The Recent Developments in Present Law on Suspects Accused of Terrorism in the UK - Essay Example

Discuss the recent developments in present law on suspects accused of terrorism in the UK and how that law affects our civil liberties. Terrorism Terrorism is something that has plagued societies for ages. However, today its forms and means have both evolved to make it the most feared acts of modern times. Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defence as: "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." [1] Terrorism has been used widely to destabilize governments, to make them acquiesce to one's demands and to create an aura of panic and chaos. It has been used as an instrument to further political objectives. Other than this there have been cases where the government has used terrorism to spread fear in its inhabitants and therefore curtail rebellions and uprisings. Such a form of terrorism is called State Terrorism. There are various acts of terrorism; and the list is continuously increasing. These include; kidnappings, killings, bombings, cyber-attacks and the use of chemical and biological weapons.[2] It would not be wrong to say that 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are both relative terms. Their meanings differ from people to people, society to society. Therefore it's not surprising that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter! 'On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism , thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.' [3] The English Legal System: In the United Kingdom; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Irelands have their own distinct legal system. Among these states there is a considerable difference in laws and their implementation. There are two kinds of laws. The Common laws which has not been clearly defined and is based on customs and traditions is used unless superseded by legislation. On the other hand there is the equity law which consists of a body of rules applied by the courts. The British legal system is not based on Roman law unlike the laws of certain other European countries [17]. However, due to its membership of the European Union, the European Community Law applies to economic and social judgements in the UK. The rulings are usually given by the European Court. There is a lot of literature on the subject of the relationship between EU Law and National Law.A group of competent law makers claim that the EU law is the supreme law of the land. The European law is based on the premise of 'We the People!' However, others argue that to evaluate the performance of national courts, adherence to the national constitution is to be strictly observed. [5] The Head of the judiciary in England and Wales is the Lord Chancellor. He has the authority to make all appointments for the magistrates and to the crowns except the highest which is made by the Prime Minister. There are two kinds of courts; criminal courts and civil courts [24]. The Home Secretary is responsible for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Lastly there are the tribunals, which work in conjunction with courts. 'They are normally set up under statutory powers which also govern their constitution, functions and procedure.' [4] The essence of English law is that it is made by learned men sitting in courts, who apply their knowledge and wisdom to the facts before them to come up with a concrete, logical decision. [7] The History of English Terrorism Law: In 1776, the time of the American Revolution, Britain wanted fifty-six people dead or alive on charges of terrorism. These included; George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Francis Marion. They were all tarred with the same brush due to one thing they had in common. They had all signed the ' American Declaration of Independence'. "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" - The American Declaration Independence [4th of July 1776] Two centuries later, the people of Thamileelam also declared certain causes which impel them to freedom and like Americans went on a war. They too were labelled terrorists by the United Kingdom laws. It has been common to brand those who challenge and overthrow authority as 'terrorists' even when some of these had committed no acts of violence. [6], [20] The Current English Terrorism Laws: The mindset mentioned above is evident in the laws enacted to mind terrorism in England. An example is the Anti-Terrorism Act in which anything from using violence to further a political cause (advancing a political, religious or ideological cause', as described in the law to damage to property is termed as terrorism. In doing so the law makers have ignored the fact that social change has never taken place in history without the use of some form of violence. Does this mean that all earlier movements such as the women's rights movement, the end of slavery and racism were acts of terrorism and the participants were not heroes but instead were terrorists Absolutely not. Many social movements after years of peaceful operations need to resort to some form of violence to be heard. An example is the Tamil tigers in Srilanka who after 30 years of non-violent protests, resorted to violence. Those who are striving to protect the environment and the fast perishing wildlife also resort to violence at times. Is it fair to term them as 'terrorists' I think not. On the other hand; hijacking planes, bombing train stations, kidnapping people and target killing are all acts of terrorism and should be punished. However, the point is that the powerless fighting for survival should not be held as criminals and terrorists. [6] The Terrorism Act,2006 is a set of laws that have been enacted to protect British citizens from terrorist acts and bring perpetrators to justice. The Act was not a direct response to the July bombings in UK and a separate legislation had already been planned to address that. The following are the components of the terrorism act: 'Acts Preparatory to Terrorism This aims to capture those planning serious acts of terrorism. Encouragement to Terrorism This makes it a criminal offence to directly or indirectly incite or encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. This will include the glorification of terrorism, where this may be understood as encouraging the emulation of terrorism. Dissemination of Terrorist Publications This will cover the sale, loan, or other dissemination of terrorist publications. This will include those publications that encourage terrorism, and those that provide assistance to