Human Rights First Human Rights First

Europe’s Absurd Counterterrorism Tactics

4-5-2012

By Adam Jacobson
Law & Security Program

This week, a man in London was hit with terrorism charges based on his alleged possession of materials written by Anwar al-Awlaki, the American imam linked to al Qaeda who was killed last year in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Paired with French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s stated intent to make the viewing of terrorist websites and forums illegal and punishable by a jail sentence, this seems to mark a dangerous turn in Europe’s fight against terrorism.

According to The Guardian:

Mohammed Shabir Ali, 24, of east London, is accused of possessing [Awlaki’s essay] 44 Ways to Support Jihad between 20 August 2008 and 21 June 2011.

The Metropolitan police said that the document was “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.

Ali has also been charged with intending, during the same period, to assist another person to commit acts of terrorism.

Intending to assist another person to commit acts of terrorism is a serious offense. But the mere possession of materials advocating jihad should not be a crime. These steps (or intended steps, on Sarkozy’s part) mark a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties and free speech.

It also encroaches on the ability to effectively fight terrorism. Part of the way we combat terrorists and would-be terrorists is to analyze their publications and discussions. Terrorism analysts (both in academia and intelligence services) routinely examine jihadist online forums and are well-versed in the canon of jihadist literature – of which “44 Ways to Support Jihad” would certainly be a part.

The utility of this seems obvious – as Sun Tzu is often paraphrased, to defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy. Before and after 9/11, our government knew little about al Qaeda and its structure, intentions, and abilities—ignorance that led to mistakes we’re still paying for today.

Would England and France arrest terrorism analysts for possessing materials “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” or reading jihadist websites or online forums, even without any intent to commit acts terrorism? The answer, assuming the countries enforce these laws, is yes.

The actual charge against Ali reads, “…between 20 August 2008 and 21 June 2011 possessed a document of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely 44 Ways to Support Jihad by Anwar Al Awlaki.” And Sarkozy’s actual remarks read, “Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison.”

Half of the analysts I follow on Twitter would go to jail if their laptops were examined with this as the criteria.

Making it illegal to view jihadist websites and online forums, or merely to possess jihadist literature, would cripple our ability to understand our enemies, and would undoubtedly lead to more mistakes in the fight against terrorism. The intent—stopping terrorist attacks—is a noble one, but in practice, such laws threaten both civil liberties and the struggle against terrorism.

UPDATE: A second man, Mohammed Shafiq Ali, has also been charged in the case with possession of Awlaki’s “44 Ways to Support Jihad.”


Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 2 Comments »

  • eslaporte

    We should first notice the discourse on “terrorism.” What we should notice is that horrible crimes by suspects of a Muslim/immigrant background are “terrorism,” which horrible crimes by non-Muslims are just horrible crimes. The term “terrorism” appears to only used when a suspect is found to be of a Muslim background. The shooting in France appears to be about the only recent criminal event that is described as “terrorism” and that is due to the religious background of the suspect. The term “terrorism” applies to only Muslims and is, therefore biased – and is can be argued that the use of “terrorism” is anti-Muslim!

    Muslims are treated in a more discriminatory manner in the US and by European governments. Legally protected religious faith and political viewpoints are use as “markers of radicalization.” Being described as “radicalized” for legally protected religious and political activity can have serious ramifications for the individual – and being described as “radicalized” according to some “models” has nothing to do with violence. The use of the term “radicalization” when describing legally protected activity serves to demonizes and criminalize Islamic faith and political viewpoints, such as the Middle East conflict.

    We need to be concerned about the human rights in terms of religious freedom, freedom of expression, and other individual freedoms – and either drop the term “radicalization” or return the term to only violent radicalization. I have studied this manner in which Western “counter-terrorism” operates, the policies now being imposed are a threat to human rights – and Western counter-terrorism agencies are now a threat to the human rights and there is a need to speak out against this oppression!

  • eslaporte

    Thank you for not removing my last comment! Allow me to further demonstrate how Muslims in Europe are having their human rights, namely religious freedom, undermined by the practices of “counter-terrorism” in Europe.

    It seems that now the German intelligence services are concerned with a Muslim preacher’s “Koran in every home” campaign. The preacher’s goal is to give out 25 million Korans. The preacher has been passing out Korans and this is now a “concern” for German intelligence. (http://www.thelocal.de/article.php?ID=41865#comment2730370)

    Now – German intelligence admits that there should be nothing wrong with the passing out of religious texts – but why should German intelligence and the German State now make religious activity a “security problem?”

    We need to only be reminded that this is the same national intelligence service that failed (or overlooked), the “Doner” murders of Turkish shopkeepers and bomb attacks of the National Socialist Underground. There are whole regions of Germany that have been taken over by neo-Nazis and have ethnically cleansed of immigrants and Muslims – and German intelligence is concerned with a single Muslim preacher?

    We need to be reminded that the Nazis and the European radical right have exterminated far more people over the last 100 years of European history than so-called “Islamist jihadists.” We need to remove the anti-Muslim bias from security and intelligence and refocus on real threats and stop trampling on the human rights of Muslim minorities!