|
Over bitter opposition blairs antiterror bill passes { March 12 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/international/europe/12britain.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/international/europe/12britain.html
March 12, 2005
Over Bitter Opposition, Antiterrorism Bill Passes in Britain
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON, March 11 - Over strong objections from civil libertarians, Parliament on Friday enacted Prime Minister Tony Blair's new antiterrorism package, which among other things allows the authorities to place terrorist suspects under an unusually strict form of house arrest, without trial, instead of sending them to prison.
The passage came as eight foreign terror suspects were released under strict bail conditions on Friday, after being held without charges or a trial under an antiterrorism law hastily passed after Sept. 11, 2001. Three months ago a panel of judges ruled that their imprisonment violated European human rights legislation.
The new law was intended to get around just such objections, and had become a political minefield. An increasingly angry Mr. Blair insisted that it was essential for national security; his opponents in an unusually combative House of Lords asserted, in the words of the Earl of Onslow, that it was a "rotten, rotten stinking bill."
With an election widely expected to be held in May, neither the Labor Party nor the Conservative opposition wants to be seen as weak on terrorism. In the end, the differences between the parties came down to issues of procedure rather than issues of substance, as the civil-liberties objections of legislators from both parties were swept away in the final rush to exhibit toughness.
The debate in Britain mirrors that in the United States, where the Supreme Court ruled last June that foreign terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detention before a judge or other neutral "decision maker."
In Britain, as in the United States, the authorities are straining to enact laws that are as tough on terrorism as possible while also able to withstand judicial scrutiny - and possibly to creatively circumvent existing law.
The debate has been particularly bitter in Britain, with its proud civil libertarian tradition. The House of Commons, controlled by the prime minister with his huge parliamentary majority, easily passed the proposed legislation.
But the House of Lords, which has a preponderance of Conservatives and whose members are appointed rather than elected, balked at a bill that many of its members felt violated centuries-old legal principles like the right of habeas corpus, as enshrined in the Magna Carta.
With most legislation, the House of Lords is fairly supine, ceding to the House of Commons's wishes without much fuss. But in this case, it dug in its heels. Four times the House of Commons sent it the bill for consideration; four times the Lords voted the bill down, sitting throughout the night on Thursday in a session that eventually lasted 30 hours.
Finally, with the old terrorism law set to expire at midnight on Sunday, the prime minister offered a concession: if his bill was enacted, he said, he would agree to allow Parliament to review it within a year.
The compromise was immediately seized on by the Tory leader, Michael Howard, as an embarrassing reversal by Mr. Blair. The Tories had wanted the bill to include a "sunset clause," under which it would expire after a year; Mr. Howard proclaimed victory, saying that Mr. Blair had agreed to a "sunset clause in all but name."
The eight detainees released Friday will find themselves in situations remarkably like those allowed for in the new legislation. In their cases, though, the conditions of their release were set by an immigration judge. Though the eight, all Muslim and all men, are due to return home imminently, they will hardly be free when they get there.
The men will have to wear electronic monitoring tags, report to an official every time they enter and leave their houses, and remain at home between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily.
They will not be allowed to attend gatherings, other than group prayers at mosques, without prior permission. They will not be allowed visitors, except their children's friends, their lawyers, tradespeople and health care workers. No Internet equipment or mobile telephones will be allowed in their houses.
In addition, they will be required to notify the Home Office when they want to travel abroad. They will be allowed to hold just one bank account apiece, and will be required to provide the government with monthly reports of their financial transactions. They are also forbidden to transfer money or send documents or goods abroad without government permission.
One of the men, the charismatic Syrian cleric Abu Qatada, whose incendiary calls to arms have caused him to be described by British officials as Osama bin Laden's "ambassador to Europe," is also banned from leading prayers or preaching at mosques.
The tough circumstances the men find themselves in reflect the continued assertion by the British authorities that they are dangerous men with terrorist connections. Earlier this week, Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, warned that the detainees "still represented a grave threat to national security."
With Parliament in upheaval over the new legislation, it was unclear, until the very last minute, what the circumstances of the detainees' release would be. Taken with the rest of the day's events, the confusion added to the sense that the prime minister was in danger of losing control of an issue in which he has long held the political upper hand.
On Thursday, Gareth Peirce, a lawyer for some of the men, said she had never seen "such an extraordinary, ill-prepared, ill thought-out and cackhanded shambles," asking, "How could anyone be convinced that those responsible know what they are doing?"
The eight detainees, as well as a ninth who was released on Thursday, have been held in near total secrecy in Belmarsh and other prisons in conditions that have been called Britain's equivalent of Guantánamo Bay. Some have been in prison since 2001.
The men have become a cause célèbre for civil liberties groups who said their imprisonment violated human-rights legislation and basic legal principles enshrined in the British Constitution. Amnesty International and other groups further charged that the conditions at Belmarsh, where the men were locked up for 22 hours a day in tiny cells and never saw daylight, were inhumane.
As at Guantánamo Bay, the detainees were never informed of all the charges against them and were not given access to lawyers.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
|
|