terrorists. Terrorist training offences This makes sure that anyone who gives or receives training in terrorist techniques can be prosecuted. The Act also criminalises attendance at a place of terrorist training. '[8] Other acts addressing terrorism specifically include ; ThePrevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000. [8] The Terrorism Act 2006, is seen by many as restricting civil liberties and could force many British Muslims to resort to violence. [10] The first section of the Act condemns and considers those as criminals who glorify terrorist acts. It is however, not fair to do so. Mere glorification and preaching cannot be regarded as criminal offenses and by including them as such the credibility of the Act is being harmed. Secondly, 'Offences for a religious purpose should be excluded, as religion is a diffuse concept incapable of clear definition'. In Canada 'Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has held that the inclusion in the criminal law as part of the definition of terrorism of "a political, religious or ideological objective or cause" constitutes an infringement of certain fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 25: this remains to be resolved finally by the Canadian Federal jurisdiction26.' [9] The British Law makers claim that English Laws and the Terrorism Acts specifically adhere to the the very basis of law. ' Everyone is equal in the eyes of law' and that ' Rule of law is the basis of a free society'. However, it's also true that "Most of the international legislation that defines terrorism criminalizes those who are simply freedom fighters." [11]This suggests that at the heart of this all lie inequities in social justice which we have yet to uncover. Also there are loopholes in the current legal system which have yet to be addressed. It must be noted that in a recent case a mockery of law and the legal system was made. The basis of law: rule of law was challenged and violated. Under Britain's anti terrorism law, nine suspected terrorists were imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay for three years. As part of the Human Rights Law it is unlawful to keep suspects in detention without charges for more than a few days. Such an act shook the very foundations of the legal system; the protection of the rights and honour of individuals regardless of caste, creed, religion or colour. It shows constraints in giving people the rights of liberty and equality guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. 'prolonged detentions are not strictly required. Moreover, the detentions violate Britain 's international law commitments to equal treatment of foreign citizens. If alleged terrorists who are British citizens cannot be imprisoned for years without charge, why must alleged foreign terrorists be so imprisoned' [12] The said violation of rule of law and partial treatment against foreign terror suspects has sparked great controversy. In this case the anti-terrorism has weakened the pillars of the English system. Needless to say many social repercussions follow all over the world and even in Britain. It has prompted disdain from international community which is not good for the standing of the British legal system. The detainees however, won the Lords appeal, a ruling by Britain's highest court. Even though they are expected to remain in prison as reported by the Home Secretary, it has been established that indefinite imprisonment without being proven gulity is a human rights violation. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: 'Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.' [15] Other than social repercussions ; such illegal acts of imprisonment have led to ill-health of the prisoners most of whom have been driven to madness. It must be noted that this law is highly discriminatory and violates the idea of civil liberties and equality of individuals before law. [15] As an aftermath of the above mentioned incident it was decided by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke that ' control orders' would be put to use which means that everyone accused of suspected terrorist acts would be subject to house arrest, curfews or tagging. Such a legal clause; comes across as an ' abuse of power' and also as further damaging to the human rights issue which has been sparked recently due to the treatment of foreign suspected terrorists by the British legal system. The laws also included British citizens who are said to be playing an increasingly active role in terrorist activities. It is a measure to end the discrimination between Britons and non-Britons as terror suspects. Moreover; there have been calls for the use of wire-taps and intercept evidence in courts against these suspects. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the plans were a "further abuse of human rights in Britain". [16] Civil liberties are being callously attacked and the law which promises to protect is becoming a tool for harassment. Control orders as a measure of suppressing terrorism are a highly debatable tool. 'The control orders authorised by the home secretary, Charles Clarke, caused a parliamentary crisis two weeks ago and were only shunted through after 30 hours of ferocious tussling between the two houses and a compromise on the part of the government.'[22] It is pushing detainees towards psychiatric illness. Its double standards are creating confusion and chaos. If they are so dangerous why are the suspected terrorists allowed to roam freely in the day when their presence could be a threat to UK citizens And if they are not so dangerous why are they being detained at home after 7pm The irony of it all is disturbing for many. Other than that these suspects are put to constant harassment by house searches. Their families live in constant fear that the suspects will be taken back to jail. In short their lives are a living hell! In addition to this the Control Order Hotline is an answering machine. [22] A UN expert agrees with the above argument. Such laws are widely believed to target the UK's Muslim population and "undermine the human rights of all," Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said in a statement issued in London after wrapping up an 11-day visit to the country. There is also controversy about unequal opportunities available for Muslims and other minorities.This has led to a feeling of disdain about the current situation.[14] The new British Prime Minister on the other hand wants to develop new terrorist laws. These would include heavy police patrolling on airports and sea ports as well as wide-ranging anti-terrorism laws.[13] In 2006, the police prevent terrorist bombings from happening in London. Suspects of the terrorist attacks are held up at the Glasgow airport, while others are arrested all over United Kingdom. A resident of Australia, Haneef, is caught. He had given his SIM card to one of the men allegedly involved in the bomb blasts. The international aspect of it all creates big confusion as to the trial and detainment of Haneef. Eventually, he is tried in Australia rather than in England. However, blanks and question marks still remain. Such are the complexities related to terrorism laws. This is because terrorism is believed to transcend borders and countries. [21] Another incident which brought to light the blatant violation of civil liberties and the right of freedom of expression was when John Gilmore, was asked to leave the plane he had boarded for wearing a 'Suspected Terrorist' button. Even though it was repeatedly communicated to the Airline staff that the ' Suspected Terrorist' button was nothing but a political statement which everyone has a right to profess, John Gilmore was asked to get off the plane. It was because the button was bothering others on the plane who are already psyched about terrorism. Indeed the button meant exactly what is happening in UK these days. 'Everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities.' In short everyone guilty of being a terrorism unless proven innocent! [18]. Laws are working haywire and are giving no one protection. Instead they are causing hassles, indignation and embarrassment. Conclusion: Terrorism is a term that reflects everyone's value-judgment. There is no universally accepted definition for terrorism. However, it can be roughly defined to be the use of force and violence to achieve certain objectives. The English Legal system has enacted new laws to deal with terrorism within and outside its frontiers. Such laws were based on the premise that protection would be guaranteed for all. They were also meant to satisfy the basis of law which is 'rule of law' and 'equality of all before law'. However; wide ranging cases in the United Kingdom have been utter violations of the above premise. They have attacked the foundations of human existence and have sparked controversy from all quarters, namely the Human Right Organizations. The UK government stresses that such laws are important because a situation of an emergency exists whereby the state has to do everything it possibly can even if it not legal to protect the country and its people. These laws must be revised for the benefit of the society and the upliftment of the legal system. Certain measure must also be taken to compensate terror suspects. 'The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees compensation to anyone who has been unlawfully arrested or detained. A British statute allows the 28-day detention, and so escapes the express terms of the Convention. But these detainees have been denied the traditional safeguards that force the police to come forward quickly with evidence justifying the deprivation of liberty. This denial of due process makes the case for compensation stronger, not weaker, than normal.'[19] A compensation amount should be fixed for everyday that an innocent suspect spends in jail. This will not only lower resentment of innocent detainees but will also force the law enforcers to carry out their duties more expeditiously and judiciously. It is true that payment will not completely put innocent victims at ease, however it will make them understand that the government is honouring them in return for the sacrifice that they have made for the ongoing war against terror.[19] References: 1. (1995). Glossary and Identifications. Retrieved 28th August 2007, from Public Broadcasting Service Website: www.pbs.org 2. (2006). General Information About Terrorism. Retrieved 28th August 2007, from US Department of Home Security Website: www. fema.gov 3. Hoffman, Bruce. (1998). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press 4. (2004). The British Government: The Legal System. Retrieved 28th August 2007. from Panorama Britannia.com Website: www.britannia.com 5. Kumm, M. (2005), The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty. The European Law Journal, 11(3), 262-307 6. (2001). States, Dissidents, And the British Terrorism Law. Retrieved 28th August 2007 from Sangam Research Website: www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS 7. Cownie,F & Bradney.A.( 1996), English Legal System in Context. London: Butterworths 8. (n.d). Terrorism Act 2006. Retrieved 28th August 2007, from Home Office UK Website: www. homeoffice.gov.uk 9. Carlile.(2007). Terrorism: United KingdomLaw & Practise,Definition of Terrorism in the UK Terrorism Act. Retrieved 28th August 2007, from Tamil Nation.org Website: www.tamilnation.org 10. Atiah P.S.(1986)Law and Modern Society, Oxford University Press 11. Gomez.O.M.( 2004, October 29). British attorney general examines terrorism laws. New Mexico, Daily Lord 12. Cassel.D. (2004, December 24). Imprisoning Terrorist Suspects In Britain: Law Lords Reassert Rule Of Law, Northwestern University School of Law 13. Perlez.J & Green.A.( 2007, July 26). British Leader Seeks New Terrorism Laws, New York Times, p.A12. 14. (2000). British counter-terrorism laws spark concern from UN expert on religion. Retrieved 28th August 2007 from UN News Centre Website: http://www.un.org/english/ 15. (n.d). Terror detainees win Lords appeal. Retrieved 28th August 2007 from BBC News Website: www.bbc.co.uk 16. (n.d). Terror suspects face house arrest.Retrieved 28th August 2007 from BBC News Website: www.bbc.co.uk 17. Brian.B( 2003) Jurisprudence: Theory and context, Sweet & Maxwell 18. Gilmore.J.(1994). John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button. Retrieved 28th August 2007 from Politech: Politics and Technology Website: www.politechbot.com 19. Ackerman.B.( 2007, July 23). What we owe 'suspected terrorists', Guardian News and Media Limited 20. Walker.C.(1992). The detention of suspected terrorists in the British Islands.Legal Studies, The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars, 12(2), 178 21. Sales.L, (n.d.) Unravelling terrorism law in Haneef case, Retrieved 28th August 2007 from ABC News Website: www.abcnews.com 22. Ackerman.B.( 2007, July 23). What we owe 'suspected terrorists', Guardian News and Media Limited 23. Yafai.F & Gillan.A.( 2005, March 24). Control order flaws exposed, Guardian News and Media Limited 24. D. Lloyd.(1991) The Idea of Law, Penguin Read More