Home      |      Weblog      |      Articles      |      Satire      |      Links      |      About      |      Contact


Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Citizens lives vs. Terrorists rights -"Freedom from terror is the greatest civil liberty" will UK anti terrorism measures suffice?

Citizens lives vs. Terrorists rights -"Freedom from terror is the greatest civil liberty" will UK anti terrorism measures suffice?

Fear of attack looms in the UK while government scrambles to protect law enforcement against legal action
March 1, 2005

Citizens lives v.s. terrorists' rights' :"Freedom from terror is the greatest civil liberty"- Will UK anti terrorism measures suffice?

Fear of attack looms in the UK while government scrambles to protect law enforcement against legal action
February 23, 2005

MIM: Two steps forward three steps back. After the government was forced to back down regarding detention of foreign terror suspects due to a court ruling, the new laws seem to be a somewhat desperate attempt to put some legal measures in place which would enable law enforcement to deal with terrorists and protect the civil liberties of it's citizens without fear of being hauled into court on charges of 'infringing on terrorists rights' .

"...Home secretary Charles Clarke on Tuesday stressed in the House of Commons that the risk of a terror attack in the UK was so serious that it justified the government's controversial anti-terrorist plans.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Labour MPs joined the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in opposing the new law - more than halving the Government's majority.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said the new laws were needed to deal with terrorists determined to kill thousands of people. Home Secretary Charles Clarke warned they could strike during a general election campaign, as they did in Spain.

The bill introduces "control orders" which will enable the Home Secretary to stop terror suspects travelling or using phones and the internet - without the need for a trial.

More controversial house arrest powers are being kept in reserve. The security services and police said the scale of the terror threat did not currently justify their use.

The Bill is scheduled to go through all its remaining Commons stages next Monday before going to the Lords where it will face substantial resistance.

The Government has been forced to change the law after the Law Lords ruled the detention of foreign terror suspects at Belmarsh prison breached their human rights. The new control orders would apply to British citizens and foreign nationals.

The 10 detainees at Belmarsh, in Thamesmead, south east London, are to be set free under controlled conditions within weeks.

At their most severe the orders would mean placing suspects under house arrest. That would need a derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Clarke said he would not seek that immediately.

The Tories and Lib Dems have attacked the draconian nature of the Bill. They also want the orders to be issued by a judge rather than the Home Secretary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4171992

Blair: Freedom from Terror Is Greatest Civil Liberty

By Tony Jones and Jamie Lyons, PA

Prime minister Tony Blair said today his government faced a difficult balancing act of protecting the public from terrorism while safeguarding civil liberties.

His comments were made after MPs backed controversial new powers found in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to deal with terror suspects.

They voted 309-233 in favour of the legislation last night but 32 Labour MPs joined the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in opposing the new law more than halving the Governments majority.

The Prime Minister, writing in the Daily Telegraph, defended the new powers and rejected the criticism they were a fundamental attack on long-standing civil liberties.

In the article, Mr Blair writes:We have to balance protection for the public from terrorism with safeguarding civil liberties. But there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack.

It would be the gravest dereliction of duty to wait until we suffered a terrorist outrage here, and only then act.

The Bill introduces control orders which will enable the Home Secretary to stop terror suspects travelling or using phones and the internet without the need for a trial.

More controversial house arrest powers are being kept in reserve. The security services and police said the scale of the terror threat did not currently justify their use.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has warned they could strike during a General Election campaign, as they did in Spain.

In the newspaper article Mr Blair praised the security services and the police for the fact there has not been a major incident since the terrorist attacks of September 11.

He stressed the Bills powers had the support of the countrys police chiefs and security forces and added: I reject completely the allegation that this is a fundamental attack on long-standing civil liberties.

As the Bill makes clear, no one will be deprived of their liberty without this being approved within days at the most seven days by a senior judge in the High Court, following careful consideration of all the evidence linking them to terrorist activity.

And this initial hearing will then be followed by a full High Court hearing.

The Bill is scheduled to go through all its remaining Commons stages next Monday before going to the Lords where it will face substantial resistance.

The Government has been forced to change the law after the Law Lords ruled the detention of foreign terror suspects at Belmarsh prison breached their human rights.

The new control orders would apply to British citizens and foreign nationals.

The 10 detainees at Belmarsh, in Thamesmead, south east London, are to be set free under controlled conditions within weeks.

