The Need to Protect the U.K. From Terrorists - Essay Example

Introduction The events that took place in the United s on September 11, 2001 transformed the world. For the first time, terrorists struck at the heart of the free, industrialized world; and they did so with a sting that continues to be felt to this day. The message sent by the terrorists on that day was heard loud and clear: if New York and Washington could be struck with such ferocity, so too can London, Madrid, Paris, Berlin or any other major city around the globe. Thus, September 11 called for a wholesale reevaluation of the security of the United Kingdom, and a measure of introspection regarding the nation's commitment to human and civil rights when that commitment presents an obstacle to assuring the national security. The question of where to draw the line between concern for human rights and the need to protect the U.K. from terrorists has been quite perplexing over the past five years. Many have argued that Britain's Human Rights Act has undermined the government's ability to fight terrorists and essentially shackles the country in the face of a home-based terrorist threat. At the same time, Great Britain has been assailed as having taken the most steps to curtail basic civil rights of any country in Europe since September 11. Striking the right balance between preserving a free and open society and securing the nation has been difficult, to say the least. The al Qaeda bombings of July, 2005 have made achieving this balance even more difficult. Terrorism has forced the countries of the free world to closely reevaluate the values upon which their societies and governmental systems are based. The question of how much curtailing of civil rights is acceptable in the face of this 21st Century threat is one that calls upon all free countries, Britain included, to consider and pronounce to the world how committed they really are to the fundamental values they have professed for so many centuries. The extent to which countries such as Great Britain and the United States are willing to curtail human rights and civil liberties is arguably evidence of the extent to which the terrorists have succeeded in defeating liberty around the world. Britain's Balance between Human Rights and Security Britain's response to the September 11 attacks was almost immediately to sacrifice human rights in favor of security. The U.K was cited by Amnesty International as the "only European country to breach basic human rights by detaining suspected terrorists without trial" ("Amnesty Singles Out Britain," 2002, para. 2). At issue was the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, which led to eleven terrorism suspects to be detained without being charged or otherwise afforded due process under the law. The law "enables Britain's police to detain indefinitely and without trial any non-U.K. citizen suspected of terrorism who can't be deported, because of fears the suspect would be executed or tortured in his home country" (Champion, 2001, para. 2). In addition, the law "will enable law-enforcement agencies to access individual tax, customs and financial records to track suspects; require airlines and other carriers to supply passenger and freight manifests; and enable police to freeze a suspect's bank accounts as soon as an investigation begins, among other new powers" (para. 12). This willingness to suspend civil liberties in the face of a potential security threat has been considered problematic from the standpoint of adhering to the liberal democratic values that have been the foundation of the country's governmental system. Among the many measures adopted by Britain in the wake of September 11 were the ability to "detain foreign nationals who cannot be deported to a safe third country for an indefinite period without trial," the imposition of restrictions on the press "to prevent them reporting matters deemed to be helpful to potential terrorists, such as the movement of nuclear material," a "requirement for Internet service providers to retain Internet and e-mail traffic for 12 months, and a provision to allow the passing of information on individuals obtained by one government department to another department which may require it for criminal or security reasons" ("Britain New Anti-Terrorism," 2001). These provisions each took a big step toward sacrificing some of the key principles of a free liberal democracy. And since the bombings in London in 2005, even more aggressive measures have been adopted in the name of protecting the security of the country. The terrorist attacks of July, 2005 resulted in a further abridgement of civil rights in the name of national security (Kirka, 2005, para. 3). "It says something about these anxious times in Britain that both liberals and conservatives are trying to out-tough one another to make it clear that no one here will tolerate terror. But critics and the Muslim community are raising concerns that the balance is being skewed between the rights of individuals and the need to prevent another attack in a country where many concepts of civil rights first took hold" (para. 4). Even the Human Rights Act, for which many Britons held high hopes, has come under attack. "Not only is Britain proposing to crack down on radical groups, close certain bookshops and deport hate-mongering clerics to countries that permit torture, but Prime Minister Tony Blair also has signaled he may reconsider aspects of the Human Rights Act, a law some activists here had hoped would become the British equivalent of America's Bill of Rights" (para. 6). As unaccommodating as the British mood has become toward preserving basic human rights and liberties, deportation remains an area in which human rights considerations have thus far seemed to prevail. "Judges have defined inhuman treatment so broadly that a heroin dealer from St Kitts who was convicted in Britain was able to resist deportation on the grounds that he had Aids and that the facilities to treat it at home were inadequate. They have ruled that almost every country outside Europe, including America, is liable to inflict such inhuman treatment. So we suspect everyone - except the suspects themselves" (Cavendish, 2005, para. 6). This difficulty deporting terrorism suspects who pose a danger to British society has been attacked as a threat to national security, although it is consistent with the values upon which the U.K. prides itself. Among those who maintain that Britain is weakened in the fight against terrorism by its adherence to human rights concerns is Jean-Louis Brouguire, France's leading anti-terrorism judge, who has commented "Until recently Britain had wrongly imagined that it could play the politics of sanctuary, that the groups based in the UK did not pose an immediate risk to the country. Your system, based on common law with antecedents and with its priority of respect for individual rights, is slow and not adapted to the modern terrorist threat" (Willsher, 2005, para. 6). By contrast, Brouguire notes that the French system was built on repression, which "creates prevention." To be sure, a political willingness to abridge individual liberty does go a long way toward enhancing a country's security. The real question is whether it is worth the sacrifice. Conclusion Great Britain has had to confront first-hand what has become the monumental threat of this century. Almost immediately following the attacks on America on September 11, 2001, Britain began to scale back on civil rights protections in the name of national security. Nearly four years later, when terrorism struck at the heart of England, further steps were taken to abridge individual liberty. Arguably, the values upon which Great Britain has based its system of government have been directly assailed by these measures. Yet some would argue that even more needs to be done. The question is where to draw the line, and to what extent should fundamental British values be sacrificed in order to provide security. The answer depends on the public's choice whether to be assured liberty or to be promised safety. The attacks in July, 2005, following all of the security measures implemented after September 11, show that such a promise of safety is specious at best. References Amnesty singles out Britain for restrictions on civil rights. (2002, September 6). Guardian, B7. Cavendish, C. (2005, July 28). Tony v. Cherie. Evening Standard, 13. Champion, M. (2001, December 17). U.K. gets power to imprison foreign terrorist suspects. Wall Street Journal (Europe), 2. Kirka, D. (2005, August 15). Britain's war of conscience. The Record, A09. Willsher, K. (2005, July 31). Obsession with human rights means Britain can't deal with terrorism, says top French judge. The Sunday Telegraph, 027. Read More