US PRESIDENT George W Bush yesterday signed legislation authorising tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for their trials before military commissions, calling it a “vital tool” in the war against terrorism.
Mr Bush’s plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged the Central Intelligence Agency had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.
“With the bill I’m about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice,” Mr Bush said, referring to the September 11 attacks.
Among those the US hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be September 11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.
“It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives,” Mr Bush said. “I have that privilege this morning.
“We will answer brutal murder with patient justice,” Mr Bush said. “Those who kill the innocent will be held to account.”
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Mr Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence.
The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning — such as rape, torture and “cruel and inhuman” treatment — but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel.
Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts.
Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person’s ability to go to court to protest his or her detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is “one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history”.
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Blunder over terror suspect's disappearance before police arrived to serve control order
· Missing man legally free of curbs, Home Office admits
· Details not revealed to MPs in written statement
Vikram Dodd and Will Woodward
Wednesday October 18, 2006
The Guardian
The government has been accused of fresh blunders over the disappearance of two terror suspects, after it emerged that one of the men disappeared before police had served him with a control order.
The man, who the government says is Iraqi, is suspected of being part of a terror cell. He should have had restrictions on his movement renewed on August 1 when a previous order ended, but police did not get to him in time, the Guardian learned.
The revelation adds to the government's embarrassment over the control orders after it was confirmed this week that the authorities have no idea of the whereabouts of the two men, said by the government to be dangerous.
One of the two, a British citizen, escaped two weeks ago from a secure psychiatric unit. But the foreign national has not been seen since August. Police failed to physically hand him the control order, as required by law. That means he is legally not subject to any restrictions, officials admitted last night.
The opposition said the revelation was further evidence of government incompetence. Yesterday Tony Blair defended the government's record on control orders amid signs that ministers may use the row to seek tougher powers.
In a second controversy, the security minister was accused of keeping news of the disappearance of the foreign national from MPs in a written statement he made to them six weeks after the authorities lost track of him.
The man had been under a control order, but that was quashed by the court of appeal at 4.30pm on August 1, with immediate effect. Three senior judges upheld an earlier court ruling in April striking down the control order regime.
According to sources with knowledge of the case, police found the man missing from his Manchester home when they went round to serve him with the new order. The Home Office says police went "at the earliest opportunity", but he had already disappeared.
The security services claim the man was part of an Iraqi terror cell. He claims to be Iranian.
Last night David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, said the man's disappearance was another example of Home Office incompetence: "You would have thought they would have foreseen this. They were warned enough times they could lose, and they ought to have considered what they needed to do to keep track of people they said were terrorists who were a danger to the public. It's an act of incompetence."
Last night the Home Office said the man, who cannot be named and is known as LL, could not be prosecuted for what they claim is his breaching of the first control order against him. A spokeswoman said: "Both individuals absconded from the control orders that were in force against them at the time that they absconded. Only one of those control orders is still in force - but both individuals breached their control orders. The police and CPS cannot prosecute LL for breach because the original control order in question was quashed by the court of appeal."
The row blew up on Monday after it emerged that the British man had escaped from a psychiatric secure unit a fortnight ago. It later emerged that the Home Office minister Tony McNulty had made no mention of the Iraqi's disappearance in a written answer to MPs on September 11 updating them on the use of control order powers. The Home Office said the statement was intended to update merely on how many control orders had been issued.
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "It adds insult to injury. For a government concerned about public relations it isn't good enough to duck any meaningful scrutiny when the going gets tough. It's hardly an example of new leadership if they choose to play dumb on an issue of great concern to the public."
Yesterday, at a press conference in Downing Street, Mr Blair brushed off the claim that the control orders fiasco showed that John Reid was losing control of the Home Office. "We, of course, wanted far tougher laws against terrorism. We were prevented by the opposition in parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that that was done. Of course, we will do everything we can to make sure that control orders - which are not the same as house arrest, which we have tremendous difficulties with; which are not the same as detention, which is what we originally wanted - of course they are not as effective.
"I think people have got to be careful of forgetting completely the history of this. I wanted to make sure that the original anti-terrorist legislation was maintained in full. Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention. But of course if someone breaches their control order, then they are properly sought after, and that is a job for the police.
"The reason it's difficult is that the legislation we have in place and we wanted to maintain was then overturned. Some of the same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to continue with this."
· Details not revealed to MPs in written statement
Vikram Dodd and Will Woodward
Wednesday October 18, 2006
The Guardian
The government has been accused of fresh blunders over the disappearance of two terror suspects, after it emerged that one of the men disappeared before police had served him with a control order.
The man, who the government says is Iraqi, is suspected of being part of a terror cell. He should have had restrictions on his movement renewed on August 1 when a previous order ended, but police did not get to him in time, the Guardian learned.
The revelation adds to the government's embarrassment over the control orders after it was confirmed this week that the authorities have no idea of the whereabouts of the two men, said by the government to be dangerous.
One of the two, a British citizen, escaped two weeks ago from a secure psychiatric unit. But the foreign national has not been seen since August. Police failed to physically hand him the control order, as required by law. That means he is legally not subject to any restrictions, officials admitted last night.
The opposition said the revelation was further evidence of government incompetence. Yesterday Tony Blair defended the government's record on control orders amid signs that ministers may use the row to seek tougher powers.
In a second controversy, the security minister was accused of keeping news of the disappearance of the foreign national from MPs in a written statement he made to them six weeks after the authorities lost track of him.
The man had been under a control order, but that was quashed by the court of appeal at 4.30pm on August 1, with immediate effect. Three senior judges upheld an earlier court ruling in April striking down the control order regime.
According to sources with knowledge of the case, police found the man missing from his Manchester home when they went round to serve him with the new order. The Home Office says police went "at the earliest opportunity", but he had already disappeared.
The security services claim the man was part of an Iraqi terror cell. He claims to be Iranian.
Last night David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, said the man's disappearance was another example of Home Office incompetence: "You would have thought they would have foreseen this. They were warned enough times they could lose, and they ought to have considered what they needed to do to keep track of people they said were terrorists who were a danger to the public. It's an act of incompetence."
Last night the Home Office said the man, who cannot be named and is known as LL, could not be prosecuted for what they claim is his breaching of the first control order against him. A spokeswoman said: "Both individuals absconded from the control orders that were in force against them at the time that they absconded. Only one of those control orders is still in force - but both individuals breached their control orders. The police and CPS cannot prosecute LL for breach because the original control order in question was quashed by the court of appeal."
The row blew up on Monday after it emerged that the British man had escaped from a psychiatric secure unit a fortnight ago. It later emerged that the Home Office minister Tony McNulty had made no mention of the Iraqi's disappearance in a written answer to MPs on September 11 updating them on the use of control order powers. The Home Office said the statement was intended to update merely on how many control orders had been issued.
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "It adds insult to injury. For a government concerned about public relations it isn't good enough to duck any meaningful scrutiny when the going gets tough. It's hardly an example of new leadership if they choose to play dumb on an issue of great concern to the public."
Yesterday, at a press conference in Downing Street, Mr Blair brushed off the claim that the control orders fiasco showed that John Reid was losing control of the Home Office. "We, of course, wanted far tougher laws against terrorism. We were prevented by the opposition in parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that that was done. Of course, we will do everything we can to make sure that control orders - which are not the same as house arrest, which we have tremendous difficulties with; which are not the same as detention, which is what we originally wanted - of course they are not as effective.
"I think people have got to be careful of forgetting completely the history of this. I wanted to make sure that the original anti-terrorist legislation was maintained in full. Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention. But of course if someone breaches their control order, then they are properly sought after, and that is a job for the police.
"The reason it's difficult is that the legislation we have in place and we wanted to maintain was then overturned. Some of the same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to continue with this."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)