Anti-Terrorism Law - Punishing the Innocent?

Terrorism has been one of most prominent issues in recent years. The issue has been further outraged by the acts carried out during 9/11 and 7/7. This has prompted the government to come up with solutions to prevent these atrocities, hence the contraction of human rights began. The question arises as to whether anti-terrorism law restricts human rights.

One of the most prominent legislation to combat this was the Terrorism Act 2006. The Act contains a relative package of measures designed to ensure that police, secret agencies and the courts have all the tools to tackle terrorism, bringing perpetrators to justice. The Act received royal assent on the 30th of March 2006. This Act was not designed as a direct response to the July attacks as it had been planned before the attack. However, one needs to ask the question - does it not create the risk of punishing the innocent?

The amendment puts forward the discretion of detaining a suspected 'terrorist' for forty two days, the question should be asked: on what basis? Law is a field that deals with every day problems but that is only if it has any relevant evidence or witnesses to assist a case. It just does not make logical sense to detain someone for forty two days without evidence. In the eyes of the law a perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty. Why is it not possible to detain a suspected paedophile for forty two days? Is he not a danger to the public at large? But a 'terrorist' who could be innocent by all means, may be detained for a lengthy period of time. Anti-terrorism law takes away the fair retribution which the law is there to provide and puts forward somewhat a conspicuous law that seems unfair on those convicted, it lacks foundation and basis.

Miscarriages of justice

Charles De Menezes, the Brazilian who was shot dead in the tube station. He was shot eleven times altogether with seven being fired in the head and four in the chest. The body of the Brazilian man was said to be unidentifiable afterwards. The point being, the new terrorism law has provided greater authority to the police but does it not create a greater risk of such acts being carried out again? It would seem to the lay man that the police are being given power to such an extent it can no longer be called 'discretion'. It would seem here that De Menezes' human rights was restricted not merely because he had lost his life but he was attacked without warning. Some may argue that it was to protect the safety of the larger population and if that is the case then, why was he allowed to go onboard a train and why was he not under house arrest if he was to be a potential risk? Questions with no answers, even today.

The second such example is the shooting of the two brothers in Forest Gate, the Kahar brothers, they were unlawfully shot in the chest and had their property searched without a warrant or warning. This occured apparently under the new 'terrorism' procedures. Again it all boils down to the power being given to the police via the anti-terrorism law. There is the inherent danger that it may re-create such 'accidents' again. There is no guarantee and this may even open up a gaping hole to abuse the law.

Anti-terrorism law has somewhat restricted the human rights of the Kahar brothers. They were lucky to see daylight again. With the law being in place to protect the greater public and so much trust being placed on their judgment, why is it that innocent civilians are being targeted by the police? The law restricts their human rights as rightful law abiding citizens and the law needs to be amended to allow absolutely no harm to individuals. At the same time, we cannot forget the safety of the greater the public.

The legislation allowing phone tapping is a cause for concern for the civilians. It disregards their right to privacy and disrespects their rightful belief in the higher authorities. Phone tapping allows for the secret agencies to pick up on private conversations. This method would be breaching the privacy of the individuals. However, it is understandable that in extreme cases, if there is a suspect and there is concrete evidence and reasoning to convict one of terrorism or conspiring to terrorise, then the phone should be tapped to acquire information. But this should later be disclosed to the convict when under questioning as it is breaches their right to privacy.

Questions with no answers

Anti-terrorism law to a major extent not only takes away but disregards the rights of individuals and more importantly those who are innocent. The question should arise - why should an innocent civilian without any evidence or witness spend forty two days in detainment? Why is it possible for the police to shoot innocent people that they believe to be 'terrorists'? Is there no discretionary margin to prevent this? Finally, why can people not enjoy the privacy that every individual is entitled to?

The law is somewhat derogatory to the UK constitution after the much maligned enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, the purpose of the law is to provide the public safety but with cases like De Menezes and Kahar, it seems unlikely that until the law is amended, the human rights of individuals are not to be violated.