Last updated: August 28, 2019
Topic: ArtBooks
Sample donated:

 

ABSTRACT
The objective of this dissertation is to establish, whether the various legislations of the Labour government in the UK have proved successful in preventing terrorism in the UK. In addition, an attempt has also been made to scrutinize the extent to which personal rights of individuals have been compromised in this exercise. Moreover, the culture of surveillance, which has become predominant in the UK and its effect on the public at large, has also been perused.

The Antiterrorist legislations enacted in 2001 and 2006 were aimed at addressing the 9/11, and 7/7 bomb blast incidents. Subsequently, the area of applicability of these legislations had been expanded. These legislations have increased the scope of the UK government’s powers.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The long – term detention of suspected terrorists is one of the most significant features of these acts. The traditional concentration of the government on the Irish Republican groups that had indulged in domestic terrorism had to be shifted to the completely new area of Islamic terrorism, which focussed on the US, the UK and its allies. Moreover, the government was compelled to focus on a wide range of terrorist groups associated with Islamic fundamentalism[1].

The fight against domestic and international terrorism has undermined the basic rights and civil liberties of the citizens of the UK. The democratic form of the British government has been seriously altered. The people of the UK no more live in a democratic atmosphere, because the government is imposing several additional restrictions on them from time to time. The subjection of people to electronic surveillance; and security checks at all the ports, has become a part of life in the United Kingdom[2].

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Terrorists exploded bombs in London city on the 7th of July 2005. These bombings claimed several lives and caused severe damages to property. The Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to these serial explosions by implementing a number of stringent measures and a twelve – point programme, in order to curb terrorism and terrorist activities in the United Kingdom. Some of the important measures are first, amendments to the deportation legislation, which makes it possible to deport non-UK citizens[3].

Such deportation is applied even to persons who are at risk of being subjected torture or any other prohibited treatment in their native countries. Second, an act of terrorism is not to be overlooked. Ignoring, substantiating or venerating an act of terrorism is to be construed as an offence. Third, provision of asylum to persons involved in terrorism is to be denied under any circumstance. Fourth, new strategies are to be adopted, in order to imprison suspected terrorists for long periods[4].

In the United Kingdom, the fundamental rights of the citizens are subjected to other legislations and are viewed from the perspective of their negative implications. For instance, the right to freedom of speech is permitted, only when such expressions do not invoke any legal provisions or no law prohibits such activity. There is no explicit declaration of fundamental rights anywhere in the legislation of the UK. The position of basic rights in the UK during the 1990s had been critically surveyed by the Democratic Audit in 1996, in which it was revealed that there were forty – two breaches of basic rights. These violations clearly indicated the indifference of the political and constitutional system of the UK in enforcing and securing fundamental rights to its citizens[5].

The London blasts in 2005 had drawn the attention of the government to take serious measures to curb terrorist activities in the UK. Prime Minister Blair had reiterated that such measures were essential for containing terrorism. He also stated that there was a need to reform administrative measures. He also, opined that it was necessary to make them more effective in addressing the issue on hand without any further delay[6].

According to the Human Rights Watch, the United Kingdom’s obligations towards implementing human rights were discarded by the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The control orders of the new law rescind the fundamental freedoms of persons suspected of terrorism. In December 2004, the

highest court in the UK had ruled that detaining foreign nationals suspected of terrorism for indefinite periods, would be tantamount to an infringement of the law of human rights[7].

The Labour government implemented several stringent measures to counter and curb terrorist activities in the UK, prior to the London bombings. These were draconian anti –terrorism acts. Subsequent to the serial explosions by terrorists, the anti – terrorism campaign was intensified. The government introduced several semi fascist frameworks to deal with terrorist activities, which included unrestricted arrests and detentions of suspected individuals. The enforcing authorities were empowered to detain suspects for periods exceeding three months[8].

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2 – METHODOLOGY
I had employed a doctrinal approach to assess the impact of the various legislative exercises of the Labour government, subsequent to the London bombings. In this context, I had scrutinized several Human Rights issues, which were being totally disregarded by the Blair government.

In addition, I have examined the works of several eminent authorities in the field of Human Rights and UK laws.

Moreover, I analyzed the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and their adaptation into the UK Human Rights Act. Interpretation of these laws by the courts and their judgments were studied.

I have concentrated on the interference of the Labour legislation with Human Rights, under guise of safeguarding national security. In this endeavour, I have attempted to establish, by resorting to impartial reasoning, whether the various measures undertaken by the Blair government to protect national security is justiciable. While analyzing the Human Rights situation in the UK, I have considered various political theories and applied them in my research work.

To this end, I had consulted various textbooks, authentic web sites, online libraries of reputed institutions, public documents, journals and the extant literature by a number of prominent persons.

 

CHAPTER 3 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Buzan, et al had contended that a terrorist threat poses considerable danger to stability, not only within the country but also to the comity of nations. This constitutes its objective component. The threat emanating from a terrorist is based on the process of securitization[9].

Rorty stated that securitization on, unprecedented level, results in post – democracy, and that the political leaders eschew public opinion. The result is that the public loses all hope of meaningfully affecting what transpires in public. This is a highly undesirable development[10].

Hayes has held forth that it cannot be gainsaid that Blair securitizes terrorism. He was ably supported in this endeavour to subjugate human rights by his equally villainous home secretary, who held forth that the balance between human liberties and security, as had been established by the ECHR had to be modified. He advocated a drastic reduction in human liberties[11].

Davis examined the operational capabilities and accountability of the United Kingdom’s security institutions, such as the MI5. As these organizations were primarily preoccupied with the obtention of clandestine information and sensitive matters, their accountability was very difficult to assess. These agencies depicted poor accountability to the public and were given to intervene with the political and private freedom of suspected and general individuals. They also interfere with the freedom of association[12].

Davis argument was expanded upon by Professor Street who maintained that the English law intervened with several aspects of the civil liberties of individuals. He reiterated that individuals had been provided with the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Street also claimed that the frequent and regular conflicts between the government and the media had led to a new type of public order in the United Kingdom. In order to get a clear picture about the government’s intention with regard to civil liberties, Professor Street examined proposed legislation and actually implemented legislation. He had argued that the public had a right to know about the priorities and acts of the government. This growing demand had led to the emergence of the Freedom of information act, which provides the right to information with regard to the government’s objectives. This right of access to government information is available in several countries such as the United States, Sweden and Canada. However the British civil service is not ready to provide such right to its citizens. Thus knowing about the government’s activities is very difficult in Britain, in comparison to other Western nations[13].

Barnes attempted to know whether the individuals had an absolute right to privacy in the United Kingdom. He was also more concerned about whether such a right had been obscured and overridden by the requirements to obtain knowledge about terrorism. Barnes argues against citizens being obliged to reveal their personal lives and answer the questions posed by the secret service agencies. He demands to know as to what the secret agencies would do with this sensitive and intimate information and as to who was going to review it[14].

Simons claims that privacy is a part of human rights. It is the same as the freedom of an individual in society. He argues that there is always a conflict regarding the right to privacy right, because it addresses the needs of the nation as well as the needs of an ordinary citizen. In other words, the state always wants to control and regulate privacy of the individual. However, the individual resents any interference with his privacy. Simons also claims that the sophistication of computer technology posed a great threat to the privacy of individuals. This is because a vast amount of personal information is electronically stored in databases by the government, which can be accessed by the police, hospitals, banks, employers, departments of government and any other organisation that wants to have personal information. The need of the hour is to enact such legislation as will safeguard the rights of individuals and their privacy[15].

According to Paine, Dataveillance is the new brand of surveillance, which is comprised of the individual’s behaviour as well as his complete details. These personal details are electronically stored in databases. Paine also argued that the techniques of surveillance have been modernised, so that no individuals can evade observation or disclosing personal information. Such surveillance is taking new forms and the use of CCTV has been increased in almost all the places. It is also impossible to hide credit card transactions. The availability of such information enables everyone who has access to it to identify an individual’s day-to-day activities[16].

 

 

CHAPTER 4 – LABOUR GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE LONDON BOMBINGS
The train blasts in London on 7 July 2005, was conducted by terrorists belonging to an Islamic terrorist group. These blasts had claimed sixty – seven lives. The Blair led government implemented stringent laws to contain terrorist activities in the UK. The Amnesty International identified these laws as infringements of human rights in the UK. The government maintained that the state security was lax, and that accordingly, it was incapable of controlling any sort of terrorist activity. Due to this reason, the government forged ahead and implemented laws that were more stringent[17].

By implementing this draconian legislation, the UK had deliberately shown her disregard to the UNHR. This new tendency had developed in the attitude of the UK due to the depredations of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups[18].

These measures would bring about the infringement of basic human rights. For instance, deporting an individual to his or her native country could make such a person vulnerable to torture and other prohibited measures in the country to which deportation is to take place. Under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture it would be equivalent to non – refoulement, which is a principle of international refugee law[19].

The new legislation’s control orders permits the indefinite detention of foreign nationals, suspected of terrorism. The powers provided by part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act or the ATCSA have been replaced by the control orders of the new act[20].

The powers provided by the ATCSA had expired on the 13th of March. It was supplanted by new law that had been enacted by Parliament. The House of Lords had sent back the bill to the House of Commons, for four times. The Law Lords decided that the powers provided by part 4 of the act required the UK to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights and that they were in violation of the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act integrates the Convention provisions with British law. There is no provision for prosecuting suspected terrorists in the new Act. The lawmakers had wilfully ignored the recommendations of the Privy Counsellor and the Review Committee, in December 2003[21].

Immediately after passing the new Act, the Home Secretary issued orders to detain ten individuals suspected of terrorist activity and to place them under control orders. These individuals were certified suspects of terrorism by the ATCSA. Most of them had been under detention from December 2001. However, nine of these suspects had been released on bail. The tenth suspect was put under house arrest[22].

The controls placed on them were curfew, electronic tagging, restrictions on visitors and meetings with others. Orders were imposed on them to abstain from the use of the Internet and restrictions were placed on the use of telephones. Two other individuals who were certified as suspects continued to be detained. One of them was serving a sentence on other charges and the second suspect had been arrested and detained under the powers of the new act. Moreover, two other certified suspects were deported from the UK[23].

Under this new Act the Home Secretary was empowered to use control orders to issue arrest warrants against individuals, who were suspected of involvement in act of terrorism. The High Court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for warranting detention. The Court was also required to satisfy itself that such individuals were to be subjected to control orders. There is no necessity for the individual’s presence during the preliminary hearing in the Court. The full hearing of the case is followed by the imposition of the control order, if the Court is convinced[24].

In this judicial process, the court examines the secret evidence by resorting to in camera hearings. In those closed hearings the suspected terrorist and that person’s lawyer are not allowed to participate. Criminal conviction of such suspected persons does not require the application of standard proof. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission can also follow similar proceedings in assessing certification of suspects under Anti – Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Materials can be obtained by pressurizing third countries, under the provisions of control orders. Much of the secret evidence can be from such sources. The UK has consistently, stated that it does not pressurize third countries[25].

These control orders were formulated without judicial supervision. Hence the fundamental requirements as established by Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights have not been made applicable for a fair trial. The ECHR provides certain requirements for fair trail such as the presumption of innocence, the right to an effective defence and an opportunity to challenge the evidence[26].

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, two contrasting control orders can be initiated such as derogating and non – derogating control orders. In the first category of derogating control orders, there would be certain obligations and requirements, which would be in conflict with Article 5 ECHR. Only the courts can make such derogating control orders. These control orders may have obligations that derogate Article 5 wholly or partly. However, no such derogatory control orders have emanated from the courts. The Home Secretary can directly make non – derogatory control orders. Is such control orders there would be no derogation from Article 5 ECHR[27].

The UK government had enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2006 in the wake of the July London bombings. This new act came into operation from April of that year. It is aimed at preventing recruitment and providing training to would be terrorists, by terrorist groups. The Act contains a number of provisions, which consider the act of glorification of terrorism as a criminal offence. It also prohibits the people from celebrating or exulting acts of terrorism in any manner whatsoever. By implementing these measures, the act aims to discourage people from getting involved in terrorist activities. According to Charles Clarke, the ex Home Secretary, it is not permitted to celebrate or glorify terrorist activities such as the July London blasts, either by the people or by the terrorists themselves. Doing so would make them criminally liable and would invite prosecution for having committed a criminal offense[28].

The underlying principle behind this restriction is that such celebrations would provoke and encourage other people to indulge in such activities. This provision had been severely criticized by the public and the scholars, who opined that such restrictions would suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Critics compare this provision to the prosecution of the Irish Prime Minister Taoiseach on the charges of celebrating Easter Raising. The glorification offense could have resulted in the arrest of numerous supporters of Nelson Mandela in the 1980’s who had praised his protests against apartheid in South Africa[29].

Opponents to the glorification offense clause argue that legal provisions opposing provocation to murder or racial hatred would create substantial problems for society. However, the Blair government is of the view that such new strategies and provisions should be made available to the police to initiate stringent action against celebrations of terrorist activities. For instances, some sections of the public had celebrated the July blasts by displaying placards in the streets of London city[30].

Furthermore, the new Act has provisions under which, the prosecution of suspected terrorists is made much easier by creating new offences. Activities such as planning to commit a terrorist activity, recruiting or imparting training to people, and distributing or marketing literature that incites terrorism are also treated as criminal offenses. Organizations and other bodies that promote or glorify terrorism can be proscribed by this Act[31].

The very idea behind the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was to prevent individuals who were participating in terrorist activities from doing so, by imposing suitable deterrent measures against them.

Under Article 5 ECHR every individual has the right to liberty and personal security. It further provides that no individual should be deprived of this liberty except under the exceptions set out in that article. The circumstances under which an individual could be deprived of his liberty are listed out as cases (a) to (f). In those cases an individual may be deprived of his liberty and subjected to a procedure as prescribed by law. The cases, which are listed in that article, are such that any democratic state can exercise its power to detain an individual. There can be a conviction followed by a sentence; a violation of a court order; an arrest on suspicion of crime; isolation of people with infectious diseases; segregation of the mentally ill; prevention of unlawful entry; a pending action to deport or extradite and so on. The European Court of Human Rights frequently refers to this list in cases of governmental excesses against individuals[32].

The ECHR attaches much importance to the right to liberty and security of individuals, provided by the Convention to them. Therefore, no individual can be deprived of his right to liberty and security unless his case comes under the category of the listed cases in the article. This stand of the article is based on a requirement. Article 15 ECHR interprets Human Rights Act 1998 with domestic context. It maintains that a state can derogate from Article 5 ECHR. To derogate from that article the member state should fulfil certain formalities. Such formalities may range from times of war to public emergencies, in which the very existence of the nation is subjected to threat; or in situations of exigencies[33].

However such measures should not contravene the obligations of international law. In the case of the UK it did not derogate itself from the article. Therefore control orders had to necessarily be consistent with article obligations. If a person who was put under a control order had challenged the control order, and at the same time if the Home Secretary had rejected that person’s appeal then it could be construed that the overall effect of the obligations contained in that control order would deprive that person of his liberty. Hence such control orders are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 5 ECHR[34].

The definition of a control order is contained in Subsection (1) of section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Under this definition, a control order may be an order which was drafted against a person in order to protect the rest of the members of society from terrorism threats. The control order may contain certain obligations, which are to be imposed on that individual. A control order may include the obligations, according to subsection (4). There were sixteen obligations in subsection (4) that can be imposed on a person. Some of these obligations include a restriction on his association or communication with specified persons; a restriction regarding that person’s residence or the persons to whom that person had given accommodation; a prohibition on his presence at a specified place or area at specified hours of the day; a restriction on the movements of a person within the UK; necessity to provide access to specified persons to use his place of residence or other premises over which that person has the power to grant access; the person may be required to provide access to  search parties who intend to search his place or any other premises under his control.  These are the important obligations that the government can impose on an individual. Individuals who fail to fulfil these obligations of the control orders can be found guilty of committing an offense that is punishable. The person who had failed to fulfil these requirements of the control order can be convicted and imprisoned for a period of five years[35].

CHAPTER 5 – EFFECT OF THIS LEGISLATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UK
The new Act provides the enforcing authorities with a wide range of control orders including house arrest. However, the control order to impose house arrest requires the government to derogate from Article 5 of the ECHR. Only the High Court is empowered to enforce derogating control orders. The government is required to make an application to the High Court in order to impose the house arrest control order. It is the responsibility of the government to present reasonable grounds to prove that a suspect had been involved in terrorist activities[36].

In the preliminary hearing, suspected individuals and their lawyer are excluded.  After the preliminary hearing, the court conducts a narrow judicial review in full hearing. During the full hearing, all parties to the case are allowed to be present. The court must apply the civil standard of proof. House arrest should not exceed twelve months at a stretch. However, there is no limit for renewing other controls. The new Act remains in operation for one year, initially and can be renewed for one more year[37].

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provides a system of control orders. Under this provision, the Secretary of State can impose certain restrictions on individuals who are suspected of terrorism activities[38].

Several cases challenged the legality of the control orders. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and Others, the suitability of control orders had been challenged. The respondents sought a judicial interpretation of the compatibility of the control orders issued against them with Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights. The respondents were successful in their contention[39]. In another case, the respondents challenged the suitability of judicial supervision over control orders with regard to Article 6 ECHR. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower court[40].

In the case of the Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and Others, non-derogating control orders were issued by the Home Secretary against the defendants. Under these control orders, the respondents were electronically tagged. The respondents were also placed under house arrest. The respondents successfully challenged the control orders issued by the Home Secretary. The Court of Appeal overturned the control orders issued by the Home Secretary.

The decision in this case proved to be a serious setback to the government in establishing stringent anti – terrorism measures and strategies. Article 5 ECHR provides greater limitations on the operability of the control orders[41]. Therefore, the government had to make either derogatory control order to avoid the limitations imposed by Article 5 ECHR or to make control orders within the limits specified by Article 5 ECHR.

The imprecision of the immigration laws is hindering authorities in investigating and prosecuting terrorists. They are not in a position to invent new procedures and strategies, which are the need of the hour to overcome the drawbacks in criminal prosecution, while disclosing and proving terrorist activities. In order to protect the fidelity of national security it is essential to modify the present rules of disclosure. Mere reliance on immigration law prevents the criminal prosecution process from adjusting to the demands created by terrorism[42].

The extant laws prohibit the provocation of crime and racial hatred. Subsequent to the London bombings, the Blair led government, initiated measures to enact extreme and very aggressive approaches, in order to contain terrorism incited by speech. One of the proposed actions would make certain acts criminal offenses, some of these are verbal statements that glorify terrorism, celebrate the commission of terrorist activities, and preparation for and instigation of terrorism[43].

In one particular case, the judge of a High Court had declared that the control orders had been unfairly imposed on terrorism suspects. In another case, a judge rescinded the control orders, for the reason that they had violated human rights. The control orders, which are provided by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, enable the government and enforcement authorities to place individual citizens under house arrest, if they are suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities. Suspected individuals have to report to the nearest police station on a daily basis. In addition, they are subjected to several restrictions on their movements. This is because the enforcing authorities could not produce substantial evidence of the involvement against suspected individuals and were consequently unable to frame and establish criminal charges against them. Control orders came to their rescue and they have permitted the police to place suspected individuals under house arrest, without having to prefer charges against them. This was challenged in one instance, wherein the court ordered the police to shift the suspects to Belmarsh prison. As such, the Human Rights law protects the rights of suspected individuals[44].

Judges consider the new act as incompatible with the laws relating to human rights. In a case of suspected terrorism, the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke had issued control order that imposed restrictions on the movements of an individual who was suspected of terrorist activities. The petitioner was not given a fair hearing. The High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Sullivan had given the ruling that such an act would be patently unfair and that the government had failed to provide an impartial review of the control order. However, the Home Office contested this ruling in the Court of Appeal[45].

The Home Office was not entitled to prosecute foreign suspects in 2005, since the courts held such detentions without trial or without the framing of charges, to be illegal. To overcome this problem the government introduced control orders in 2006, by which they can prosecute any foreign national, after detaining them merely, on suspicion that they had committed some terrorist act. In this case, the detained individual was known as S, he had been abducted at Manchester and Heathrow airports in March 2005. S was suspected of having attempted to proceed to Iraq to participate in the war against the US – UK combine[46].

In September 2005, a control order was issued against him and he was the first individual to be detained under a control order. Mr. Justice Sullivan held that the new act does not permit the respondent to have a fair hearing although the respondent was entitled to such a fair hearing. The judge held that the court did not find any wrong in the control order. The entire review process established the fact that the antiterrorism laws provide a thin veneer of legality to the illegal and unjustifiable acts of Blair and Co[47].

The erstwhile Law Lord, Lord Steyn, claimed that such control orders were a vindication of the rule of law. Detention of individuals and foreign nationals without trial or without framing charges in Belmarsh and other prisons would be tantamount to the violation of human rights laws. According to him, international terrorism has to be eradicated. However, decisions like the Belmarsh would clearly establish that the governments of the US and the UK are trying to detain individuals on the mere suspicion of terrorism. He also added that the governments of these nations were attempting to reform the international law in accordance to their whims and fancy.

This will undermine the effective operation of international laws. These measures are detrimental to the interests of nearly three million Muslims living in the United Kingdom. The present position is that these Muslims and other minority communities are under great pressure, as they are viewed as terrorism suspects. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 further intensified their fears of being detained under trumped up charges. These minority groups are facing racial discrimination due to the claims of the media and the government, which frequently refer to terrorist threat as being caused by foreign nationals, extremists and fundamentalists of the Muslim community[48]. The generalization is immediate, and every Muslim is views as a potential terrorist.

Furthermore, the minority communities are vulnerable to the consequences of the measures adopted to curb terrorism, which seem to be discriminatory in both law and practice. Indeed, the Minister for Counter Terrorism, Hazel Blears had sent warning threats to the Muslim communities that they should be prepared to face police action that would include stop and search measures. She contended that the majority of the terrorist threats were coming from those who were associated with fundamentalist and extreme groups of Islam. The frequent announcements of government and the policies undertaken by it served to convince the Muslim population that they were considered terrorists by the Blair government[49].

To add fuel to the fire, the government is planning to close down mosques where there is a possibility for extremists to make provocative speeches to the public; and to operate from such places of worship, in the course of mounting terrorist attacks. The government argued that the religious leaders were failing to disallow such extremists from entering these places of worship. The Blair government also accused these religious leaders of failing to curb extremism or verbal provocation. The powers that enable the government to undertake such stringent steps could end up as collective punishment, religious prosecution and racial discrimination. All these are illegal and unlawful[50].

The people belonging to the Muslim and other minority communities are publicly experiencing the impact of such extreme policies. For example, instances of using these powers to stop and search as part of the counterterrorism drive have increased sevenfold, subsequent to the July bombings. People belonging to the Asian communities are facing such experiences frequently. It was revealed through the statistics of the British Transport Police that Asian people are more prone to be stopped and searched than white people. The risk of such targeting has been increased five times than before. However, no such stop and search incidents end up in a terrorism charge[51].

The Secretary of State is required to make an application to the court to allow him to make a control order against an individual that derogates from the obligations required under article 5 ECHR. The courts are empowered to grant permission for such control orders[52]. If the control orders contain obligations that deprive an individual of his liberty and security, as provided for by Article 5 ECHR; the Secretary of State has to take the permission of the courts to exercise his power to issue such control orders[53]. However, in cases of urgency the Secretary of State can issue control orders without the permission of the court[54].

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 empowers the Home Secretary to issue control orders on individuals who are suspected of having involved themselves in terrorism. He can add such restrictions and obligations, in those control orders, as he deems to be important. Further, the provisions of the Act make it clear that there need not be any actual connection or involvement of the individual with terrorism; and the Secretary of State can issue control orders on such individuals. This imposition of control orders, merely on the suspicion of involvement in terrorism makes them bizarre. The most dangerous among these control orders are the non –derogating orders. These orders pose a serious threat to the rights and liberty of the persons against whom they are issued. The subject’s families would also have to face serious difficulties. The only charge that can be contested in a court with regard to such control orders is in respect of the issue of liberty. However politicians can control the contents of a control order issues that relate to restricted movements, trial processes, charge related matters and total freedom of the suspected individual. Any breach of the conditions imposed by the control order will be a criminal offense and invite imprisonment up to five years[55].

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 defines terrorism as any activity that relates to terrorism, which may include the commission, preparation, instigation to commit terrorist activities, celebrating or encouraging such activities and providing support or assistance to persons who indulge in terrorism. There is no distinction between general terrorism activities and specific terrorism activities. In order to issue a control order all that the Home Secretary requires are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual had indulged in activities related to terrorism. Control orders are issued in the general interest of the public; and in order to protect society from terrorist attacks[56].

Individuals can be detained without charges being framed or without being produced for trial, in Belmarsh and Woodhill jails. It is not necessary to inform them about the intelligence reports against them. The Anti – terrorism Crime and Security Act allows lawyers to have access to the intelligence reports. However, the detained individuals cannot have such access. Based on such intelligence, lawyers represent their clients in the courts. Individuals against whom control orders have been issued can file a review petition in the courts for withdrawal of such orders or for their modification. However, their winning chances are in general meagre. The courts take up such appeal petitions, only if they are convinced that the Home Secretary had erred in making out the control order, or if the grounds for such an order are inadmissible. The court can turn down a control order issued by the Home Secretary, but it cannot stop the latter from issuing another one in place of the previous one. The second control order may be based on the same grounds and may be subject to the same restrictions on the individual. Control orders are special and the common law does not apply to them. Even judicial review cannot be invoked against control orders[57].

It was suggested to increase detention by the police of suspects without framing any charges, for a period of ninety days, while presenting the draft Bill to the UK Parliament. However, the majority of members of Parliament had refused to allow such an extension. This was the first defeat of the Labour government since 1997. However, In the same session, the Parliament had passed the bill by voting for a twenty eight days pre – charge detention of suspects[58].

In one particular incident, an Algerian citizen of 39 years of age was detained in the Belmarsh jail on suspicion of being a terrorist. He was a physically disabled man. His hands had been amputated at the forearm. This man was referred to as P for legal reasons. Presently this man is facing deportation as he was considered a threat to national security. He requires assistance in his daily activities, such as performing his ablutions, etc. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture had reported that adequate assistance was not being provided to him in his daily activities. His mental condition was deteriorating due to that detention. He was suffering from serious depression and associated stress disorders. The deportation was kept in abeyance because his mental ability and health had declined significantly. The government refused his bail petition. Currently P is awaiting deportation and it is feared that he will be forcibly sent to Algeria, where he will be subjected to torture[59].

G, another former Belmarsh detainee, was thirty – six years old and he had been subjected to torture in Algeria. In August 2005, G was rearrested and detained on suspicion of having indulged in acts of terrorism. There was a pending deportation order hanging over his head, as he was considered a potential threat to national security. G had been afflicted by polio, since his childhood. He had suffered a permanent weakening of his right leg, and was suffering from serious depression. He attempted to commit suicide in September2005. His further detention would have brought about the deterioration of his health. Moreover, he would have developed such tendencies, as would have provoked him to suicide. The court granted bail to him, because of his worsening physical and mental condition[60].

The government had not taken into account the Human Rights law when drafting the Terrorism Act. This clearly indicates the government’s stand on human rights and its total disregard for the same. There are no provisions in the legislation that address torture and other cruel and prohibited treatments, such as inhuman or degrading treatment. The government had undertaken a policy by which it could forcibly deport suspected individuals to their native countries, even though they were at risk of being subjected to torture and other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment in those countries[61].

The Terrorism Act 2006 bans the celebration and glorification of terrorism. In addition to this, the Home Office Policy includes the term Justification, which has wider applicability and meaning. It is added to the list of prohibited forms of expressions in the Act. It can be applied to only non – UK citizens. The other ambiguous terms of the Act are encouragement and inducement. As mentioned in the provisions of the Act indirect encouragement or other inducement is purely ambiguous and incapable of substantial interpretation. For instance, freedom of expression cannot be restricted to favourable statements. It also covers controversial and other forms of expressions that may be shocking or offensive to the government. The media has the right to publish or broadcast such views of the public. The people certainly have a right to read such published material or hear such broadcasts. In this context, the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that such offensive views must be accorded protection. The government’s initiations are aimed at curbing provocations that result in violence and terrorism. These measures can be referred to as the positive obligations of the government to protect the lives of the people. However, the government’s scope of operation is restricted by its actions against terrorism and violence. This results in violation of the right to receive and impart information and other ideas of the people[62].

Moreover, the phrasing of the new legislation and policy is ambiguous. Under the terminology used in this Act, it can be construed that there is no requirement for the law to provide freedom of expression. Certain terms such as encouragement, inducement and glorification are used in the Terrorism Act 2006 in the context of the Home Office Policy. Furthermore, the acts of glorification, justification or any type of acts relating to terrorism or any other form of violence cannot be prohibited. There should be some relation between the terms and the actual occurrence of the acts. It is the primary and fundamental duty of a government to guarantee freedom of expression. To promote this the government can impose restrictions to maintain national security, such as prevention of terrorism and violence. In practice, such restrictions were abused by many governments the world over. The courts always attempt to strike a balance between the government’s duty of ensuring national security and the right to freedom of expression. Hence, there is always a connection between the right to speech and the need for security[63].

In the famous case of the Karatas, the Court had ruled that the government’s general prohibition of glorification of violence was unjustified. The Court further held that specific statements that directly incite or induce some sort of violence could be prohibited and that such prohibition was justified. Now, the same stance can be applied to the terms that indirectly encourage or induce terrorism. Prohibition of such activities would have a wider scope of applicability under international law[64].

In February 2006, the UK police arrested Abu Hamza al-Masri on charges of incitement and provocation, because of several speeches he had given at the Finsbury Park mosque. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. For the first time the courts made use of UK legislation that, contained punishment for making speeches that incited people to commit murder and provoked racial hatred. It was a proven fact that Hamza’s speeches had instigated the terrorists to carry out the bombing operation. The terrorists who had heard his speeches included Richard Reid and two others who had participated in the bombing operation. They had accepted that these speeches had inspired them to indulge in terrorist acts. However, the trial judge found it difficult to conclude that just the speeches of Hamza had led to the bombings in London city. The manner, in which the Hamza prosecution was held, was expected to prevent further terrorist activities in the UK. Hamza had already committed several offenses in the US, including murder, kidnapping and imparting training to future terrorists. He was one of the most wanted criminals in the US. The United States had pressurized the UK to extradite him to the US. However, the prosecution proceedings and imprisonment in the UK delayed these extradition attempts. The United Kingdom’s prosecution of people who deliver inciting speeches and terrorist associations differ from the extant practices in the US. The US follows a more libertarian process in dealing with such atrocities. The Blair government had implemented extremely aggressive laws against the incitement of crimes, racial hatred and speech associated terrorism[65].

 

 

CHAPTER 6 – ANTI – TERROR MEASURES IN THE UK
Subsequent to 9/11 attacks and 2005 London bombings the number of attacks have been increased on people of other races, as well as on the homes and places of worship of such people. Despite these measures, the enforcing agencies could not gather data that could have helped them in preventing the London bombings. It is clear from these experiences that the lacunae in the legislation do not encourage terrorist attacks; the real cause is the failure of intelligence and lack of timely action by the police in detecting terrorist attacks well in advance. These measures would further isolate the minority and ethnic communities from the mainstream of the society. The government would have to support them under such circumstances[66].

The schools in the UK are utilizing Closed Circuit TV or CCTV for visible surveillance of their students. This would protect the school pupil from outside threats and dangers. However, of late, the schools are monitoring their students internally by using surveillance cameras. Airports are paying huge amounts towards damages by taking photographs of passengers without their consent. The security officials in the airports are taking photographs of their passengers, in order to monitor human movement inside the airport. The airport personnel take the photographs of domestic flights passengers during security checks. This allows them to see that genuine passengers are boarding a flight. It also acts as a barrier for domestic passengers to buy goods at duty – free shops, by borrowing international boarding passes. If a passenger refuses to be photographed then that passenger will be taken to the office of immigration control authorities where his or her photograph will be taken forcibly. Such passengers may file a suit in the court for being photographed against their will[67].

Another security measure used by airport security personnel is the use of X – ray machines. Through these X- ray machines, they can scan the passengers’ clothes at London Heathrow airport. These machines produce nude images of passengers. The security staff can identify any concealed or hidden weapons. They can also ascertain whether there any explosives in the clothing or if such explosives are attached to the body of the passengers. However, the graphical images produced by these machines, reveal the shape of the bodies of both men and women. This has resulted in considerable resistance from passengers and aviation authorities[68].

The policies of the Home Office have one thing in common. They consider every citizen to be a probable criminal, fraudulent person, illegal immigrant or terrorist. The Home Office draws on this principle, while designing policy and practices. This has a very drastic effect on the rights and liberties of children and teenagers. That is why the use of fingerprinting and the use of CCTV in schools have been initiated. All these measures suggest that if a particular child is not trustworthy, then all the children are to be suspected. This undermines civil liberties in schools. The current policies of the Home Office deliberately set aside the issue of civil rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to speech and equality[69].

The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were further intensified, and introduced as the Anti – Social Behaviour Orders. These orders included the definition of acceptable behaviour contracts, the imposition of curfews, dispersal orders, detention for long periods and detention without charge or trial. There are other restrictive measures included in this legislation. By implementing this legislation, the government attempted to erase the boundaries between criminal law and civil law. It provides for the maintenance of law and order during times of peace as well as during times of war[70].

The impact of using CCTV and other technologies for surveillance on the attitude and behaviour of citizens is yet to be determined. Research studies conducted among youngsters revealed that the young people had mixed feelings about these surveillance methods. Some young people expressed their fear of being labelled by such surveillance, as anti – social characters and persons with deviant behaviour[71].

From the practical point of view, surveillance can be defined as a process, which is purposeful, on a routine basis, conducted in a systematic manner and which focuses attention on people to obtain their personal details, in order to promote control, entitlement, management, influence and protection[72].

Personal details can be obtained through surveillance such as images taken through CCTV, biometrics, fingerprints or scans of the iris, records of communication or the content of such communications. This can be either numerical or categorical data. Large organizations use categorical data regarding personal details. They maintain categorically issues pertaining to transactions, exchanges, statuses and accounts. This had been termed as dataveillance. This is normally done through monitoring the activities of people or communications. Organizations use automated and computerized technologies for dataveillance. This process is not as expensive as electronic surveillance. Moreover, it provides greater benefits than any other traditional surveillance techniques. The sophistication of information infrastructures makes it more advantageous to conduct surveillance over the people and the information obtained through this frameworks is better suited and more accurate for developing a picture of threat incidents[73]. Subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, several countries adopted different surveillance techniques. The information gathered through these methods requires intense efforts at analysis in the political context.

Pre –emptive warning of terrorist attacks is the most important aspect of intelligence in order to counter terrorism. However, this tactic may not be an immediate action, like arresting terrorists or confiscating their weapons and other materials. The UK intelligence has to adopt such pre – emptive tactics instead of arresting suspected individuals. Such tactics may not provide substantial and adequate evidence to charge the terrorists for a trial in courts. The United Kingdom’s intelligence agencies had proved their capability in dealing with such pre – emptive operations to avert large-scale homicide. In April 2005, the intelligence agencies had destroyed the Kamel Bourgass rycin dumps. This trend was continued up to the July tube train bombings in London city. The July 2005 London blasts proved that the position of British Intelligence was purely of a tentative nature. By that time no pre –emptive or disruptive intelligence was being used by the intelligence agencies. The terrorists, who had conducted the London bomb blasts, were not identified by the MI5. They could have been persons who had clean personal records, and due to this, they may not have been identified by the intelligence agencies. Under such circumstances, any person with a clean record, who remains unnoticed by the intelligence agencies, can indulge in terrorist activities, subsequently. If this argument is correct then the collection of information by the MI5, in respect of all the people in the community, by any means at its disposal, should be acceptable. However, if the persons who had bombed London city had actually been terrorists and associates of al – Qaeda, then the incompetence of the intelligence agencies is established. This is because these intelligence agencies had failed to identify the terrorists and their movements within London city, and had failed to track down their communication channels. These facts also revealed that there were serious lapses in immigration laws and border controls[74].

 

 

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION
The modern democracies are attempting to protect their national security and to curb terrorist activity on their nations. This effort requires a balance between political ideology, the deployment of police forces to the maximum possible extent possible and the obtention of military sophistication and capabilities. At the same time, the nations are required to regulate the security measures in such a way that the same measures should not induce further acts of terrorism. Therefore, modern democracies have to undertake everything possible to restore normalcy in the lives of their citizens. This is a herculean task, which would be difficult for the United Kingdom to achieve[75].

Further, it would also be difficult to assess the UK’s response to terrorism in the long term. The 7/7 London blasts had demonstrated that it could be easier to attack on the NatWest Tower and the Buckingham Palace as was done in the World Trade Centre attacks. In August 2006, the intelligence bureaus had unearthed the London Aircraft Bombing Plot. This clearly established the intentions and continued efforts of Islamic terrorists to perpetrate disastrous damage and homicide, which would lead to economic disruption. There was no successful history of curbing domestic terrorism by national groups in the UK. This gives rise to doubts regarding the capacity of the UK in countering international terrorism and curbing the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction. The stability of the UK is now at the crossroads[76].

Deterrence and containment are the primary judicial principles employed in the UK to counter terrorism. The government has extensive investigative powers, which provide the enforcing bodies with arrest and prescription. These are the powerful measures, which curbed the activities of Irish as well as non – Irish terrorists who wished to operate within the UK. The legislations such as the Prevention of Terrorism Acts are also very stringent in dealing with terrorism. In the absence of such powerful measures, the UK would have been made a target by the international terrorists. Incidents of international terrorism had previously transpired in the UK, such as the capturing of the Iranian Embassy in the year 1980. However, the timely response of the various concerned agencies to those incidents had prevented extensive damage and deaths. The security agencies had captured the terrorists in that incident[77].

There is a huge mix of effective counter terrorism measures adopted by the British intelligence agencies. These agencies had learned several lessons from the terrorism related activities of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. They had learned about the movements of the PIRA’s military and political thresholds. In combination, these experiences served to contain the after effects of several terrorist activities on the normal citizens. The Thatcher government in the early 1980s fought against international terrorism by adopting an aggressive approach. However, from the very beginning the British forces had indulged only in containing the impact of the campaigns led by the PIRA. This made the UK vulnerable to attacks by other terrorist groups. Some of these terrorists entered the UK and started their operations. Such terrorist groups found the UK to be a safe haven and an easy option[78].

The Amnesty International contended that these new initiatives, which had been proposed by the government of the UK, were aimed at undermining the role of judiciary and its independence. Furthermore, it was held that these measures were interfering with the rule of law and compromising its operational capability. The Amnesty International had also contended that these measures were in breach of basic human rights. These new initiatives unconditionally prohibit torture and abuse in any manner[79].

These measures would bring about the infringement of basic human rights. For instance, deporting an individual to his or her native country could make such a person vulnerable to torture and other prohibited measures in the country to which deportation is to take place. Under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture it would be tantamount to non – refoulement, which is a principle of international refugee law[80].

In March 2005, while addressing the General Assembly; Kofi Annan the Secretary – General of the United Nations had stated that suspending human rights laws would not effectively serve as a means to fight terrorism. The fact is that human rights law provides adequate scope to initiate counter – terrorism action. This may be helpful even in the most exceptional circumstances. Repealing human rights would create an atmosphere of anger, distress and tension among the general population. This environment would enable the terrorist groups to recruit distressed youth, and impart such training as would make them revolt against the government. If human rights are respected, an environment would emerge, wherein, the people would have high morals, which would hinder the favouring of terrorist actions[81].

The various governments of the world are expanding the scope and meaning of terrorism by considering ambiguous and unclear as acts of terrorism. The Amnesty International had condemned this reprehensible ideology of the UK government. In addition, the Amnesty International refuses to countenance vague and muddled concepts, such as the glorification of terrorism. It was opined by the Amnesty International that such concepts lacked clarity and that they would result in the criminalization of the general population. The result of such repressive measures by the UK government is that the legitimate rights of the people, such as freedom of speech and expression have been rescinded[82].

The international law clearly established that there should be a ban on torture and inhuman treatment. It also maintains that no individual should be forcibly sent to countries, in which such inhuman and abusive treatments prevail. This is known as the principle of non – refoulement. Despite these measures, the governmental authorities in the United Kingdom are searching for new ways and strategies to circumvent this principle of non – refoulement. The UK authorities are engaged in deporting terrorism suspects to countries, which are synonymous with torture and other prohibited treatment. The Blair government has put forward the lame excuse of threat to national security, in order to justify their actions. They also claim that they were unable to obtain substantial evidence, relating to those suspects, in order to frame criminal charges against them[83].

The United Kingdom had entered into Memorandum of Understandings with some countries such as Jordan and Libya. It is busily endeavouring to establish similar agreements with the rogue nations of the world. This would enable it to deport suspects to these countries by declaring that they are safe and do not infringe the human rights laws. However, such diplomatic assurances cannot be enforced. They are unreliable and mostly ineffective in their operation. These diplomatic assurances were obtained by the UK from countries that are notorious for ill treating prisoners and that have a dismal record of torture. The statements of these governments, that they do not indulge in torture is unbelievable. Such agreements and diplomatic assurances would not help a government to escape from the obligations imposed on it by the principle non – refoulement. Security of the state is a general principle maintained by governments to adopt stringent measures against individuals. Amnesty International has reviewed such steps of the governments for more than a decade throughout the world. Most governments use the notion of security of the state as an excuse to initiate counter – terrorism measures. These governments suppress opposition and dissent in their nations by stating that the security of the nation was being jeopardized. This would allow them to violate human right laws without attracting any punishment. In most of the cases, such detained individuals had not harmed the state’s security in any manner, whatsoever; nor had they indulged in any sort of illegal or prohibited activity[84].

The same situation is prevailing in the United Kingdom, and the Blair government is taking severe action against those who protest against its policies. The police are detaining peaceful demonstrators and framing charges against them that were to be employed in counter terrorism. This suppression of dissent was criticized by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. This august body had contended that the United Kingdom was construing human rights to be a hindrance to the effective administration of justice, which in turn was proving detrimental to the interests of the public. Furthermore, violation of human rights affects not only individual interests, but also the interests of society[85].

Every state has an obligation to protect its citizens from the activities of the terrorists. This obligation has to be carried out by adopting appropriate measures and without using excessive force. In order to achieve this, it is a prerequisite to define criminal offenses and their scope in a in a highly specific manner. This is essential if appropriate restraints are to be employed. The threat of terrorism is also an offense, which hinders the proper application of human rights. Therefore, the crime of terrorism should also be narrowly defined. Restrictions on terrorist activities should be employed only in circumstances where the associated provisions of restrictions that affect the enjoyment of rights by individuals, are compulsory and inevitable.

Several experts and scholars have set out a number of principles, which are collectively known as the Johannesburg Principles. These principles address freedom of expression and national security. They agree that imposition of restrictions on the right to expression can be correct when the right to speech has been utilized to incite and induce violence. These principles maintain that there is a nexus between speech and violence.

It was stated in a report on the London explosions that the Intelligence agency had failed to assess the situation well in advance, and that it had failed to recognize the fact that the terrorist threat was not confined to non­ – citizens. The agencies use the immigration legislation as an antiterrorism law in dealing with terrorist activities. The lacunae in the immigration laws, with flexible measures, are actually helping terrorist groups in using the citizens of the UK and making them participate in acts of terrorism[86].

The 9/11 attacks and the July tube train bombings have shown the inadequacy of security measures. These attacks had clearly indicated that there should be greater legal reform and better technological advancement. The United Kingdom had risen to the need of the hour and adopted new legislation along the lines of the US Patriot Act. The government had faced severe opposition from the members of the judiciary and several civil liberties groups. The United Kingdom enacted the Terrorism Act 2000, which was followed by the Anti – Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Subsequently, it had enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was followed by the Terrorism Act 2006[87].

As such instead of improving security, these legislative measures have interfered with the fundamental rights and liberties of the individuals. It has become essential to demarcate, the difference between national security and civil liberties. Under the guise of national security measures, innocent civilians should not be targeted and subjected to surveillance. During times of war and other grave emergencies, suspension of fundamental rights is justifiable; however, this can never be justified on a permanent basis. This is the ignominious legacy of the Blair years.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.      BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm

2.      BBC News, 12 April 2006, UK terror suspect ‘denied rights’. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4902120.stm

3.      Beckman, James. Comparative Legal Approaches to Homeland Security and Anti – Terrorism. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2007

4.      Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005

5.      Ben Hayes, There is no “balance” between security and civil liberties – just less of each, retrieved 23 February 2008. http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-12.pdf

6.      Benjamin Jervis Goold, Liora Lazarus, 2007. Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1841136085.

7.      BUZAN, B. – WAEVER, O. – DE WILDE, J. (1998): Security. A NEW Framework for Analysis. 1st edition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1998

8.      David Lyon, How did we get here? Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus195/cjm-68-lyon.pdf

9.      Dismore, Andrew. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); Ninteenth Report of Session 2005 –06. The Stationery Office. ISBN: 0104008644, 2006

10.  Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) (1976) 1 EHRR 647

11.  Foster, Steven. The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Edinburgh University Press, 2006

12.  Frank Gregory. Intelligence – led Counter – terrorism: A Brief Analysis of the UK Domestic Intelligence System’s Response to 9/11 and the Implications of the London Bombings of 7 July 2005. Retrieved 27 February 2008. http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/781/Gregory781-v.pdf

13.  G. L. Simons, Privacy in the Computer age, 1982, NCC Publications

14.  Harry Street, Freedom the Individual and the Law, 1982, Harmondsworth Penguin

15.  HAYES, Ben (2005b): There is no “balance” between security and civil liberties – just less of each. European Civil Liberties Network dne 19. ?íjna 2005. Available from: http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-12.pdf

16.  Howard Davis, Human Rights and Civil Liberties, 2003

17.  Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm

18.  J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? 1979, The Chaucer Press

19.  Kurt v Turkey (1998) 27 EHRR 373

20.  Kevin Stenson, Scrutiny and Surveillance. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus193/cjm-68-ed.pdf

21.  Lyon, D. 2007, Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press

22.  Mancini v Italy (App no 44955/98, 12 December 2001), [2001] ECHR 502

23.  Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955

24.  RORTY, Richard (2004): Post-Democracy. London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 7, 1. dubna 2004

25.  Section 1 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

26.  Section 3 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

27.  Section 3 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

28.  Section 9 (1) and subsection (4) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

29.  Secretary of State for the Home Department v. JJ and Others (2006) EWCA Civ 1141, [2006] 3 W.L.R. 866

30.  Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB [2006] 3 W.L.R. 839

31.  Simon Paine, Endangered Spaces, 2000, CAMC Publications

32.  Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf

33.  TAKIS FOTOPOULOS, From Social-Democracy to Social-Fascism. Retrieved 23 February 2008. http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/socialfascism.htm

34.  The Cambridge Law Journal, 2007, Controlling Control Orders: Article 5 ECHR And The Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2005 Pp 6-8. Retrieved 23 February 2008 http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=977828

35.  The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

36.  The Terrorism Act 2006.

37.  The Impact of UK Anti-Terror Laws on Freedom of Expression Submission to ICJ Panel of Eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. Retrieved on March 4, 2008 http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/terrorism-submission-to-icj-panel.pdf

38.  United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf

39.  United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/45.html&query=privacy+prevention+of+terrorism+act+2005&method=all#disp92

40.  Watts, Duncan. British Government And Politics: A Comparative Guide. 2006. Edinburgh University Press

 

[1] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[2] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[3] Foster, Steven. The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. P. 24.
[4] Foster, Steven. The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. P. 24.
[5] Watts, Duncan. British Government And Politics: A Comparative Guide. 2006. Edinburgh University Press, p. 45 – 47.
[6] Dismore, Andrew. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); Ninteenth Report of Session 2005 –06. The Stationery Office. ISBN: 0104008644, 2006 P . 106.
[7] Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005
[8] TAKIS FOTOPOULOS, From Social-Democracy to Social-Fascism. Retrieved 23 February 2008. http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/socialfascism.htm
[9] BUZAN, B. – WAEVER, O. – DE WILDE, J. (1998): Security. A NEW Framework for Analysis. 1st edition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1998
[10] RORTY, Richard (2004): Post-Democracy. London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 7, 1. dubna 2004, pgs. 10-11.
[11] HAYES, Ben (2005b): There is no “balance” between security and civil liberties – just less of each. European Civil Liberties Network dne 19. ?íjna 2005. Available from: http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-12.pdf
[12] Howard Davis, Human Rights and Civil Liberties, 2003. P. 79
[13] Harry Street, Freedom the Individual and the Law, 1982, Harmondsworth Penguin. P. 223.
[14] J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? 1979, The Chaucer Press. P. 13.
[15] G. L. Simons, Privacy in the Computer age, 1982, NCC Publications .P. 13.
[16] Simon Paine, Endangered Spaces, 2000, CAMC Publications. P. 2/1.
[17] Beckman, James. Comparative Legal Approaches to Homeland Security and Anti – Terrorism. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2007. P. 2.
[18] Ben Hayes, There is no “balance” between security and civil liberties – just less of each, retrieved 23 February 2008. http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-12.pdf
[19] Dismore, Andrew. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); Ninteenth Report of Session 2005 –06. The Stationery Office. ISBN: 0104008644, 2006 P . 106.
[20] Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005
[21] Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005
[22] Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005
[23] Ben Ward, Special Counsel, Europe and Central Asia Division Related Material UK: Terrorism Bill Undermines Human Rights,Press Release, March 2, 2005
[24] Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm
[25] Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm
[26] Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm
[27] The Cambridge Law Journal, 2007, Controlling Control Orders: Article 5 ECHR And The Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2005 Pp 6-8. Retrieved 23 February 2008 http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=977828
[28] BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm
[29] BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm
[30] BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm
[31] BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm
[32] Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) (1976) 1 EHRR 647, para 57; Kurt v Turkey (1998) 27 EHRR 373, para 122; Mancini v Italy (App no 44955/98, 12 December 2001), [2001] ECHR 502, para 23
[33] United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/45.html&query=privacy+prevention+of+terrorism+act+2005&method=all#disp92
[34] United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/45.html&query=privacy+prevention+of+terrorism+act+2005&method=all#disp92
[35] Section 9 (1) and subsection (4) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
[36] Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm
[37] Human Rights News. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Incompatible with Human Rights Obligations UK: New Terrorism Law Fundamentally Flawed. Retrieved 24 February 2008. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/15/uk10321.htm
[38] The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
[39] Secretary of State for the Home Department v. JJ and Others (2006) EWCA Civ 1141, [2006] 3 W.L.R. 866
[40] Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB [2006] 3 W.L.R. 839
[41] Secretary of State for the Home Department v. JJ and Others (2006) EWCA Civ 1141, [2006] 3 W.L.R. 866
[42] Benjamin Jervis Goold, Liora Lazarus, 2007. Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1841136085. Page 239.
[43] Benjamin Jervis Goold, Liora Lazarus, 2007. Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1841136085. Page 246.
[44] BBC NEWS, 3 July 2006, Q & A: Terrorism Laws. Retrieved 25 February, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4715478.stm
[45] BBC News, 12 April 2006, UK terror suspect ‘denied rights’. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4902120.stm
[46] BBC News, 12 April 2006, UK terror suspect ‘denied rights’. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4902120.stm
[47] BBC News, 12 April 2006, UK terror suspect ‘denied rights’. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4902120.stm
[48] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[49] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[50] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[51] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[52] Section 1 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
[53] Section 3 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
[54] Section 3 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
[55] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[56] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[57] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[58] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[59] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[60] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[61] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[62] The Terrorism Act 2006.
[63] The Impact of UK Anti-Terror Laws on Freedom of Expression Submission to ICJ Panel of Eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. Retrieved on March 4, 2008 http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/terrorism-submission-to-icj-panel.pdf
[64] The Impact of UK Anti-Terror Laws on Freedom of Expression Submission to ICJ Panel of Eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. Retrieved on March 4, 2008 http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/terrorism-submission-to-icj-panel.pdf

 
[65] Benjamin Jervis Goold , Liora Lazarus, 2007. Security and Human rights. Hart publishing. ISBN 1841136085. Page 246.
[66] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game, retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[67] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[68] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[69] Summary of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Summer 2005. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/2-newsletter/summer-05.pdf
[70] Kevin Stenson, Scrutiny and Surveillance. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus193/cjm-68-ed.pdf
[71] Kevin Stenson, Scrutiny and Surveillance. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus193/cjm-68-ed.pdf
[72] Lyon, D. 2007, Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[73] David Lyon, How did we get here? Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus195/cjm-68-lyon.pdf
[74] Frank Gregory. Intelligence – led Counter – terrorism: A Brief Analysis of the UK Domestic Intelligence System’s Response to 9/11 and the Implications of the London Bombings of 7 July 2005. Retrieved 27 February 2008. http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/781/Gregory781-v.pdf
[75] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[76] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[77] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[78] Robert W Orttung & A.S Makarychev. 2006. National Counter – Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public. IOS Press. ISBN: 1586036955. Pp. 127 – 128.
[79] Dismore, Andrew. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); Ninteenth Report of Session 2005 –06. The Stationery Office. ISBN: 0104008644, 2006 P . 106.
[80] Dismore, Andrew. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); Ninteenth Report of Session 2005 –06. The Stationery Office. ISBN: 0104008644, 2006 P . 106.
[81] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[82] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[83] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[84] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[85] United Kingdom: Human rights are not a game. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR450432005ENGLISH/$File/EUR4504305.pdf
[86] Benjamin Jervis Goold, Liora Lazarus, 2007. Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1841136085. Page 239.
[87] Kevin Stenson, Scrutiny and Surveillance. Retrieved 26 February 2008. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus193/cjm-68-ed.pdf