Detention Of Terrorism Suspects

Controversial erosions of individual liberties in the name of anti-terrorism are ongoing in liberal democracies. The focus of this book is on the manner in which strategic discourse has been used to create accepted political narratives. It specifically links aspects of that discourse to problematic and evolving terrorism detention practices that happen outside of traditional criminal and wartime paradigms, with examples including the detentions at Guantanamo Bay and security certificates in Canada. This book suggests that biased political discourse has, in some respects, continued to fuel public misconceptions about terrorism, which have then led to problematic legal enactments, supported by those misconceptions. It introduces this idea by presenting current examples, such as some of the language used by US President Donald Trump regarding terrorism, and it argues that such language has supported questionable legal responses to terrorism. It then critiques political arguments that began after 9/11, many of which are still foundational as terrorism detention practices evolve. The focus is on language emanating from the US, and the book links this language to specific examples of changed detention practices from the US, Canada, and the UK. Terrorism is undoubtedly a real threat, but that does not mean that all perceptions of how to respond to terrorism are valid. As international terrorism continues to grow and to change, this book offers valuable insights into problems that have arisen from specific responses, with the objective of avoiding those problems going forward.

Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism tool is fraught with conceptual and procedural problems and risks of misuse, excess and abuse. Many have debated the inadequacies of the current legal frameworks for detention, and the need for finding the most appropriate legal model to govern detention of terror suspects that might serve as a global paradigm. This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of the detention of terror suspects under domestic criminal law, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law. The book looks comparatively at the law in a number of key jurisdictions including the USA, the UK, Israel, France, India, Australia and Canada and in turn compares this to preventive detention under the law of armed conflict and various human rights treaties. The book demonstrates that the procedures governing the use of preventive detention are deficient in each framework and that these deficiencies often have an adverse and serious impact on the human rights of detainees, thereby delegitimizing the use of preventive detention. Based on her investigation Diane Webber puts forward a new approach to preventive detention, setting out ten key minimum criteria drawn from international human rights principles and best practices from domestic laws. The minimum criteria are designed to cure the current flaws and deficiencies and provide a base line of guidance for the many countries that choose to use preventive detention, in a way that both respects human rights and maintains security.

Language manufactures truth : the power of labels -- Breaking down and reconstructing discourse can reveal new realities -- Layers of argumentation tools and a fractured post-911 narrative -- Hasty inductive generalization : the problem with the claim that the 9/11 attacks exposed a need for new detention paradigms -- False premise : non-citizens as the terrorist "other?"--False dichotomies in the narrative : The "either/or" dilemma

In a regional, national and global response to terrorism, the emphasis necessarily lies on preventing the next terrorist act. Yet, with prevention comes prediction: the need to identify and detain those considered likely to engage in a terrorist act in the future. The detention of ‘suspected terrorists’ is intended, therefore, to thwart a potential terrorist act recognising that retrospective action is of no consequence given the severity of terrorist crime. Although preventative steps against those reasonably suspected to have an intention to commit a terrorist act is sound counter-terrorism policy, a law allowing arbitrary arrest and detention is not. A State must carefully enact anti-terrorism laws to ensure that preventative detention does not wrongly accuse and grossly slander an innocent person, nor allow a terrorist to evade detection. This book examines whether the preventative detention of suspected terrorists in State counter-terrorism policy is consistent with the prohibitions on arbitrary arrest and detention in international human rights law. This examination is based on the ‘principle of proportionality’; a principle underlying the prohibition on arbitrary arrest as universally protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and given effect to internationally in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regionally in regional instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights. The book is written from a global counter-terrorism perspective, drawing particularly on examples of preventative detention from the UK, US and Australia, as well as jurisprudence from the ECHR.

Counterterrorism and Investigative Detention explores the practice of investigative detention of terrorist suspects in the legal systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. In addition to illuminating the characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of various investigative detention regimes, this book examines ways in which international law and national security imperatives have served as vectors for change and convergence in these otherwise divergent legal systems.

In this book, Fiona de Londras presents an overview of counter-terrorist detention in the US and the UK and the attempts by both states to achieve a downward recalibration of international human rights standards as they apply in an emergency. Arguing that the design and implementation of this policy has been greatly influenced by both popular and manufactured panic, Detention in the 'War on Terror' addresses counter-terrorist detention through an original analytic framework. In contrast to domestic law in the US and UK, de Londras argues that international human rights law has generally resisted the challenge to the right to be free from arbitrary detention, largely because of its relative insulation from counter-terrorist panic. She argues that this resilience gradually emboldened superior courts in the US and UK to resist repressive detention laws and policies and insist upon greater rights-protection for suspected terrorists.

The Joint Committee scrutinised the Home Office's draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, which could be enacted urgently if it ever became necessary to extend to 28 days the maximum period for which the police could apply to a High Court judge detain terrorist suspects before charging them. The Committee agrees with the Government's objective, but does not accept the Government's proposals for achieving the objective. When provisions of this kind needed to be introduced after individuals had been arrested; it would be almost impossible to give Parliament the information it would need to scrutinise the legislation adequately without putting at risk a suspect's right to have a fair trial. In addition there is a risk that, if the provision was required in a period of parliamentary recess or dissolution, legislation could not be introduced in time, or at all. The Committee recommends, instead, the introduction of legislation to empower the Secretary of State to make an executive order (with the agreement of the Attorney General and subject to rigorous safeguards), that would temporarily extend the maximum period available for pre-charge detention to 28 days. There would have to be an independent review of the case for making such an order. The Director of Public Prosecutions would continue to be responsible for applications to a High Court judge in individual cases. The Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament for the decision once there was no longer any risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings.

The Review of counter-terrorism and security powers (Cm. 8004, ISBN 9780101800426) concluded that the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should be 14 days. But the review also found that there may be urgent situations where more than 14 days pre-charge detention is considered necessary. This paper contains two draft bills, both of which would have the effect of extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days, should they be introduced and Parliament approve. One bill could be used immediately while the order-making provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006 are still in force and the other one once those provisions have been repealed. (The clauses dealing with the repeal of sections of the Terrorism Act 2006 are contained in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, published 11 February 2011 - Bill 146, ISBN 9780215557735). Both draft bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.