Learning the Game

18 August 2004



British Charge Eight with Terrorist Crimes

The British know a thing or two about fighting low-intensity conflicts and terrorism. One of the joys of empire is quelling the local uprisings so that the sun may never set, and so on. The US, which is relatively new to the game (preferring total war and unconditional surrender followed by trade credits), stands to learn a great deal in the coming months by paying attention to the eight charged Tuesday under the Britain's Terrorism Act 2000.

Rather than have the executive branch take extra-legal actions and then force the defendants and their family and friends to protect their civil liberties as the Bush White House has done, the UK has a law that permits the authorities to undertaken anti-terror actions while putting the whole thing under judicial review. The only flaw here is the unaccountability of the judiciary, but since they lack the activism of the US bench, it is less of a problem. Under this law, suspects may be held up to two weeks before being charged. However, any detention longer than two days requires a judge's permission. There is no black hole of Guantanamo under the British rules.

At the same time, the law also proscribes certain groups, currently around 25. As the Home Office website says, "The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it a criminal offence to belong to, support, or display support for a proscribed organisation." Needless to say, 14 of the 25 proscribed groups are Irish. It is unlikely that the US constitution would permit such broad brushstrokes, but the Brits have another ace up their sleeves -- the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. The Home Office informs, "The detention powers in part 4 of the Act can only be used in very specific circumstances. They are immigration powers, not criminal powers, and as such they only apply to foreign nationals." While it wouldn't have stopped Timothy McVeigh, American-born terrorist, it would deal with the bulk of Al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers.

Convictions under these laws are few and far between. Again, the Home Office says,

Police records show that from 11 September 2001 until 30 June 2004, 609 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. 61 of these were charged under the Act and 38 under both the Terrorism Act and other legislation.

"The remainder were either released without charge, bailed to return, cautioned, charged under other legislation (such as the legislation for murder, grievous bodily harm, use of firearms or explosives and so forth), or dealt with under immigration or mental health legislation. Of the 99 individuals charged under the Terrorism Act, there have been 15 convictions to date."
The idea, of course, is not to throw terrorists in jail. The idea is to create an environment in which they simply cannot operate. A terrorist may not be incarcerated for terrorism per se, but rather wind up deported for lying to authorities or having paperwork out of order. A parallel in US history is the FBI's war with Al Capone; when he finally went to jail, it was for tax evasion. It may not be emotionally satisfying, but it is effective. In the war currently underway, victories are best counted in the number of days nothing happens.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home
Google
WWW Kensington Review



Search:
Keywords: