As the British Parliament debates an increase in pre-arraignment detention of terror suspects — from 28 to 42 days — the counter-terrorism measure is attracting criticism from the Labour Party backbenchers.
There were attempts to push the limit to 90 days in 2005 when the ceiling for detention was just 14 days, but the bill was defeated. The current 28-day pre-charge detention was then accepted as a compromise. Last year, there were suggestions in the queen’s speech about an increase in pre-charge detention but the Labour Party said that it was only “considering options.” Soon after, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, submitted her controversial proposal to extend the detention period for the House of Commons to deliberate.
It would, however, be difficult for Smith to persuade the dissidents in the Cabinet to vote in favor of the government — especially when the measure is exceedingly unpopular among the Muslims in Britain as well as the human rights watchdogs. Smith recently told the News of the World that the country faces a serious security threat and that British agencies were working on tracking down 30 plots encompassing 2,000 suspects from 200 networks, but her critics argued that the figures were no higher than before. Smith, who is keen to avoid a defeat in the Commons and rendezvous with subsequent humiliation, said: “We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers. We’ve got to stay ahead. When we extended the period from 14 to 28 days people said ‘there’s no need for this, it’s not necessary. You’ll never need to use it’. Well, we did. The number of international investigations is greater than before. Each time a plot is uncovered the terrorists learn and they develop.
“That is why there is a massive increase in the way they are using technology and encrypting evidence. It takes time to get the evidence you need to charge somebody.”
Human rights lawyer Saghir Hussain said that prolonging pre-charge detention is making the Muslims in Britain exceedingly vulnerable. “The agenda has constantly been shifted further toward a police state here,” he said. “What is the principle at stake here? And, is there a justification?” The increase, he argued, will only work to psychologically break down and soften the detainees. “The government has no justification to increase the pre-charge detention, as it is already four times more than any other common law nation.”
In retrospect, the tussle between the English and the IRA — which caused a bloodbath in England — led to innumerable arrests of suspects associated with the IRA even though the pre-charge detention was only three days.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is well aware of the fact that the measure can further increase tensions in the Muslim community, in Britain, and his senior colleagues have advised him that there is no particular need at this juncture to push the measure forward. Furthermore, Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, is one of the many influential figures in the legal arena who view this measure as paradoxical to the ancient liberties entrenched in the English law. He recently told Sky News: “Not only is it wrong in principle but it also is counterproductive because it can lead to the risk that part of our community, particularly the Muslim community, sort of sees this as an attack on them and some misguided young men therefore decide to join what they see as a cause to fight us.”
The government is firm on the stance that prolonged detention is a necessary tool to combat terrorism, since the terror plots are becoming more and more complex that, often times, involve multitiered international networks and heavily encrypted data stored in the computers that need time to decipher. It is, therefore, necessary to arrest suspects based on intelligence as opposed to hard evidence to avoid mishaps. Smith continues to reassure skeptics that the powers will only be used in “exceptional circumstances” and not abused.
Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, said in an exclusive interview that he opposes the bill because it is in direct violation of the basic human rights. He was key in Gillian Gibbon’s release, and he narrated his conversation with Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir, who told the baron that the Sudanese government was fair to the schoolteacher, as she was put before a judge — unlike Britain, where people are detained without charge.
The peer is of the view that the measure is aligned with “the politics of fear.” There isn’t a real threat, he said, but they have to create an atmosphere of fear, so that the government can bag more votes by showing that they are tougher than the Tories on terrorism and that they can ensure the safety of the masses.
“We’ve had one suicide attack on 7/7, IRA was bombing every two months.”
The government has not been able to make a case for the measure, said Lord Ahmed. Moreover, it is further increasing tension in Muslim community. Furthermore, the authorities have got enough power to interrogate people and time to keep them in custody; hence, there is no need for a 42-day detention, which is like having a short sentence without knowing what you’ve done. “If this bill is passed by the Parliament, that would be a sad day for Britain, British democracy and the rule of law”. The questions that many human rights watchdogs, for example, those at Liberty, an organization in UK that aims to protect civil liberties and promote human rights, are asking are: Why is there a need for 42 days, six weeks, to charge a terror suspect? And, if the terror suspects are taken into custody based on phone taps, why isn’t it admissible in court?
Jago Russel, the policy officer at Liberty, told this writer that over 1,000 warrants are issued for phone taps each year that lead to arrests of potential terror suspects. Often times, the arrests are based on mere suspicion or a hunch, but the intercepted evident (phone taps) are not admissible in the courts. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign, therefore, lobbies that intercepted evidence should be admissible in criminal cases. The bill has a long way to go before it becomes law. The Cabinet was evidently divided on the second reading. Now, the tug is between those who hold Magna Carta in high esteem and want to prevent the possibility of someone innocent facing detention for 42 days premised on mere suspicion and a government infinitely chanting the mantra of security concerns.
— Fahad Faruqui read philosophy of religion from Columbia University as an undergraduate and later returned to the Columbia University to pursue MS in journalism. He has hosted an investigative talk show on Aaj TV.