At their most severe the orders would mean placing suspects under house arrest. That would need a derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Clarke has said he would not seek that immediately.

The Tories and Lib Dems have attacked the draconian nature of the Bill. They also want the orders to be issued by a judge rather than the Home Secretary.

Mr Clarke has agreed to give judges the power to review the orders. Yesterday he indicated he could be prepared to go further, offering to look again at the issue before Monday.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has said the Government would have to make further concessions if it was to get the Bill through the Lords.

Mr Clarke defended the tough new law last night and reminded MPs that the Madrid bombings took place during the Spanish general election campaign.

Maybe such things can always be possibilities here too, he said.

Tory leader Michael Howard yesterday accused the Government ofsteamrollering the law through Parliament.

He called for existing powers to be renewed to allow more time for debate on the controversial issue.

Mr Blair said in the article Mr Howard knew the strong arguments against the use of intercepted material in our courts� to try and prosecute suspects which came under the scope of the Bill.

He added that using the material could: ...put at risk highly sensitive surveillance techniques and, potentially, the lives of key informants and intelligence officers.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, speaking after last night's vote said her organisation had a few days to stop the misguided Bill.

She added: Now is not the time for principled politicians to compromise our core democratic values.

Punishment without sight of charges, evidence or proof is not improved by the fig-leaf of judicial supervision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark unveils plans for fighting terrorism

by Jimmy Burns and Christopher Adams

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5880040c-8476-11d9-ad81-00000e2511c8.html

Home secretary Charles Clarke on Tuesday stressed in the House of Commons that the risk of a terror attack in the UK was so serious that it justified the government's controversial anti-terrorist plans.

While Mr Clarke made clear its intention of introducing new control orders - including measures ranging from house arrest to tagging and curfews - these will be limited in scope and subject to a much greater degree of judicial oversight than was earlier outlined.

Mr Clarke defended his plans on control orders because, he said, they would enable government to protect citizens and rejected calls for judges to be put in charge of making control orders, saying national security was the government's responsibility.

David Davis, shadow home secretary, said Mr Clarke had "settled on the wrong answer" and would be endangering basic principles of justice in a way which was unlikely to enhance security. But the home secretary refused the opposition's comments and instead accused them of being "in the do nothing camp".

MPs voiced unhappiness at Monday's announcement by Peter Hain, Commons leader, that parliamentary business was being changed to accommodate the bill and only two days would be set aside for debate. Oliver Heald, shadow leader of the Commons, said: "We are angry this measure is to be rammed through the House with our time for debate ruthlessly curtailed."

Several Labour backbenchers were concerned on civil liberties grounds. Andrew Mackinlay, one Labour MP, said he was not willing to support legislation that kept people in their homes on the "decision of a politician". He called for a "judicial element" in the process.

The current emergency anti-terrorist legislation was declared incompatible with the European convention on human rights in a landmark ruling by Law Lords in December. Under that legislation, some terrorists suspects have been detained without trial indefinitely with their cases reviewed by a special immigration tribunal. The home secretary needed merely "reasonable grounds" to believe suspects were a threat to security and linked to international terrorism.

The new measures would involve judges being able to demand higher standards of proof from the government based on the "balance of probability"; although some of the evidence will continue to be be heard in secret.

According to Whitehall officials and legal sources, the most punitive measure under the revised control orders regime could include house arrest, but this would be only for limited periods with a handful of suspects.

Curfew measures similar to the control orders now being planned by ministers have also been used by France against Basque separatist Eta suspects and by Italy against Mafia suspects, without breaching European human rights legislation.

Following meetings with Mr Clarke and Tony Blair last Friday, Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said he believed government plans were "moving in the right direction".

But Michael Howard, the Tory leader, said the government's plans remained "fundamentally flawed" after Mr Clarke ruled out the use of intercept evidence in terrorist cases.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0301/dailyUpdate.html

Critics of proposed house arrest of terror suspects join forces to defy government plans.

By Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com

While British Prime Minister Tony Blair hosts Mideast peace talks, his government's controversial anti-terror legislation is being met with fierce debate.

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which includes provisions allowing for the house arrest of suspected terrorists, passed the House of Commons Monday night, "but not before a rebellion among Labour backbenchers saw Tony Blair's majority slump to just 14 votes," reports The Independent.

Despite the introduction of concessions designed to placate critics of the proposed house arrest of terror suspects, sixty-two backbenchers, including former Cabinet ministers Robin Cook, Frank Dobson, Clare Short, and Chris Smith joined Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in an attempt to defy the Government's plans. A series of cross-party amendments which attempted to ensure that judges take decisions to impose all proposed 'control orders' was defeated by just 253 votes to 267 after an impassioned six-hour debate.

The Guardian called the rebellion "a significant blow to [the Blair government's] authority."

The bill "will now face stiff opposition in the House of Lords where Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have the muscle to defeat the Government," according to The Independent.

a bid to garner support for the bill in the House of Commons, Home Secretary Charles Clarke made what Agence France Presse calls "an embarrassing U-turn" by announcing that so-called "control orders" under the draft law would now have to be imposed by a judge, rather than himself.

As the BBC reports, "the bill proposes 'control orders', which as well as house arrest could mean curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use."

According to the Guardian:

Mr. Clarke's planned amendment, backed by four lesser concessions, failed to appease outraged MPs because they still do not go far enough in protecting civil liberties and because the changes will be tabled in the House of Lords after the Commons has passed the measure. Critics protested that parliament was being treated with contempt.

The Guardian points out that Clarke had cited Monday's guilty plea by the would-be British "shoe bomber", Saajid Badat, to justify his bill.

The Times of London reports that Mr. Badat's guilty plea to conspiracy to destroy, damage, or endanger an aircraft was "hailed as a major success by counter-terrorist detectives and left many Muslim leaders shocked."

Police say that the conviction is not only important in showing that the huge resources put into fighting terrorism get results but may also help to convince the Muslim community that there is a genuine threat in Britain.

After all, as The Telegraph reports, "Badat was a young, respectable Briton who turned from a football-loving, high-achieving A-level student into someone willing to blow up an airliner."

Nothing fitted the profile of a terrorist and his case epitomizes what most disturbs the security forces about the increase in "home-grown" Muslim extremist terrorists. The Muslim community in Gloucester remembers him as a "walking angel", a softly spoken, respectful man who left grammar school with four A-levels.

Blair also attempted to lend justification for the push for new anti-terror powers by telling BBC that there were "several hundred" terrorists actively plotting within the country. Blair said the police and intelligence services were saying: "You have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - and being able, being sure enough of the proof, to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt."

Clarke decided not to mention that claim in his arguments until challenged by the former Tory cabinet minister, Peter Lilley, reports The Guardian.

Was Mr. Clarke right to predict that only a 'small number of people' might be subject to house arrest or otherwise restricted by control orders or was Mr. Blair right? Mr. Lilley asked.

Mr. Clarke glossed over potential embarrassment by arguing that most suspects can be prosecuted in the normal way.

Blair's claim "is far in excess of what intelligence officials estimate," reports The Guardian.

The proposed amendment to the bill will be debated by the House of Lords on Wednesday and Thursday, reports BBC.

"No bill goes through Parliament without detailed consideration being made, but I believe that what I announced [Monday] will be sufficient to secure the agreement of the House of Lords," Clarke told BBC "I have no desire to make further so-called concessions on the bill."
-------------------------------------------

MIM: In a desperate attempt to avoid having to release terrorist suspects from jail,when the law expires next week, UK Home Secretary Clark has had to compromise on legal issues (protecting 'terrorist rights') which will severely weaken law enforcement's operational powers to combat terrorism.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLITICSTerrorwed17clarke?source=&ct=5

09/03/05 - News and city section

Clarke offers terror law concessions

The Government's battle to save its controversial anti-terror powers returned to the Commons as MPs were urged to reverse a series of crushing defeats by peers.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke outlined a series of concessions on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill designed to win over hostile MPs of all sides.

Mr Clarke confirmed that he was giving in to demands for judges, not politicians, to hold the power to impose all control orders - not just for house arrest - on terror suspects.

Earlier, he conceded that the powers will have to be renewed every year by a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

But the Government is refusing to back down in its opposition to a "sunset clause" approved by the Lords by a huge majority which would set an eight-month time limit on the powers.

And it is also determined to overturn a move to increase the standard of proof required before an order can be made to balance of probabilities from "reasonable suspicion".

Ministers face a desperate battle to get the legislation onto the statute book before current powers to detain suspects without charge in Belmarsh prison expire on Monday.

