New British terror law gets past first hurdle
The British government's proposal to extend the pre-charge detainment period for terror suspects from 28 to 42 days narrowly scraped through Parliament's House of Commons on Thursday. Nine votes from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party secured the Bill's passage through to the House of Lords. British PM Gordon Brown has said the law would only be used in extreme situations where it is necessary, and under a strict monitoring system. But the proposal has outraged civil libertarians and divided party lines, with 36 Labour MPs currently opposed, and the shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigning his parliamentary seat in protest. In a statement, Davis said, "I feel duty bound to make a personal stand against this assault on fundamental freedoms."
The toD verdict: If the proposal becomes law, the UK will be the proud, or perhaps not so proud owners of "the strictest terrorist laws in the western world." Western European countries have several days to detain suspects before they must be charged in comparison. British police would be given almost double the time ordinarily given to gather evidence and ultimately build a case against terrorism suspects. Many argue that the time needed to sift through trans-national false identities and coded messages itself poses a unique barrier to police investigations into terror attacks.
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith argued this week that though they may seem excessive, such measures must be taken in preparation for future attacks in which they will become necessary: "We cannot simply hope for the best, we must have plans in place so that we can cope with the worst." Keep up to date with the latest developments and sharpest perspectives in a world of strife and struggle.
Sign up to receive toD's daily security briefings via email by clicking here
But as with all terrorism laws that have proliferated since the 9/11 attacks, the question that remains is whether the protection this one might afford will come at the expense of the civil liberties the people are accustomed to. It is a slippery slope that at once distinguishes terrorists from other criminals in the eyes of the law, and alienates the wrongfully accused from the rest of society.
The Bill still faces a difficult road ahead to secure the support of the House of Lords, with critics arguing its first victory is by no means a sure sign for success. Tony Blair's former attorney-general Lord Goldsmith told The Times: "The Government doesn't have an in-built majority in the Lords, and there will be ... some within the Labour benches who will find this very hard to support."
The true danger in this whole situation lies in focusing on what many political commentators have done in the last week - how important the Bill is to Gordon Brown's international credibility - instead of balancing the key interests crucial in this debate. As Goldsmith said, "It is too important for that, not just because it concerns national security and our safety, which is hugely important, but also because it concerns fundamental values and the basis of our society, which is also hugely important."
Glasgow terrorism suspect returns to India
Sabeel Ahmed, the first named suspect in the attack on Glasgow Airport in 2007, has now returned to India. The Indian doctor pleaded guilty to withholding information from the police about his brother Kafeel's plan to drive a burning jeep into Glasgow Airport in April this year. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, though the court held he had no extremist views that would directly link him to the attack itself. However, he was deported to India on May 8 because he had served sufficient time on remand.
Pakistan's PM protests against US incursion
Pakistan's Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned an airstrike in the country's Mohmand tribal area by US coalition forces this week. Gilani said, "We strongly condemn it...we will not allow violation of our soil." The country's Foreign Ministry released a statement announcing it would protest the air-strike - which killed 11 Pakistani soldiers and wounded several others - through diplomatic channels. The statement said, "The attack was unprovoked and a gross violation of international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan...The senseless use of air power against a Pakistani border post by coalition forces is totally unacceptable. It constitutes a blatant and willful negation of the huge sacrifices that Pakistan has made in its endeavour to combat terrorism."
