In the Name of National Security: The Issue of Terrorism - Term Paper Example

 IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY Introduction Terrorism may be perceived as a lot of things. On one hand it is seen as an action taken by one to deal with the aggression and the hostility of ‘oppressors’, a fight for freedom and justice and on the other hand it is seen as a crime against humanity. It may even be viewed as false flag operations carried out for the sheer purpose of fulfilling political agendas. Whatever the reality may be, those who are at the receiving end are all the same. It is the proverbial innocence that is put under the knife. Terrorism is the organized use of horror. There is no globally agreed definition of terrorism at present. Ordinary definitions of terrorism pass on only to those acts that are planned to generate fear are responsible for an ideological goal and intentionally target or pay no attention to the safety of non-combatants. A few definitions moreover comprise acts of unlawful aggression and war. The past of terrorist organizations recommends that they do not choose terrorism for its political usefulness. Individual terrorists have a propensity to be motivated more by a wish for social harmony with other members of their association than by political platforms or planned objectives, which are often shadowy and approximate. The term terrorism is politically and psychologically charged, and this to a great extent compounds the complicatedness of providing an accurate definition. In 1988, one study by the US Army established that over hundred definitions of the utterance terrorism have been used. A person who applies terrorism is a terrorist. The idea of terrorism is itself contentious for the reason that it is frequently used by states to delegitimise political adversary, and hence legitimize the state's own employ of terror adjacent to those opponents. Terrorism has been second-hand by a wide array of political organizations in getting more to their objectives; together right and left-wing political parties, patriotic, and holy groups, innovative and ruling governments. The occurrence of non-state performers in widespread-armed clash has created hullabaloo regarding the submission of the laws of war. Despite the fact that acts of terror campaign are criminal acts as for each the United Nations Security Council Resolution and domestic jurisprudence of approximately all countries in the world, terrorism refers to an observable fact including the definite acts, the perpetrators of acts of bombing and their intentions. Origin of term Terror is from a Latin word that means ‘to frighten’. The terror was a panic and condition of emergency in Rome in reaction to the approach of warriors of the tribe of Cimbri in 105BC. The Jacobins cited this approach when he imposed a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The word terrorist became a word of abuse after the Jacobins lost power. Even though the Reign of Terror was being imposed by a government, in modern times terrorism normally is referred to the killing of innocent people by a group in such a manner as to manufacture a media spectacle. In 1869Nechayev made the Russian terrorist group People's Retribution. A United Nations Security Council report stated in November 2004: ‘Terrorism as any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act’. History of Terrorism The word "terrorism" was at first used to explain the actions of the Jacobin Club throughout the "Reign of Terror" in the French revolt. Edmund Burke criticized the Jacobins for letting thousands of persons hell hounds called terrorists movable upon the people of France in 1795. Italian patriot Felice Orsini heaves three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III in January 1858. Eight eyewitnesses were killed and 142 injured. The event played a vital role as an encouragement for the expansion of the early Russian terrorist groups. In 1869, Russian Sergey Nechayev, who established People's Retribution, described himself as a rebel, an untimely example of the word being employed in its modern meaning. Fyodor Dostoevsky tells Nechayev’s tale in fictionalized form in the novel The Possessed. In the 1880s German nihilist writer Johann most bestows advice for terrorists. Terrorist acts have been in existence since centuries. It can be defined as a strategy of terrorists, which they refer to as justified reaction to oppression and unforgivable hatred. It is a destruction of people by the people with an ambition of rebelling against the real or imaginary unjust acts of the government. In light of this, government sanctioned activities such as those carried out during war may also be considered terrorism. A seaming misconception maybe that terrorism is a product of paramilitary organizations alone. National Security and Terrorism Ever since 9/11 ‘terrorism’ has become a popular catch phrase for the media. This has also been intensified by the fact that various governments have started to track down people who they suspect to be terrorist or have links to terrorist’s organizations. Such people who have been placed under suspicion haven been taken into custody without being formally charged with an offence. This option that is available to the governments has aroused controversy among various groups. The government cannot be blamed, as some sort of initiative needs to be taken as the government and its relative agencies/ institutions are a source of securing welfare of the people that have elected it. On the other hand, it can also lead to innocent people being a victim of the action taken by the government. The aforementioned option is a highly debatable one and arguably there are both, merits and demerits to it. Pros Terrorism is a crime against humanity and thus some action needs to be taken. Thus, the governments’ initiative of tracking down suspects puts a halt on terrorist activities. In order to do this, a list of all those people who are somehow related to an incident become suspects and are taken into custody because of which further terrorism can be potentially put to a halt. Furthermore, this sends a message to a terrorist organization that a particular government is not turning a blind eye to them. On the contrary, they are being monitored by the state, which is doing some thing to deal with the situation. Given that terrorist organizations may not necessarily be associated with any rogue state, but in fact they may be independent organizations that operate through informal channels and remote locations, unlike the underworld, which are also rogue organizations but operate through prevalent channels such as established businesses (casinos, breweries, sports betting, movie industry etc.), investigating and ceasing terrorist activities may be difficult. Underworld crime is frequent and anticipatable whereas a terrorist act is singular and unpredictable, occurring anywhere and anytime. Thus, detaining suspected people assists the state to bringing closer to the root of terrorism. Another benefit is that the steps of maintaining the national security taken by the authorities create a sense of protection amongst the people of the nation when they see their government is doing something to tackle the problem. It helps the state to restrict the terrorist activities from taking place. Such a measure taken by the state is based on certain criteria, which can turn into warning signal for terrorists as it conveys a sense of alertness on the government’s side, which can act as a deterrent for terrorism. Lastly, such an approach is relatively more subtle and more constructive than launching a military campaign in a particular region, where civilian life can be put on stake as well resulting in a great deal of resources being expended. Cons In contrast to the above-mentioned benefits, there are certain drawbacks. Firstly, arresting people based on mere suspicion is quite a dubious approach. The criterion that is used to take suspects into is often too general involving basic characteristics such as appearance, religion, nationality etc. Based on this, a lot of innocent people can be taken into custody as well. If such people are held for indefinite periods, it can subject them to a lot of mental torment and suffering. This in turn can result in resentment amongst the minorities who share such characteristics and they may lose faith in the government and even the nation. Even the vast majority might deem this option as a makeshift approach to dealing with terrorism. Moreover, it can create a phobia amongst the majorities, who may start perceive the people falling into such characteristics in a sceptical and hateful manner which can lead to ethnic violence and hate crimes disturbing the social order. Given the controversy associated with taking people into custody without formally charging them can even make terrorist outfits popular and provoke them to further terrorist activities as they may gain support from those who are being targeted by the government. It is also a violation of civil liberty and human rights to arrest a person without charging them with any offence. Every individual has a right to defend himself in the court of law and is innocent until proven guilty regardless of the magnitude of the crime. Fundamental rights cannot be suspended in any circumstances. Right to liberty and freedom from confinement is a basic right and no government should detain anyone indefinitely. What the constitution says It is considered that the threat of terrorism is a phenomenon, which is an ideological enforcement, which reflects a cultural Islamic fundamentalist view. Therefore, the anti-terrorism measures such as the one discussed above have been adopted to deal with suspected terrorists posing such a danger and are aimed predominantly at members of Muslim and Arab immigrant communities. Such measures involving the criterion and profiles based upon religion, national origin and race are in complete contradiction with Article 14 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin or any other status. In one of the constitutional laws of Belgium, the EC (European Court) has granted permission to national courts that they can impose restriction upon ECHR rights with some sort of discretion and this will always vary according to circumstances depending upon the background provided there is a reasonable justification and legitimate proof. The terrorist organizations in consideration are typically well informed about the constitutional laws and their right to freedom. As a result of which, when the government tries to ban a certain organization it contradicts the said constitution as it is a violation of freedom of association. Despite this, there is considerable for banning such organizations amongst the common men, as they perceive such organizations as potentially dangerous as they can perform random acts of violence and provoke