They were deemed an illegal abuse of human rights by the Law Lords in December and the measures in the Bill are aimed to provide an acceptable alternative.

As debate on the Bill got under way, Mr Clarke said he now accepted that some measure of judicial involvement in non-derogating control orders, like tagging, was "necessary and desirable".

But he said he would retain the option of acting immediately if "urgent action" was required, like when a suspect was likely to disappear. Of the Belmarsh detainees, he disclosed that an amendment would allow him to make a non-derogating control order against them, subject to referring it to the court for confirmation.

--------------------

Terror and error
The Government has only itself to blame for defeats on terrorism

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1517147,00.html

The humiliating defeats in the Lords on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill are not only an extraordinary setback two months before an expected general election; they are also a telling indictment of the muddle, incompetence and myopia that have characterised the sloppy handling of this vital issue. The defeats are too resounding to be brushed aside by a Government desperate to enact legislation to replace the current detention powers that expire on Monday; with both Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former Lord Chancellor and Tony Blair's one-time pupil-master, and Lord Condon, one of Britain's most experienced former police chiefs, voting against the measures, the moral weight of opposition makes it clear that Labour is facing its sternest test of how to handle the whole issue of terrorism.

The Government is now almost certainly obliged to accept most of the Lords amendments — in particular the involvement of a judge in any initial decision to impose any type of control order, not just the most severe form of house arrest. Already the Home Office has backed down on two further amendments whose effect is to add legal safeguards to the procedure. The first is to raise the burden of proof from a test of "reasonable suspicion", as proposed by the Government, to one of "balance of probabilities" as required in civil law. The second is to require a statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was no reasonable prospect of using the criminal law to achieve a successful prosecution of a terrorist suspect instead of a control order. The first is reasonable and the second is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

The sticking point, however, is the call for a sunset clause, which the Government will not accept. If, in the hectic haggling and readings that might oblige Parliament to sit through Thursday night and into Friday, no compromise can be reached, the Government could resort simply to renewing the existing powers to detain foreign suspects in Belmarsh. That would be against the spirit of the law lords' rejection of these powers, but may well be inevitable.

The irony is that Mr Clarke is not yet even seeking the alternative power of house arrest: instead, from Monday, the detainees will face only administrative orders such as supervision and communications bans. The inept handling of this Bill — largely a result of indecision in the Cabinet, where Mr Blair has shown less willingness to compromise than Mr Clarke — has had the worst possible effect. It has politicised an issue that should command a consensus among all responsible MPs to safeguard Britain and its liberties. As a result, opportunism and point-scoring have made agreement all but impossible. At the same time, more influence has been given to those who deny even that there is a terrorist threat. The responsibility for losing control of the debate rests with a Government determined to play politics at the expense of security.

In the short term, the Government must find a way to supervise, oversee or incarcerate terrorist suspects, involving judges at the initial stage and, if possible, bring charges quickly. In the long term, it must work out a more coherent legal framework for dealing with the terrorist threat. That is what many, including this newspaper, have long demanded. The Government's confusion was wholly unnecessary; its defeats were fully deserved.

--------------------------------

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=572604

Blair's New Anti-Terror Law Wins Approval

Britain's House of Lords Approves Tony Blair's Anti-Terorrism Law, Ending Bitter Standoff

By ED JOHNSON

The Associated Press

Mar. 11, 2005 - Prime Minister Tony Blair won the support of Parliament Friday for a new anti-terrorism law that will allow Britain to act swiftly against eight foreign terror suspects who had been granted bail.

The House of Lords approved new powers to order house arrest, impose curfews and electronic tagging without trial, after the government made concessions to end a bitter parliamentary deadlock just three days before similar legislation was to have expired.

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which also allows the government to ban terror suspects from meeting certain people or traveling and to restrict their access to the Internet or telephone later received the formality of royal assent to become law.

The new control orders are likely to be used first against the eight foreign nationals, including radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada who has alleged links to al-Qaida. The men have spent three years in a high security prison without charge but were granted bail at a special commission in London Friday.

Justice Duncan Ouseley set strict bail conditions for them, including a nighttime curfew, restrictions on whom they could meet and on their access to mobile phones and the Internet.

Qatada, described by a Spanish judge as Osama bin Laden's "spiritual ambassador in Europe," also was banned from preaching at mosques or leading prayers under the conditions of his bail.

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend