-Caveat Lector-
>From www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: government unveils draconian "anti-terror" Bill
By Julie Hyland
17 November 2001
Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author
Home Secretary David Blunkett unveiled his proposed Anti-
terrorism, Crime and Security Bill Tuesday. The wide-sweeping and
draconian character of the measures it contains refutes the claim
that they are aimed at ensuring the security of the population from
terrorist attack. The Bill�s aim is to enable the government to
impose long sought-after restrictions on civil liberties.
The Bill, which is to be rushed through all its parliamentary stages
before Christmas, amends numerous existing Acts, including the
Terrorism Act 2000, the Biological Weapons Act 1974, the
Chemical Weapons Act 1996, and the Public Order Act 1986.
Originally said to contain 40 clauses, the completed draft has
grown in the telling to 125, and gives the state a variety of new
powers for use against those suspected of involvement in terrorist
related activity and includes laws on communication data that
effectively overturn an individuals right to privacy.
At the heart of the new Bill are significant changes to laws
governing the rights of asylum seekers and foreign nationals.
It was specifically to enforce these measures that Blunkett
declared a state of emergency on Monday. The Home Secretary
described his extraordinary measure as a �technicality� enabling
him to derogate Article 5 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Only incorporated into British law earlier this year, the
Convention forbids the detention of any foreign national for any
length of time unless they are to be deported or tried. The
Convention also forbids the return of a foreign national seeking
refuge in Britain to a country where they may suffer �degrading
treatment�.
Asylum and Immigration
Not only does the Convention no longer apply due to the state of
emergency, but Blunkett�s measures empower the British state to
detain foreign nationals without charge for an indefinite period and
to deport suspect foreign nationals without recourse to existing
asylum and immigration procedures.
Clauses 21 to 34 cover immigration and asylum and apply
retrospectively to those already granted leave to remain in the
country. They enable the home secretary to issue an international
terrorist certification against any foreign national thought to be
involved in planning or conducting terrorist offences, having links to
any such person or being a member of an organisation deemed as
terrorist. The legislation provides for a group to be designated as
foreign terrorists if it is �subject to the control or influence of
persons outside� the United Kingdom and the home secretary
suspects that it may be involved, in any way, �with possible or
actual acts of terrorism�.
A person certified as such can then be interned without charge for
up to six months, and then brought before a Special Immigration
Appeals Commission (SIAC) chaired by a High Court judge.
Reminiscent of the notorious no-jury Diplock courts used by the
British military in Northern Ireland, the hearings will be held in
secret with the suspects denied the right to hear the evidence
against them. The accused and their lawyers may be excluded
from parts of the hearing. Should the special court agree that the
home secretary�s certification has a basis, it must immediately
reject any asylum appeal before dealing with the substance of the
charges against the detained person.
The SIAC is also the only body to which an interned foreign
national can appeal against certification. It is also the only body
entitled to �entertain proceedings for questioning� the home
secretary�s action, and the only court able to hear appeals against
derogation of the Human Rights Convention.
Over the recent period the government has been continuously
frustrated that its efforts to overturn asylum appeals and carry out
summary deportations have fallen foul of the law, leading it to
campaign internationally for changes to the Geneva Convention
covering the right to asylum. The new Bill ends the necessity for
the government to go through lengthy international and legal
wrangles, enabling it to significantly curtail the rights of immigrants
and asylum seekers under the cover of the September 11 terrorist
atrocities.
The Bill also expands the power of the Terrorism Act 2000 by
enabling the property or cash held by an organisation deemed as
terrorist to be sequestrated. This can be enacted regardless of
whether or not the organisation is subject to any criminal
proceedings. The property or assets of any person, organisation or
country making funds available to or for the benefit of �terrorist
suspects� may be subject to a freezing order if the UK Treasury
believe the latter may be involved in �action to the detriment� of any
part of the UK economy, or constitute a threat to the life or property
of at least one UK national.
Data Retention
Clauses 101 to 105 covering data retention by communication
service providers are in addition to the already restrictive Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP Act) which was passed last year
and is due to be fully implemented by the end of 2001. The RIP Act
provides for police agencies to access communications data
without a court order for the purposes of criminal investigation,
protecting public health and safety, tax collection and matters of
national security.
Amendments introduced in the new Bill will enable the government
to implement those measures that it was previously unable to get
through in the RIP Act due to concerns over their implications for
civil liberties.
