The legal battle against terrorism

Ideology and modern day terrorism go hand in hand. In Europe one saw, in the late sixties, for the first time, highly motivated groups with radical views against the establishment, using violence as a means to make their point. These terrorist groups, in devising their attack strategy exploited the vulnerability of the civilian underbelly of the state. H.Eclestein in his book "Internal war" in 1964 wrote that "Terrorism is not simply the act of a demented few but represents a deeper academic impulse against repression in its most fundamental sense. Terrorism increases among political activists as well as among psychopaths in direct ratio to control and rationalisation of modern technological society and the seeming failure of other parts of revolutionary activity".

The above view of terrorism appears bizarre today but this attitude of indulgence coupled with covert sympathy has allowed terrorists and groups and institutions supporting them to cloak their methods in the garb of "revolution" or "jehad". The question is, do we witness in contemporary Bangladesh a scene as above?

The worries and the authority
The agitated citizens along with harried law enforcement personnel and the worried executive may think that the recent incidents of terrorism are at least partly a consequence of weak laws. Or the ineffective implementation of existing laws? So if laws were strengthened and may be made more matter-of-fact, is there a possibility that it might result into greater contravention of human rights in our situation? There is a view gaining currency that the ordinary law and the normal criminal justice system have failed to cope with terrorism. At times this failure is not attributed to the corruption or inefficiency of law enforcing machinery but to a weakness of the law based on principles of liberal jurisprudence and notions of natural justice. The reference is to principles like the right to equal treatment before the law, the right to a fair trial and the right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, if the legal remedy has to be effective in dealing with terrorists it can only do so if the aforementioned principles are overturned and the rights are taken away. This may not be an acceptable alternative in a democratic polity.

The issue of terrorism and human rights has befuddled even the United Nations and has been a subject of debate wherever militancy including the so-called religious type has taken place. In this regard there have often been disagreements between the government and the human rights organisations. The governments of the affected countries have on occasions made it clear that there cannot be an across the board guarantee of human rights to all, irrespective of the means they in turn use to achieve their ends, or whether they respect the human rights of the community.

The terrorists of contemporary Bangladesh, whether they be of the so-called 'Sarbahara' type or the bigoted militants, have to be seen in the above light. While on may have profund respect for those who are fighting for protection of human rights, one cannot countenance a situation where all the human right are reserved for the perpetrators of terrorism, while the government dealing with the menace are arraigned regularly on grounds of violation of human rights -- real or imaginary, What is needed now is to delineate the parameters that harmonise the defence of the values of a democratic polity with the respect for human rights.

The strategy
On a ideological plank we in Bangladesh should unequivocally condemn all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, regardless of their motivation, in all its forms and manifestations. This has to be so because the bigots in their leaflet have aimed at the annihilation of human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. They want to destabilise lawfully constituted government, undermine our pluralistic civil society and create adverse consequences on the economic and social development of the state. Their terrorism must not be confused with political violence.

While efforts may be undertaken to heal the socio-economic or religious reasons that spawn the terrorism, the mindless violence cannot be tolerated. Under our circumstances we cannot allow a so-called motive to justify an act of violence and the fringe ideologies cannot be allowed to flourish.

The so-called Islamic terrorists of Bangladesh are using violence and the threat of violence as an instrument to propagate its point of view, its ideology. This cannot be treated as dissidence that a democracy has to entertain. We have to decide clearly what are terrorist causes and what are embarrassments. We must be able to legally remove the possibility of subversive activity cloaking itself as conflicting ideology. In other words, we should separate an act of violence from its so-called political context to enable us to criminalise a certain mode of political expression. The attempt of terrorists to challenge power structures must be countered effectively.

Recent trends
The so-called Islamic terrorists of Bangladesh have directed their violence mainly at the civilian targets; the terrorist are apparently members of an organised group an they have claimed credit for their act. They have initially chosen soft targets because such targets allow quick response attacks without much planning or risk and in addition have a greater disruptionist element. These terrorists are putting our society under intolerable strain by causing crisis, provoking outrage, fray community ties and undermining faith in democratic institutions.

The threat and the remedy
In Bangladesh now that we know the identity of the terrorists and their manifest objectives, we have got to act swiftly and smartly. In the first place we need a special tough legislation that might necessitate some loss of liberty and freedom. The goal, however, should be to ensure that the security forces have every assistance in their task of bringing terrorists before the courts and that the integrity of the legal system is maintained. Incidentally, one has to bear in mind that legal antidote alone can not help win the battle against terrorism and that a political remedy perhaps merits greater attention.

We may benefit from related legislation of neighbouring country in preparing our action plan for countering the so-called religious terrorists, section 18 of the Indian 'Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001' has provision for declaration of an organisation as a terrorist organisation. Under this section an organisation shall be deemed to be involved in terrorism if it a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, b) prepares for terrorism, c) promotes or encourages terrorism or d) is otherwise involved in terrorism

Under section 20 of the same ordinance a person commits an offence if he belongs or processes to belong to a terrorist organisation and this offence of membership of a terrorist organisation, if proved, could lead to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or with fine or with both.

Support given to a terrorist organisation is also an offence under section 21 of the aforementioned ordinance and a person commits an offence if a) he invites support for a terrorist organisation, b) he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is:

1. to support a terrorist organisation,
2. to further the activities of a terrorist organisation, or
3. to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a terrorist organisation.

A person commits an offence under this section if he addresses a meeting for the purpose of encouraging support for a terrorist organisation or to further its activities.

A person guilty of the above offence shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment of a term not exceeding ten years or with fine or with both.

Under section 22 of the aforementioned Indian law, fund raising for a terrorist organisation has been made an offence and

A person commits an offence if he a) invites another to provide money or other property and b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purpose of terrorism.

A person also commits offence under the above section if he i) receives money or other property, and ii) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism, and iii) provides money or other property, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

A person guilty of an offence under the above section shall be liable, on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or with fine or with both.

A dispassionate analysis of our so-called religious terrorism will most likely convince a concerned citizen about the urgent necessity of apprehending and trying these fringe elements of our society who are by admission, declaration and over-activities, unrepentant evil-doers. Their organisation need to be under strict watch and their material base has to be sapped along with stopping of the routes of their financial replenishment and seizing their existing assets.

The government may consider establishment of a national centre for counter-terrorism. This could be broadly on the lines of the US office of counter-terrorism, headed by a coordinator. This office may act as a nodal point for all efforts against domestic and international terrorism. This centre should include legal experts and persons with experience in handling conflict situations. It should also be possible for the authority to create additional courts with fixed time frames to dispose terrorism related cases.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is former Secretary and IGP.