| Ivo Skoric on Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:43:02 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] Re: UK: Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle |
So, essentially the UK got the same anti-terror bill as the US got.
Star Chamber proceedings. America's disappeared 1200.
Obviously, Al Qaeda will have to look for US or UK citizens in their
future hiring. I am not sure whether the UK bill would survive the
scrutiny of the rest of the Europe, though, and UK, unlike US,
would like to be also viewed as a part of Europe. Therefore, the UK
packaged the bill as in fact protecting the human rights of non-
citizen terrorism suspects - because the unlimited detention in UK
is still allegedly much better than deportation to the country of
origin, that often sports a record of torture. Nice British spin. Btw,
here is what Richard Goldstone, formerly of ICTY, said on CNN's
Larry King Live about the US anti-terror bill:
``I think it would be bad for the United States to deprecate its own
court system, its own insistence over decades and centuries on
fair and due process,''....
``Perhaps more importantly, it would lack any credibility in the
international community. There would always be doubt as to
whether the guilt of (Saudi-born militant Osama) bin Laden or any
of the other people tried in secret has been established.''
ivo
Date sent: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:42:07 -0500
Send reply to: International Justice Watch Discussion List
<[email protected]>
From: Andras Riedlmayer
<[email protected]>
Subject: UK: Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
To: [email protected]
(cross-posting of comments only permitted)
Despite objections of civil liberties advocates and concern by some
MPs
who felt the legislation was being pushed through parliament too
quickly,
the Blair government's new anti-terror laws were given a second
reading in
parliament by a margin of 458 votes to five. Among its provisions is one
that allows the home secretary to order indefinite detention without trial
of non-citizens suspected of terrorism, under certain circumstances.
Andras Riedlmayer
=================================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1653000/1653724.stm
BBC News | UK Wednesday, 14 November, 2001, 09:42 GMT
War View: 'Internment undermines UK's traditions'
Laurence Lustgarten, barrister and professor of law at the University
of Southampton, says the UK's proposed anti-terror legislation could
violate the country's ideals.
Politicians fancy themselves as problem solvers, and like to be seen
to be decisive.
The damage caused by outbursts of their zeal are suffered by others,
usually relatively powerless and often some sort of folk devil, who are
invisible as individuals to the wider public.
So it is with Home Secretary David Blunkett's proposals for
internment of suspected "terrorists" - a procedure which was tried and
demonstrably failed in Northern Ireland.
Mr Blunkett sees a problem. If a person who is not a UK citizen
is found to be a threat to the UK's "national security" because of
involvement in "terrorism" elsewhere, they can normally be deported
to their country of origin.
Fundamental moral
However, in many instances such people face torture or death on
their return home. In 1995 the European Court of Human Rights ruled
that, where that fate is a realistic possibility, it would violate the
European Convention on Human Rights to send them back.
The case involved Mr Chahal, a Sikh activist whom the UK was trying
to deport to India where, the European Court explicitly found, the
record of the Indian police in dealing with militant Sikhs was so bad
as to give rise to a reasonable likelihood of brutal treatment.
The specific right involved - found in Article 3 of the Convention -
is considered to embody such a fundamental moral value that it cannot be
dispensed with even in the gravest circumstances.
Mr Blunkett has therefore looked for a way round it. Someone in
these circumstances will not be deported, but will be imprisoned despite
having been convicted of no crime and had no opportunity to defend himself
before a jury.
This imprisonment, though subject to some sort of periodic review -
still no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and no jury - will
last so long as the home secretary, or his successor, but certainly
no judicial authority, deems necessary.
The wheeze - for that is what it is - here is that whilst the
convention in Article 5 requires that those arrested be placed on trial
within a reasonable time, in times of "war or public emergency threatening
the life of the nation" that right may be suspended (in technical terms,
subject to "derogation") for the duration.
Real threats
Terrorism is real enough, and there unquestionably are interests
that most people would agree deserve the title national security. But in
the current debate these terms must always be placed in inverted commas.
In law, someone can be a terrorist even though he is involved
in resistance to violent, oppressive regimes which commit atrocities
against their own people - provided that regime works sufficiently
closely with the UK in the international arena that our government is
prepared to regard its security as part of our own.
This is not a hypothetical argument, but precisely what was involved
in Mr Chahal's case, and was again used by the government when it tried
to deport Mr Rehman, who was involved in resistance to what he, and
many dispassionate observers, sees as the Indian military occupation
of Kashmir.
Last month the House of Lords upheld this argument, saying that
if the home secretary chose to regard protection of Indian interests
as part of UK national security, that was not a matter in which the
courts should interfere.
Whatever the courts may regard as appropriate for them, as members
of the public in whose name the government acts, we ought to be asking
hard questions about whether regimes that torture their opponents are
ones to whom we should be cozying up.