Under a �voluntary code of practice� drawn up by the home
secretary, communication service providers must retain information
on their customers for possible use by police and other law
enforcement agencies. Directly contradicting the supposedly
voluntary character of this arrangement, clause 102 states that the
home secretary will be able to force communications services to
comply.
Data retained will include an individual�s geographical location
determined through their mobile phone; sender and recipient details
on emails; a complete log of a person�s Internet sessions,
including their IP address; and the address of all Web sites they
have visited. Communication service providers are currently only
able to retain such information for billing purposes, after which it
must be destroyed.
Nuclear materials
The Bill bans publication of details on nuclear power plants and the
transportation of nuclear materials, regardless of whether or not a
person intended to prejudice security in making the disclosure.
Campaigners protesting at the safety of nuclear plants or
attempting to stop the transport of radioactive waste and other
materials could be charged with endangering national security and
imprisoned for up to seven years.
Bizarrely, the Bill makes it an imprisonable offence for any UK
national to carry a nuclear weapon, or attempt to make or transfer
one! To cover all possible bases, the Bill specifies that this charge
can be brought whether the UK national is at home or abroad and
that a �nuclear explosive device� includes one that �is not intended
for use as a weapon�. In contrast, the British State is expressly
allowed to authorise the use of nuclear weapons. The Bill sets out
that the government may give the say so for their use �in the
course of an armed conflict� and �in such manner and on such
terms� as it sees fit.
All businesses and premises holding toxic substances or disease
pathogens that could be used in a terrorist attack are to supply
police with personal information on those people with access to the
materials, and are to be subject to police checks.
Law enforcement powers
The Bill grants wider, unspecified power for the secret services to
carry out �intelligence gathering� outside Britain.
Several clauses extend the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence
police, UK Atomic Energy Authority police, and the British
Transport Police. These are to be given the same powers as
normal police officers when they are requested to participate in any
investigation. Police officers will also be empowered to stop,
detain, question and search aircraft passengers and to arrest
anyone refusing to leave an aeroplane.
The Bill will also reintroduce the infamous �sus� laws used to
harass working class youth, and minorities, in inner-city areas
during the 1980s. Under Clause 95, a police officer may stop and
search any person or vehicle if they suspect serious incidents may
occur within the local area, or if they �reasonably� believe they may
find weapons or equipment to be used in the commission of a
crime. Under Clause 93, any person stopped by a police officer and
required to remove �any item� that the officer believes may be used
to disguise identity can be imprisoned for one month for failing to
do so.
Again the clauses do not apply only to suspect terrorist activity.
Nor do those clauses in Part 10 of the Bill, enabling police officers
to carry out fingerprinting, searches and the photographing of a
person arrested, where it is deemed necessary to establish their
identity. These can be conducted irrespective of whether the
person has been charged with an offence, and against their
expressed wishes.
The Bill overturns existing barriers preventing Customs and Excise
and Inland Revenue officials from passing on information on an
individual to police agencies. The disclosure of previously
confidential information is to apply in any instance where it is
considered important to a criminal investigation�again not only in
the case of suspected terrorist activity�or in deciding whether to
instigate such proceedings.
The government has also announced it will delay a substantial part
of the intended Freedom of Information Act, governing the public
right to information, until 2005.
The proposed measures create a myriad of other offences,
including imposing a seven-year prison sentence on anyone
carrying out of hoax involving the threat of noxious substances. The
law against incitement to racial hatred is to be extended to
religious hatred, also to be punishable by seven years
imprisonment. This charge also applies to plays or recordings
which could be deemed to be offensive to one or another religion.
Perhaps the clauses that prove most conclusively that the
proposed Bill has nothing to do with combating terrorism, but is
motivated by more fundamental political and social concerns, are
those enabling the government to bypass parliament on European
Union legislation. Part 13, Clause 109 will enable an �authorised
minister� to enforce EU legislation concerning the establishment of
a pooling of judicial and police powers European wide, and a
common immigration policy, including matters concerning freedom
of movement by EU nationals. An �authorised minister� is
designated to be; the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor, the
Treasury, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish and Northern Ireland First
Ministers and deputy first ministers.
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
Military tribunals, monitoring of lawyers: Bush announces new
police-state measures
By Kate Randall
17 November 2001
Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author
In the space of little more than a week, the Bush administration
has issued a series of executive orders that amount to the most far-
reaching assault on democratic rights in modern legal history. The
directives violate protections laid down in the US Constitution and
upheld by judicial precedent over many decades.
On Tuesday, Bush issued an executive order allowing for the use of
special military courts to try suspected terrorists. This followed by
days the announcement that Attorney General John Ashcroft had
authorized the monitoring of conversations between lawyers and
clients in federal custody, including people who have been detained
but not charged with any crime.
Other recent executive orders include the following:
* A directive empowering the attorney general to authorize the
indefinite detention of some non-citizens, a rule that could affect
�hundreds of individuals,� according to the Justice Department.
* An order to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out
�voluntary� interviews of more than 5,000 mostly Middle Eastern
men, ages 18 to 33, who are living in the US, ostensibly to gather
information concerning future terrorist attacks.
* A new policy on visa applications affecting men, ages 16 to 45,
from 25 Middle Eastern and African countries. All such applicants
will face intense scrutiny and long delays in the processing of their
requests. Their names will be checked against databases
maintained by the FBI.
* The suspension of running tallies by the Justice Department of
the number of people rounded up by law enforcement agencies in
the anti-terror dragnet. The last figure released by federal
authorities was 1,187.
These sweeping changes have been enacted by executive
proclamation, over the heads of the people, with no discussion or
vote in Congress. Coming on top of the far-reaching provisions of
the �anti-terrorism� bill passed last month by Congress, they are
major steps toward establishing the institutional and legal
framework for police-state rule in America.
Seizing on the events of September 11 as a pretext, the Bush
administration has instituted measures that would have been
politically unthinkable prior to the terror attacks. They are
components of a reactionary agenda long-sought by the most right-
wing sections of the political establishment.
The military tribunals authorized by Bush would be the envy of any
totalitarian state. According to Bush�s order, they can be employed
against suspects who are non-citizens, with the proceedings being
held in the US, abroad or even at sea. Trials conducted by these
tribunals will be held in secret. The military prosecutors will not be
required to reveal any information about the proceedings to the
public. The tribunals can render sentences up to and including life
imprisonment or execution.
The president will designate who is to be tried by these tribunals.
According to the November 15 New York Times, the Pentagon is
already preparing for the possible transfer to military custody of
immigrants currently detained by federal authorities.
The accused will have no recourse to appeal, and will be barred
from seeking remedy from any US state or federal court, any
foreign court or any international tribunal, such as the World Court
at The Hague. This means that, on George W. Bush�s directive, a
suspect could be arrested, tried in a foreign country in a secret
trial, and summarily executed.
A unanimous verdict is not required to convict. Defendants can be
convicted and sentenced by a two-thirds majority of the military
officers presiding, who will be selected by the secretary of defense.
The qualifications of these officers are not specified by the
presidential order, and their identities could be concealed from the
public. The effect would be similar to the use of hooded army
officers in Latin American military courts, as in the recent trial in
Peru of American Lori Berenson, a left-wing journalist.
The tribunals will not be required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt and will not be obligated to follow established rules of
evidence. This license for frame-up violates the most elementary
principles of legal justice and discards procedures that are required
not only in civilian courts, but also in existing military courts.
According to Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of
Military Justice, �The accused in such a court would have
dramatically fewer rights than a person would in a court-martial.�
In comparison to the process laid down in Bush�s executive order,
the 1999 trial of Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah
Ocalan by a Turkish military court�condemned around the world
as a judicial frame-up�looks like a model of due process. In the
Ocalan trial, representatives of the media and international
observers were permitted, and the defendant was able to appeal his
death sentence to a Turkish appeals court.
Bush�s military tribunals and all of his other �anti-terror� measures
violate one of the most basic democratic principles of US law: the
presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Now
defendants can be stripped of their right to due process by virtue of
presidential fiat. If the president names a non-citizen as a terrorist
suspect, he can be turned over to the military for summary
conviction and execution.
Defending Bush�s order, Vice President Dick Cheney said terrorism
suspects �don�t deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that
would be used for an American citizen going through the normal
judicial process,� and that a military tribunal �guarantees that we�ll
have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they
deserve.�
While the executive order specifically refers to Osama bin Laden�s
Al Qaeda network, these kangaroo courts could be used against
any non-citizens alleged to be involved with terrorism. It should be
kept in mind that Bush�who wields absolute power in deciding
who is to be prosecuted by these tribunals�demonstrated his
instincts for fair play and compassion by presiding over 152
executions during his five-year term as governor of Texas.
The official justifications provided by the Bush administration for
establishing these military star chambers do not hold water. The
major claim is that civilian trials of terrorists would compromise US
intelligence. This assertion, however, is belied by the existence of
provisions allowing federal courts to keep sensitive information
sealed from the public record.
What the government is really concerned about is concealing from
the American people the truth about its operations. The holding of
swift, secret trials would allow the authorities to continue to keep
the public in the dark.
In particular, military tribunals would serve two purposes:
First, the government would be able to prosecute and convict
those, such as bin Laden, who it alleges are guilty of terrorist
crimes, without having to prove its charges. Various government
spokesmen have acknowledged since September 11 that they do
have sufficient evidence to convict bin Laden in a court of law. By
bringing terrorist suspects before secret military tribunals, where
the outcome is guaranteed and the defendant has no legal rights,
the government would be able to claim it �proved� its allegations
without fear of public scrutiny or independent review.
Such a legal farce has obvious political advantages, since the Bush
administration�s justification for going to war against Afghanistan
hinges on the claim that bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible
for the September 11 attacks, and the Taliban regime is guilty of
sponsoring and protecting them. A public trial which revealed that
the government had no serious evidence to back up the claim that
bin Laden and Al Qaeda organized the hijack-bombings would have
serious political consequences, both in the US and abroad.
Second, a closed military process would negate the possibility of
information emerging that might undermine the government�s
version of the September 11 disaster. A host of unanswered
questions remain about the strange and murky circumstances that
allowed men identified as Islamic terrorists to organize and execute
a complex plot to attack key centers of American economic and
military power, supposedly without any advance knowledge on the
part of American police and intelligence agencies.
A normal trial might expose facts suggesting that US authorities
were not as oblivious to the terrorist conspiracy as they claim, or
even the existence of prior contacts between some of the
perpetrators and American intelligence operatives. In one way or
another, a normal trial would be certain to bring forward politically
damaging information about the greatest security breach in US
domestic history.
The authorization of secret military tribunals clearly flies in the face
the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, which applies to
�persons,� not just citizens. Under current legal standards, anyone
in the US�citizens and non-citizens alike�can file a writ of
habeas corpus, asking for a judge to take up his or her case.
Inevitably, Bush�s authorization of military tribunals will be
challenged in the courts and end up before the Supreme Court. It is
likely, however, that a majority on the high court will back the
measure.
Comments made in the aftermath of the terror attacks by
Associate Justice Sandra Day O�Connor�generally considered a
�swing vote� on the Court�indicate that behind-the-scenes
discussions have been going on about sanctioning �military
justice.� In a speech on September 30, O�Connor said the terror
attacks �will cause us to reexamine some of our laws pertaining to
criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on.�
She continued, �It is possible, if not likely, that we will rely more on
international rules of war than on our cherished constitutional
standards for criminal prosecutions in responding to threats to our
national security.�
Predictably, the fascist-minded editorialists of the Wall Street
Journal defend the tribunals �as a matter of common sense, as a
way to shield an essential part of the war effort from the excesses
of the modern US criminal justice system.� The Journal, which
reflects the views of major sections of the corporate elite, adds in a
November 16 editorial: �Do we really want to give people bent on
destroying the US the right to throw out evidence based on the
exclusionary rule?�
However, Bush�s barrage of executive orders has provoked unease
and concern within parts of the political establishment and sections
of the press. In a column in the November 15 New York Times,
entitled �Seizing Dictatorial Power,� long-time Republican operative
William Safire writes that �a president of the United States has just
assumed what amounts to dictatorial power ... with the
replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo
courts.� �On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed?� he asks.
A November 16 editorial in the Times, headlined �A Travesty of
Justice,� comments, �With the flick of a pen, in this case, Mr. Bush
has essentially discarded the rulebook of American justice
painstakingly assembled over the course of more than two
centuries.�
That the Times, which has disgraced itself in the recent period by
praising Bush�s �statesmanship� and political �maturity,� should feel
obliged to make such a pointed comment, testifies to the vast
scope and extreme character of the Bush administration�s assault
on democratic rights.
Some senators from both parties have called for hearings on the
setting up of military tribunals, the monitoring of lawyer-client
discussions and other measures enacted by the Bush
administration without congressional input. However, working
people can place no confidence in the liberal media or the
Democrats to wage a struggle against the assault on democratic
rights. They have consistently adapted themselves to the drive by
the most reactionary layers of the ruling elite to curtail basic rights.
While the current rash of anti-democratic measures largely targets
non-citizens, mainly of Middle-Eastern descent, they constitute a
fundamental attack on the basic rights of the entire population.
These attacks will be extended to American citizens, especially
those who oppose the government�s policies, sooner rather than
later.
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
