyone found to be financially supporting terrorism and set provisions for court delayed warrants. This was needed so as not to risk tipping off suspected terrorists, which could result in the destruction of evidence, cause the suspects to flee, or take other actions to avoid being caught.8 Additionally, federal agents were able to obtain permission from the FISA Court to acquire items, such as business records, bank records, library records, and credit card receipts. One of the most significant amendments was the elimination of legal barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A major criticism of the government was their failure to possibly prevent the 9/11 attack through coordination and cooperation between government agencies. The new act intended that information gathered could, and should, be shared between all necessary intelligence and law enforcement officers. This provided for broader use of information gathered under FISA surveillance.9 This was based on the premise that all measures must be taken to prevent another terrorist attack. The fight against terrorism was now under the purview of law enforcement, as well as intelligence agencies and required close working relationships in order to catch terrorists before an attack occurred. As mentioned previously, the United States adopted a “spit on the sidewalk” approach. This meant that any misdemeanors, no matter how minor, should be accessible to both law enforcement and intelligence agents. The example that was used to support this approach came to light after the attacks. Two days before 9/11 one of the would-be hijackers, was pulled over by a state trooper for a routine traffic violation and given a citation. If the state trooper had access to other intelligence records, he would have discovered that the man had violated his immigration status since he had enrolled in flight training school without changing his visa status from tourist to student, and that he had been living in the US illegally for over a year. Had the officer known this, he might have been inclined to detain the man.10 While it is not certain that this would have thwarted the attacks, this is an example of what could be a step towards apprehending and possibly preventing those who are threats to national security. In fact, five of the 9/11 hijackers had violated their visas and had grounds for detainment. Of these five, four had been stopped by law enforcement within six months of the attacks.11 The United States is not the only country that has adopted repressive actions as part of their counter-terror measures. After the events of September 1lth, the British government was convinced that their own national security faced serious risks. As a result, the Anti-Terrorist Act of 2001 was drawn up, followed by the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the Terrorism Act of 2006. The United Kingdom already had extensive counter-terrorism measures, prior to the attacks of September 11th, 2001, as a result of terrorist activities by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). However, by November 2001, the United Kingdom enacted a new anti-terrorism statute, known as the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001. The ATCSA shared many similarities to the US PATRIOT Act. Like the PATRIOT Act, provisions of the ATCSA included: cutting off terrorist funding, ensuring that government departments and agencies have the ability to share intelligence, updating and restructuring of immigration procedures, ensuring the security of nuclear and aviation services, extending local police powers to all relevant services and improving the security of dangerous substances that may be used by terrorists. The most controversial aspect of the Act, however, focused around Part Four, which dealt with international suspected terrorist.12 This provision allowed for the confinement, without trial, of a “suspected international terrorist” if the Home Secretary reasonably suspects that the person is a terrorist, and therefore a threat to national security.13 Additionally, if the person is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, they can be detained for an unspecified period, without being charged with a crime.14 This stipulation was retracted after the House of Lords Judicial Committee determined that Part Four of the Act violated the European Convention on Human Rights in regards to the right to liberty and freedom from discrimination, since it applied only to foreign nationals, and did not include British citizens. It was replaced in the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act with a system of “control orders.” Control orders were implemented to enable authorities to impose conditions on individuals, suspected of terrorism, in order to disrupt and prevent terrorist activity. The conditions could range from prohibition of access to specific services, such as the internet, to restriction on movement or curfew. Unlike Part Four of the ATSCA, this rule applied equally to both British and non-British citizens.15 The enactments of the ATSCA lead to the arrests of a dozen men and their detainment, without trial, at Belmarsh Prison, in south London. However, with the repeal of Part Four of the Act, claiming that the Act was discriminatory, the twelve men were released in 2005, but placed under house arrest, while deportation agreements are being negotiated with their home countries.16 The “Belmarsh 12” came from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan. However, the potential deportation has caused protest because of the possibility of the men being tortured and/or killed by the governments in their home countries.17 It was the British Privy Council that suggested house arrest and constant surveillance as a viable option to both avoid indefinite detention and yet protect national security. However, even though the men had been released from prison, this is still a form of keeping them under indefinite detention without trial or charges.18 Following the ATSCA and the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, the 2006 Terrorism Act became a law. The 2006 Terrorist Act created a number of new criminal offenses relating to terrorism. The following are now considered criminal offenses, according to the 2006 Terrorism Act: acts of planning terrorism; the encouraging of terrorism; the distribution of terrorism propaganda. The Act allows for the prosecution of anything that gives or receives terrorist training. Additionally, the 2006 Terrorist Act extended the period of detainment, without charge, from 14 days to 28 days, although, there must be judicial authority after two days.19 Terrorist Acts, such as the ones mentioned above, were partly in response to cases such as that of Abu Hamza. Abu Hamza was an Imam at a mosque in Finsbury Park, in north London, where Richard Reid, the attempted shoe-bomber and Zacarias Moussaoui, "the 2oth hijacker" worshipped. When British authorities raided his mosque in January 2003, they found suspicious items such as a stun gun, CS spray, chemical-warfare protection suits, blank firing pistols, false passports, knives, and radio equipment. However, it was not until the US asked for extradition of Hamza, that British authorities took action against him. He was held for five months before being charged with inciting murder, stirring up racial hatred, and possessing a terrorist document. He has been detained at Belmarsh Prison since this time. This action was taken as a means of protecting security, and it is one example of attempting to dissolve a congregation of extremist.20 While a reading of the foregoing may contribute to the belief that even though human rights are being violated in the name of counter-terrorism and national security, these measures is justifiable, this is not true. Certainly, one cannot argue that the said measures have not contributed to the enhancement of national security but, at the same time, they are eating away at the principle of human rights upon which democracies are founded. That means to say, the counter-terrorism measures adopted by both the United States and the United Kingdom are a violation of pro-civil liberties and human rights laws and legislatures which have a long-standing history in these two countries. This is most definitely cause for concern and it is, thus, that even though the counter-terrorism measures adopted have contributed to national security, alternate strategies/measures must be designed and implemented; counter-terrorism measures which do not violate human rights. Read More