All powerful
Thus although we are told by Mr Blunkett that the power of internment
will be used sparingly, we have only his word for that.
But that word is all-powerful, for the courts have signalled their
withdrawal from this theatre of battle. One cannot reasonably expect them
to question with any rigour whether the conditions for derogation have,
as a matter of fact, been satisfied.
Such an argument can successfully be made: the UK did so in Strasbourg
with respect to extended detention for questioning of suspected terrorists
in Northern Ireland in 1992.
That was in connection with a guerrilla war that had lasted 20 years,
and the extended detention was a matter of several days only, and
there remains a real question whether the current conflict is really
an equivalent circumstance.
It may be that the European Human Rights Court will take a more
robustly questioning approach, but delays in Strasbourg are so great
that no judgement is ever forthcoming in less than three years - a point
that no doubt has not escaped Mr Blunkett.
Violation
Someone who assists an organisation engaged in serious violence
against this country should be prosecuted for specific offences,
including conspiracy, and have the chance to defend himself before
a jury.
If his acts are directed against a state which truly respects the
rule of law and treats those who violate its criminal code with decency
then, subject to certain procedural safeguards, he may properly be
deported.
But to intern someone for acts never properly proven - or worse, for
some possible intended future conduct - because the target is a regime
so foul that it would be a fundamental human rights abuse to send him
back, is a serious violation of the values this country is supposed to
represent.
_____________________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1663000/1663829.stm
BBC News | UK Monday, 19 November, 2001, 23:15 GMT
Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
Blunkett: "Proposals could have been more Draconian"
MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of sweeping new anti-terrorism
laws, including the power to imprison suspects without trial.
The proposals were given a second reading by a margin of 458 votes
to five.
But the bill is expected to face strong criticism when it goes into
committee stage later this week. It will also face opposition in the
House of Lords.
The BBC's political editor Andrew Marr said: "The government has
won the vote very easily but it has not necessarily won the argument."
He said the government could expect further opposition from its own
benches before the bill becomes law.
Controversial proposals
Home Secretary David Blunkett came under fire from all sides in the
Commons over the bill's proposals.
MPs lined up to accuse the government of using terrorism as an excuse
to bring in powerful new restrictions on civil liberties.
Brian Sedgemore, one of four Labour MPs to vote against the government,
said the legislation was "a ragbag of the most coercive measures that the
best mandarin minds from the Home Office can produce".
In an impassioned speech, Mr Sedgemore said: "Not since the panic
and hysteria that overcame the British establishment in the aftermath of
the French Revolution has this House seen such draconian legislation."
Unrepentant
But Mr Blunkett was unrepentant.
Reminding MPs of the thousands who died on 11 September, he said
even more Draconian measures could have been put forward by ministers.
But, he added: "It would have been wrong to do so."
"It was appropriate for us to be more circumspect and bring forward
proportionate and reasonable measures," he said.
The terrorists had not only destroyed the World Trade Centre but had
also "declared open season on all of us," he added.
Possible reprisals
In addition to the measures on detaining suspects, the 128 paragraph
bill also includes proposals to tighten airport security, freeze
suspected terrorists' funds and create a new offence of incitement
to religious hatred.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said he supported some of the
measures contained in the bill but he thought it was being pushed
through parliament too quickly.
He said the Conservatives planned to table a number of amendments
with the Liberal Democrats aimed at "improving" the bill.
Mr Letwin repeatedly urged the government to think again on the
"internment" of terrorist suspects.
He warned this could lead to possible reprisals against British
citizens abroad.
He said he would prefer Mr Blunkett to exclude or deport foreign
undesirables rather than jailing them.
'New demands'
Beverley Hughes, Home Office parliamentary secretary, said she
understood concerns that the legislation was being hurried through.
But she said it was necessary to act quickly and decisively because
"the lengths these terrorists will go to, including their own death,
makes new demands on our ability to anticipate their plans and therefore
protect our people".
Under the government's proposals the law on detention of suspects
will fall after five years and "there will be a debate every year for
three hours" on the issue, she added.
Incitement ban 'wrong'
The Lib Dems and Conservatives also hit out at plans to include
new laws banning incitement to religious hatred in the anti-terror
legislation.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes urged the
home secretary to "consult more widely and relatively quickly on the
religious incitement matters and legislate separately".
Mr Letwin said dealing with the threat of terrorism and the persecution
of Muslim communities in the same legislation sent out the wrong message.
'No time for scrutiny'
MPs are angry at the lack of time they have been given to scrutinize
a bill that will have serious implications for civil liberties.
In total, the Commons has been given just three days to look at the
legislation, a process that would normally take several weeks.
Mr Blunkett is determined to see the Bill on the statute books by
the Christmas recess.
*********************
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
[email protected]
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold