 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Terror powers concern critics
©Associated Press In parliament chambers and cabinet rooms around the globe, the fears and suspicions of a world on edge are fast translating into the cold legal language of police power. In London, New Delhi and beyond, these stern new antiterrorism laws have, for some, become a cause for worry. "First it was communism. Now it's terrorism," said Singapore opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, complaining that his city-state's government has always found justifications for stifling civil liberties. In Russia, India and elsewhere, some foresee the antiterror offensive being turned into a campaign against political dissent. Government leaders counter that if they are to head off terror attacks, they have no choice but to equip police and intelligence agencies with new authority to eavesdrop, to dip into private files, to lock away people on mere suspicions. French President Jacques Chirac, for one, says the times require extraordinary measures, "in proportion to the gravity of the risks, the scale of which was revealed by the mass crimes perpetrated Sept. 11 in the United States." Britain's home secretary, David Blunkett, trying to cool a fiery debate last month in the House of Lords, defended his government's counterterrorism proposals as "a proportionate and necessary response to the tragic events of Sept. 11." In the aftermath of that historic day of terror, Washington led the way in expanding state security powers. Through legislation and presidential order, the U.S. government has resorted to secret detentions of hundreds of people, to loosened rules on wiretapping, to listening in on lawyer-client conversations. Other governments have followed. The British, Australians and Indians have adopted or will soon approve laws enabling intelligence and enforcement agents to detain terrorism suspects without trial, keeping them off the streets while searching for evidence against them. Some rights advocates are alarmed, including Terry O'Gorman in Australia, where the government plans to allow its intelligence agency to hold people for questioning for 48 hours without legal representation. Such powers are an invitation to mistreatment, said O'Gorman, president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties. "Any system that keeps lawyers out of police stations or detention centers where powers can be abused is fraught with dangers," he said. Australia's conservative government also proposes giving intelligence the authority to intercept e-mail, one example of moves worldwide, including in Canada, India and Italy, to authorize more extensive tapping of private communications. Italy's parliament also put a new crime on the books, association for the purpose of international terrorism, recalling the use of "criminal association" charges to round up Italian mobsters. Europe's noisiest debate over eroding liberties played out in London's historic Parliament chambers. The ruling Laborites pushed through a package allowing the government to detain foreigners indefinitely without trial on suspicion of terrorism, and giving police more power to sift through personal financial and tax records. But in the upper, unelected House of Lords the legislation ran into a wall of protest, with Conservative leader Lord Strathclyde saying it encompassed "the most far-reaching powers ever seen in peacetime." He objected that police would be empowered "to commandeer private and personal information on the merest suspicion of a criminal offense quite unrelated to terrorism." In their final form, approved after midnight early Dec. 14, the government scaled back the intrusions on privacy and agreed to judicial review of open-ended detentions. In Berlin the debate was muted as the German parliament gave police authority to seek information on people from financial institutions, telecommunications companies and airlines -- all previously banned. The government also gained the power to outlaw religious organizations for promoting ideals that could be linked to terrorism. A world away in Singapore, angry opposition leaders accused that government of turning terrorism fears to its political advantage by canceling voting at its embassies in the Nov. 3 election, citing security concerns. The overseas vote had been expected to help the opposition. The Singapore government says its fears are well-founded. In December it detained 14 Singaporeans and a Malaysian on suspicion of plotting bombings of U.S. targets in the city-state, and of links to the al-Qaida network. India has suffered terrorist bloodshed for years, but sweeping new police powers -- including communications intercepts and detention without charge -- trouble many in the turbulent democracy. They fear the law could be turned against political dissenters. Similar concerns unsettle liberal lawmakers in Moscow, where the government is advocating a ban on use of the media to oppose "counterterrorist" operations. Such a law could stifle criticism of Russian military actions in breakaway Chechnya or elsewhere, critics say. Fresh memories of state repression are slowing the rush to legislate in some places -- in Prague, for example, where the Czech Senate refused to broaden the scope of police surveillance. But fear and suspicion are giving open societies a sterner look. This chipping away at traditional rights to due process, open trials, privacy and free speech drew a rare joint statement from 17 independent experts who work with the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. "The fight against terrorism must not result in violations of human rights," they said. The U.S. example "became a very worrying issue," said one of the U.N. specialists, Param Cumaraswamy. Developing nations lagging on human rights might take their cue from Washington, the Malaysian lawyer said. "'If the United States can do it,' they'll say, 'why can't we?"'
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
