The following is questions and answers pertaining to new Terrorism Laws in the UK, in view of the emminent threat in the US for terrorist acts, should the United States adopt such for of law to deal specifically with the threat of domestic terrorists?
The government's anti-terrorism measures are in the spotlight after a High Court judge branded control orders an "affront to justice". Meanwhile, the controversial Terrorism Act 2006 has come into force. We look at what this means for the government.
What are the new anti-terror laws?
The Terrorism Act 2006 has come into force this week. The law was drawn up in the wake of the 7 July bomb attacks in London and is meant to disrupt the training and recruitment of would-be terrorists.
Was there cross party consensus on the new law?
No. It had a rocky ride in Parliament, with Tony Blair suffering his first Commons defeat as prime minister over plans to extend the time police can hold terror suspects without charge.
There was also resistance in the House of Lords with peers rejecting the plans five times before they became law.
What were the sticking points?
There was particular controversy over the creation of a new offence of the "glorification" of terror - people who "praise or celebrate" terrorism in a way that makes others think they should emulate such attacks.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke says people should not, for example, be allowed to glorify the 7 July attacks, or the bombers themselves, as it could encourage impressionable young men to think they should commit similar atrocities.
What's the problem with that?
Critics say the laws are just not needed and will only damage legitimate freedom of speech. They claim the glorification offence could see the Irish taoiseach prosecuted in the UK for celebrating the Easter Rising.
They also point out such laws could have led to people being arrested in the 1980s for supporting Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid in South Africa.
These claims are rejected by Mr Clarke, who told MPs such circumstances as the anti-apartheid movement would not happen again.
Isn't encouraging terrorism tackled by existing laws?
Opponents of the glorification clause say laws against incitement to murder or hatred cover many potential problems. But ministers insist new powers are needed to enable police to take action against placards celebrating the 7 July bombings, for example.
What else is in the Terrorism Act?
The Act tries to make it easier to prosecute potential bombers, with new offences of preparing a terrorist act, giving or receiving terrorist training, and selling or spreading terrorist publications. It would also widen powers to ban organisations which glorify terrorism. Police powers to detain suspects up to 28, rather than the existing 14, days will come into force later after consultation with police chief constables.
Which organisations face being banned?
On 5 August 2005, the prime minister said two radical Muslim groups would be banned - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) and Al Muhajiroun, formerly run by radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. The law is in place and the Home Office says that the position of the two organisations is "under review". Many Muslims have spoken out in defence of HT, saying that while they may oppose its radical politics, they do not believe it is linked to terrorism.
What is the row about the control orders?
A High Court judge has ruled control orders are "conspicuously unfair" and argued that safeguards to protect the rights of suspects are "a thin veneer of legality". His comments came after a High Court challenge by the first British citizen to be the subject of a control order.
What are control orders?
The orders - under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 - allow the government to put individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism under house arrest. They have to report to a police station daily and restrictions are placed on their movements, banning them, for example, from visiting airports or railway stations.
Why doesn't the government just charge people if they suspect them of being terrorists?
Because they have not got sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Control orders were brought in last year after an attempt to hold suspects without charge at Belmarsh jail following a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
How many people are under control orders?
Mr Clarke has said there are currently 11 people subject to control orders, including three British citizens.
What does the judge's ruling mean for the government's anti-terror laws?
The judge was unable to lift the control orders but his ruling means it means they may now be challenged under human rights law - potentially leaving a key plank of the government's anti-terror strategy in tatters. The government has said it does not accept the judge's ruling.
"The ruling will not limit the operation of the act. We will not be revoking either the control order which was the subject of this review, nor any of the other control orders currently in force on the back of this judgement. Nor will the judgement prevent the secretary of state from making control orders on suspected terrorists where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security in future," the Home Office said in a statement.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4715478.stm
AL QUEDA vs. UK threat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5137628.stm
Q&A: Terrorism laws
The government's anti-terrorism measures are in the spotlight after a High Court judge branded control orders an "affront to justice". Meanwhile, the controversial Terrorism Act 2006 has come into force. We look at what this means for the government.
What are the new anti-terror laws?
The Terrorism Act 2006 has come into force this week. The law was drawn up in the wake of the 7 July bomb attacks in London and is meant to disrupt the training and recruitment of would-be terrorists.
Was there cross party consensus on the new law?
No. It had a rocky ride in Parliament, with Tony Blair suffering his first Commons defeat as prime minister over plans to extend the time police can hold terror suspects without charge.
There was also resistance in the House of Lords with peers rejecting the plans five times before they became law.
What were the sticking points?
There was particular controversy over the creation of a new offence of the "glorification" of terror - people who "praise or celebrate" terrorism in a way that makes others think they should emulate such attacks.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke says people should not, for example, be allowed to glorify the 7 July attacks, or the bombers themselves, as it could encourage impressionable young men to think they should commit similar atrocities.
What's the problem with that?
Critics say the laws are just not needed and will only damage legitimate freedom of speech. They claim the glorification offence could see the Irish taoiseach prosecuted in the UK for celebrating the Easter Rising.
They also point out such laws could have led to people being arrested in the 1980s for supporting Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid in South Africa.
These claims are rejected by Mr Clarke, who told MPs such circumstances as the anti-apartheid movement would not happen again.
Isn't encouraging terrorism tackled by existing laws?
Opponents of the glorification clause say laws against incitement to murder or hatred cover many potential problems. But ministers insist new powers are needed to enable police to take action against placards celebrating the 7 July bombings, for example.
What else is in the Terrorism Act?
The Act tries to make it easier to prosecute potential bombers, with new offences of preparing a terrorist act, giving or receiving terrorist training, and selling or spreading terrorist publications. It would also widen powers to ban organisations which glorify terrorism. Police powers to detain suspects up to 28, rather than the existing 14, days will come into force later after consultation with police chief constables.
Which organisations face being banned?
On 5 August 2005, the prime minister said two radical Muslim groups would be banned - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) and Al Muhajiroun, formerly run by radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. The law is in place and the Home Office says that the position of the two organisations is "under review". Many Muslims have spoken out in defence of HT, saying that while they may oppose its radical politics, they do not believe it is linked to terrorism.
What is the row about the control orders?
A High Court judge has ruled control orders are "conspicuously unfair" and argued that safeguards to protect the rights of suspects are "a thin veneer of legality". His comments came after a High Court challenge by the first British citizen to be the subject of a control order.
What are control orders?
The orders - under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 - allow the government to put individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism under house arrest. They have to report to a police station daily and restrictions are placed on their movements, banning them, for example, from visiting airports or railway stations.
Why doesn't the government just charge people if they suspect them of being terrorists?
Because they have not got sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Control orders were brought in last year after an attempt to hold suspects without charge at Belmarsh jail following a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
How many people are under control orders?
Mr Clarke has said there are currently 11 people subject to control orders, including three British citizens.
What does the judge's ruling mean for the government's anti-terror laws?
The judge was unable to lift the control orders but his ruling means it means they may now be challenged under human rights law - potentially leaving a key plank of the government's anti-terror strategy in tatters. The government has said it does not accept the judge's ruling.
"The ruling will not limit the operation of the act. We will not be revoking either the control order which was the subject of this review, nor any of the other control orders currently in force on the back of this judgement. Nor will the judgement prevent the secretary of state from making control orders on suspected terrorists where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security in future," the Home Office said in a statement.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4715478.stm
AL QUEDA vs. UK threat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5137628.stm
