|
We have got our security policy totally wrong, going after the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, when blatant threats are being shielded by the European Convention of Human Rights.
"Terrorism is an assault on our civil liberties, on our democracy and on our values. Our response to terrorism must continue to be based on those values and liberties, ardently pursued through our democratic framework, primarily through our criminal justice system. But we cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security that might lead us to put at risk the liberty of all in Britain to live lives free from the threat of terrorist outrage and atrocity. In opposing terrorism, we must not lose sight of our values. For me, getting the balance right between individual freedom and collective security must always be at the heart of what we do. Our response must reinforce our shared values, not weaken them, because it is on those values that our security ultimately depends."
Jacqui Smith the Home Secretary
An elected politician arrested under anti-terror laws, an Iranian immigrant given a job to interpret for one of the UK's most senior soldiers, later convicted for ten years for spying, our Governments view on "security" needs urgent review, writes John Kaponi.
The news that a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition front-bench team was arrested for leaking information to the press about the Government's strategy to employ illegal immigrants to posts within the security industry, in many times it has been suggested within the Government apparatus, should alarm the public at how anti-terror laws are being used to stifle open government.
The Government has failed consecutively to deal with the real problem we are facing that of Islamic militants either directly or indirectly linked with Al-Qaeda operating in the UK, with intelligence reports indicating that there are 3000-4000 suspects being monitored in this country alone who are able to undertake acts of terror.
Under the Anti-terror laws introduced by this Government we have seen people arrested for taking photo's of Government buildings or landmarks, people being randomly stopped in the London Underground carrying ruck sacks, and recently journalists prevented from doing their job.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 the law provides that:
Restrictions permitted by the Act
Control orders may contain restrictions that the Home Secretary or a court "considers necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that individual in terrorism-related activity", including:
* restrictions on the possession of specified articles or substances (such as a mobile telephone);
* restrictions on the use of specified services or facilities (such as internet access);
* restrictions on work and business arrangements;
* restrictions on association or communication with other individuals, specified or generally;
* restrictions on where an individual may reside and who may be admitted to that place;
* a requirement to admit specified individuals to certain locations and to allow such places to be searched and items to be removed therefrom;
* a prohibition on an individual being in specified location(s) at specified times or days;
* restrictions to an individual's freedom of movement, including giving prior notice of proposed movements;
* a requirement to surrender the individual's passport;
* a requirement to allow the individual to be photographed;
* a requirement to cooperate with surveillance of the individual's movements or communications, including electronic tagging;
* a requirement to report to a specified person and specified times and places.
In an amended piece of legislation the Anti-terror Act 2006 provides that:
Part one of the act creates a series of new criminal offences intended to assist the police in tackling terrorism. They are:
* Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."[2]. The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.
* Disseminating terrorist publications (Section 2): Prohibits the dissemination of a publication which is either (a) likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging terrorism, or (b) includes information which is likely to be understood as being useful in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.
* Preparation of terrorist acts (Section 5): Prohibits anyone from engaging in any conduct in preparation for an intended act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
* Training for terrorism (Section 6): Prohibits anyone from training others in terrorist activities, or from receiving training. The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
* Attendance at a place used for terrorist training (Section 8): Prohibits anyone from being at a place where training is going on (whether in the United Kingdom or abroad), provided the person knew or reasonably believed that it was happening. The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
* Making and possession of devices or materials (Section 9): Prohibits the making or possession of any radioactive device (ie a dirty bomb). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
* Misuse of devices or material and misuse and damage of facilities (Section 10): Prohibits using radioactive materials or a radioactive device in a terrorist attack, and the sabotage of nuclear facilities which causes a radioactive leak. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
* Terrorist threats relating to devices, materials or facilities (Section 11): Prohibits anyone from making threats to demand that they be given radioactive materials. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
* Trespassing etc. on nuclear sites (Section12): Extends a previous ban on trespassing, imposed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, to cover any nuclear site.
The encouragement, training, and preparation offences are extra-territorial offences. So persons who enagage in any of these activities outside the United Kingdom, commit an offence which is triable before the United Kingdom courts. The act also extends the maximum length of imprisonment for 'possession for terrorist purposes' from 10 years to 15 years, and for threatening to damage a nuclear power station to life imprisonment. The proposal that only those who intended to incite terror could be prosecuted was defeated by two votes in the House of Commons (300-298) - this was reported at the time as 300-299, but the clerks of the house confirmed the list of Aye names (of which there are 298) to be accurate [3]. It has been pointed out that the Government's resistance to the inclusion of the requirement of intention is somewhat two-faced, given that the reason offered for creating the offence was the need to comply with Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism which expressly requires specific intent.[4]
Part 2 of the Act:
Part 2 of the act deals with miscellaneous provisions. It gives wider power to the Home Secretary to proscribe terrorist groups and amends the law to allow the proscription to continue when the group changes its name. The most controversial portion in the act, relating to detention of terrorist suspects for questioning, was in sections 23 and 24. However, as originally introduced, the clauses made little change beyond allowing Police officers of the rank of Superintendent to authorise longer detention for terrorist suspects.
Other provisions in Part 2 give greater flexibility to search warrants by allowing them to cover other premises under the control of the same suspect, and by allowing searches where the possession of terrorist publications is suspected. The powers of the Intelligence services are extended and warrants to intercept communications are given more wide-ranging effect.
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a debate in Parliament on 6 November responding to the question put to her that foreign national’s who were suspected to have involvement in acts of terrorism said:
"Foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism are considered for deportation action. However, deportation action cannot be taken where it is concluded that removal would be contrary to our international obligations, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)."
"The way in which individual immigration decisions are recorded and the timescales involved means it is not possible to provide a comprehensive reply of breakdown cases by year. However:
16 individuals were certified under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 as suspected international terrorists and were detained on the basis that their removal was prevented by a point of law which related wholly or partly to an international agreement. One other person was also certified under part 4 but was detained under other powers. Those detained had the right to leave the UK at any time, two did so. Six have since been deported.
Since 2005, there have been 19 cases where deportation action on national security grounds was commenced, but was later discontinued because it was concluded that it would not be possible to demonstrate that removal would be in conformity with the UK's international obligations, including our obligations under article 3 ECHR. These cases are kept under review.
There are currently 11 cases where we are seeking to deport individuals on grounds of national security because of their suspected involvement in terrorism. These are at various stages in the appeals process. In a twelfth case, the appeal against the decision to deport was allowed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as it was not satisfied that the case for deportation on national security grounds had been made out."
Moreover this present Government has failed the nation with legislation like the European Convention on Human Rights which has prevented foreign nationals being deported, but the Government is quick to use Anti-terror laws to suppress information that the public have a right to know. David Cameron should use this scandal and call on the Speaker of the House to resign, who should have prevented police and anti-terror police arresting Damian Green; the Home Secretary is culpable in this situation for not dealing with the issue, and the Prime Minister using legislation meant to fight terrorism but is now used as another example of "stalinesque" politics. Ultimately has this raft of anti-terror laws made the UK a safer place to live, and has it reduced the threat posed by Islamic terrorists to our national security?
photo credit: Jacqui Smith Home Secretary and Damian Green Shadow Immigration Minister (L-R)
|