criminal activities. In 2000, the parliament of UK signed an act known as Terrorism Act, 2000 (TA 2000). This act of parliament is described as "an Act to make provision about terrorism. The preservation of peace and the maintenance of order." This act made some changes regarding the prevention of terrorism that gave rise to the elimination of few rights as dictated by ECHR. Of this, one was the right under section 41 for a police to arrest a suspected terrorist without a warrant. This was a direct breach of article 5 of the ECHR which relates to right to liberty and freedom. In addition to this, under Schedule 8 of the TA, 2000, a police officer could apply for a warrant and extend the detention time from the time of the arrest for up to seven days, if there were reasonable grounds that justified such an extension. Under such a provision, there is a seeming discrepancy with Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which sets detention time limit of 96 hours. It is specified in section 53 that a suspect can be detained up to 9 hours at a port or a border, in order to determine if the suspect is involved in the groundwork and the instigation of terrorist act. Such provisions have been defended by stating that the police are acting as any other reasonable person would have acted in a similar circumstance. In recent times, however, the measures available to the government have been put under strict review. It has also been stated by the Newton Committee in their review of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) that the threat itself had greater significance as opposed to the ideology and nationality of the supposed perpetrator. In light of this, an appropriate national measure has to be taken by the EC when preparing profiles of suspects based on race, religion or nationality. If any deviations occur from ECHR, in regards to taking action upon such profiles, then there should substantial justification for it. The margin for any deviation show is narrow and has been narrowed in recent times. A large number of intellectuals from the legal community have voiced concerns over such laws and have openly stated that there is a clear conflict between acts to safeguard national security and acts to secure human rights. In presence of such a conflict, one has to supersede the other. In the former case, the Home Secretary has also issued a certificate whereby a person can be held indefinitely. There is a great deal of discrimination as far as this is concerned, as U.K. nationals cannot be detained under mere suspicion let alone be detained indefinitely. In many other accounts, the constitution allows for detaining suspects indefinitely if there is a state of public emergency. In this case, however, questions can rise again as to what is the extent of the emergency, if there is an emergency in the first place. Thus the outright conflict still stands. Many have criticized the treatment of these suspects who are in custody, including Lord Steyn. He has argued that places like the Guantanamo Bay do not even meet the international standards of fair trial. He has also been quoted to saying in reference to the whole process as a “preordained, arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal, which makes a mockery of justice”. In such situations, governments should take responsible steps in maintaining their national security. This would mean, doing so without actually compromising upon the human rights as lay down by their respective country’s constitution. Conclusion Without a doubt the anti-terrorism acts and measures that have been adopted by various governments are controversial and have raised a lot of concerns around various groups around the globe. Maintaining national security is obviously one of the greatest priorities for any government, if not the greatest priority. At the same time however, the civil liberties of an individual cannot be compromised and human rights cannot be given secondary importance. As discussed above, there have been numerous accounts of direct violations of the human rights as outlined by the constitution. The acts that have been developed are in many ways self-contradictory and directly in conflict with the constitution itself. Detaining people without formally charging them, merely on the grounds of race, religion and nationality, have serious political implications and as such need to reviewed and appropriated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Discriminatory Profiles: Law Enforcement after 9/11 and 7/7: Daniel Moeckli, p 517- 532 Guantanemo Bay, London: John Cooper: New Law Journal 16 October 2004 p 41 Law versus Terrorism: Can Law Win: Brice Dickson: European Human Rights Law Review 2005, p 11-28 Human Rights at Bay: Peter Williamson: Law Society Gazette Vol 100 No 43 p 18 Human Rights in the Age of Terrorism: Mary Arden: Law Quarterly Review 2005, 121(Oct), pp 604-627 Legislating Against Terror: THE Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Adam Tomkins: Public Law p 205-220 Taking a World View: Kevin Martin: Law Society Gazette Vol 102 No 38 p 16 Terrorism and Criminal Justice: Past, Present and Future: Clive Walker: Criminal Law Review 2004 Supp (50th) Terrorism and Human Rights: A Case Study in Impending Legal Realities: Conor Gearty: Legal Studies 1999 p 367-379 The Futility of the Human Rights Act: K.D. Ewing: public law 2004 p 829-852 The Terrorism Act 2000: J.J Rowe QC: Criminal Law Review p 527-542 Read More