Britain Anti-terror legislation opens up broad attack on civil liberties

["M.V.M. ( in UOL )" <mvmeireles at uol.com.br>]

Britain: Anti-terror legislation opens up broad attack on civil liberties

By Chris Marsden
8 November 2003

Two court verdicts last month have not only highlighted the anti-democratic
nature of the legislation passed on the basis of supposedly fighting
terrorism post-September 11, but added significantly to the draconian
powers the Labour government and the police have accrued to themselves.
On October 29, 10 men accused of being involved in international terrorism
lost an appeal against their detention without charge or trial since 2001.
The men were arrested solely on the say-so of Home Secretary David
Blunkett, who alleges that they were connected to groups linked to
Al-Qaeda. Most of them have been held for the past two years in
high-security prisons or mental hospitals.
The 10 were interned under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,
which added to the powers contained in the Terrorism Act 2000 and came into
force two months after the September 11 bombings. Sixteen foreign nationals
have been held under its remit. Under the ATCSA, non-UK nationals certified
as ãsuspected international terrorists and national security risksä by the
home secretary can be detained without charge or trial for an unlimited
period. Detention can be based on secret evidence÷which the detainee and
their counsel cannot see, hear, or challenge.
The appeal was also heard largely in secret by the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission (SIAC), a panel of three judges and no jury. As a result
of these Kafkaesque procedures, the names of only two of the detainees are
known. One, Jamal Ajouaou, is a Moroccan citizen who has already agreed to
return to his home country. The other is Palestinian asylum seeker Mahmoud
Abu Rideh, a 32-year-old father of five who has lived in Britain since 1995
and is now held in Broadmoor high-security mental hospital. The remaining
eight are known only by a letter of the alphabet.
None have been accused of actual crimes, but only of membership of one of
the 39 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act. Representatives of
the security services presented testimony, and the men were not allowed to
know the nature of this evidence against them.
In making its verdict, SIAC operated on the assumption that the government
only had to prove it had ãreasonable grounds to suspectä the men were
linked with terrorism. Admitting that the evidence presented would not
stand up in a court of law, the judgesâ ruling stated that ãthe standard of
proof is below a balance of probabilities.ä
The judgement also explicitly considered whether evidence might have been
extracted against the defendants from people who were tortured. It ruled
that if that had occurred, the evidence would not necessarily be dismissed
by the court.
Evidence extracted through torture is already used by the Republican
administration in the United States against detainees held at Camp X-Ray on
Guantanamo. US officials have admitted that its own interrogators use such
methods as holding prisoners in prolonged painful positions, sleep and
light deprivation, and withholding access to food, water and medical
attention. Worse still, they also allow the transfer and detention of
prisoners in other friendly countries where worse crimes can be committed
with impunity. Now Britainâs government and judiciary has made clear its
intention to avail itself of this sordid and tainted ãevidence.ä
Commenting on the verdict, Blunkett said:
ãThe new anti-terror laws were in response to the public emergency to
ensure that foreign nationals, who we believe are international terrorists
posing a risk to our national security and who we want to deport but are
unable to for a variety of reasons, are not allowed to remain in the UK
unchecked. Those detained are free to leave the UK voluntarily at any time
and two have done so.ä
This is a crude falsification. The detention powers in part four of the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act are immigration powers that can
presently only be used regarding foreign nationals. They allow for
detention of a foreign national whom the government wants to deport but
cannot. And in this is the lie, for the reason the individuals concerned
cannot be deported is because they face death, torture or inhuman and
degrading treatment in their home state÷so sending them back would be
against international law. They could be accepted by a third country, but
this is highly unlikely given that they have been publicly identified as
members of terrorist groups. In the majority of cases, therefore,
Blunkettâs claim that those detained are free to leave means that they are
free to chose between possibly being detained in Britain for the rest of
their lives and going back to face a possible violent death.
Amnesty International called the judgement a ãperversion of justice.ä It
commented, ãDisconcertingly, the SIAC ruled that under the ATCSA the burden
of proof that the Secretary of State has to meet to justify internment of
the ten is not the criminal standard of Îbeyond reasonable doubtâ but,
instead, is even lower than that needed in a civil case.
ãThe shockingly low burden of proof, which the SIAC ruled that the
Secretary of State had met, violates the right to the presumption of
innocence to which anyone subject to criminal proceedings is entitled...
ãFurthermore, Amnesty International is alarmed that todayâs judgements by
the SIAC may have relied on evidence extracted under torture. Some of the
secret evidence relied upon by the Secretary of State reportedly includes
statements which were obtained at Bagram airbase and elsewhere in American
custody, where there have been serious allegations of torture. Under
international law any statement that has been established to have been made
as a result of torture is inadmissible.ä
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said of the verdict, ãI have two
questions for the Home Office. If they are so convinced these men, held in
jail for nearly two years, are involved in terrorism, why will they not put
them on trial? Is it because they know that this so-called evidence has
been obtained from prisoners tortured by the secret police of countries
regarded as friendly to Britain but with a proven record of human rights
abuse?
ãThe fact is that we are following the example of the US and allowing our
dirty work to be done in the torture chambers of foreign countries.ä
He added that the men ãexpect now to remain locked up for the remainder of
their lives. Each knows that he has been involved in no action in support
of terrorism. Since the largest percentage of the hearings have been held
in secret no one knows what in particular has been said against him. A
number have been said to be members of groups of which they have never
heard... Secrecy has been chosen over due process and is a dangerous
precedent for the future, not just for these detainees. Their arrest and
continuing detention without due process marks the entry of this country
into a new dark age of injustice.ä
In a letter to the Guardian, Sherman Carroll of the Medical Foundation for
the Care of Victims of Torture pointed to the significance of the low-key
response to the abuse of democratic rights, asking rhetorically, ãPeople
can now be locked up, perhaps for ever, on the basis of secret evidence
because they might be Îlinkedâ to terrorist groups? Yet you report this
only on page six?ä
The reporting of the verdict elsewhere in the media was if anything more
low-key than that of the Guardian÷a response echoed the next day when the
courts issued another verdict directly threatening civil rights.
On November 30, civil rights campaigners lost their appeal to the High
Court against Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens and
Blunkett for employing special powers to stop and search under the
Terrorism Act 2000 against peaceful demonstrators at Europeâs largest arms
fair, held at the ExCel Centre in Londonâs Docklands in September.
The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of a student, Kevin Gillan, and a
freelance photo-journalist, Pennie Quinton. Dozens of protesters were
stopped and at least 2 of the 154 people arrested were detained under the
Terrorism Act.
The court found that ãThe exercise and use of the power was proportionate
to the gravity of the [terrorism] risk.ä
Justice Henry Brooke added, by way of mitigation, ãIf there were any
question of the police using these powers as part of day-to-day policing on
the streets of London, there would be considerable force in this
submission.ä
But routinely employing these powers is precisely what the police can now
do, and in fact have been able to for years. Testimony to the hearing
revealed that London has been operating under an undisclosed state of
emergency for the past two years, with the police granted the necessary
special powers. Authorisations under the Terrorism Act have been in force
for the greater London area continuously since February 19, 2001, allowing
random searches of buildings and people under Section 44 of the act for a
period of up to 28 days with the agreement of the home secretary.
Liberty noted that no one could say how many other counties were presently
covered by the extraordinary police powers.
The judges made only one concession by granting the civil rights
campaigners permission to appeal against their decision to the Court of
Appeal because a matter of wide public importance had been raised. But the
record of the judiciary so far argues powerfully against placing any
confidence in it as a restraint on an increasingly authoritarian government
and police apparatus.