Controversial erosions of individual liberties in the name of anti-terrorism are ongoing in liberal democracies. The focus of this book is on the manner in which strategic discourse has been used to create accepted political narratives. It specifically links aspects of that discourse to problematic and evolving terrorism detention practices that happen outside of traditional criminal and wartime paradigms, with examples including the detentions at Guantanamo Bay and security certificates in Canada. This book suggests that biased political discourse has, in some respects, continued to fuel public misconceptions about terrorism, which have then led to problematic legal enactments, supported by those misconceptions. It introduces this idea by presenting current examples, such as some of the language used by US President Donald Trump regarding terrorism, and it argues that such language has supported questionable legal responses to terrorism. It then critiques political arguments that began after 9/11, many of which are still foundational as terrorism detention practices evolve. The focus is on language emanating from the US, and the book links this language to specific examples of changed detention practices from the US, Canada, and the UK. Terrorism is undoubtedly a real threat, but that does not mean that all perceptions of how to respond to terrorism are valid. As international terrorism continues to grow and to change, this book offers valuable insights into problems that have arisen from specific responses, with the objective of avoiding those problems going forward.

The Joint Committee scrutinised the Home Office's draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, which could be enacted urgently if it ever became necessary to extend to 28 days the maximum period for which the police could apply to a High Court judge detain terrorist suspects before charging them. The Committee agrees with the Government's objective, but does not accept the Government's proposals for achieving the objective. When provisions of this kind needed to be introduced after individuals had been arrested; it would be almost impossible to give Parliament the information it would need to scrutinise the legislation adequately without putting at risk a suspect's right to have a fair trial. In addition there is a risk that, if the provision was required in a period of parliamentary recess or dissolution, legislation could not be introduced in time, or at all. The Committee recommends, instead, the introduction of legislation to empower the Secretary of State to make an executive order (with the agreement of the Attorney General and subject to rigorous safeguards), that would temporarily extend the maximum period available for pre-charge detention to 28 days. There would have to be an independent review of the case for making such an order. The Director of Public Prosecutions would continue to be responsible for applications to a High Court judge in individual cases. The Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament for the decision once there was no longer any risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings.

Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism tool is fraught with conceptual and procedural problems and risks of misuse, excess and abuse. Many have debated the inadequacies of the current legal frameworks for detention, and the need for finding the most appropriate legal model to govern detention of terror suspects that might serve as a global paradigm. This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of the detention of terror suspects under domestic criminal law, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law. The book looks comparatively at the law in a number of key jurisdictions including the USA, the UK, Israel, France, India, Australia and Canada and in turn compares this to preventive detention under the law of armed conflict and various human rights treaties. The book demonstrates that the procedures governing the use of preventive detention are deficient in each framework and that these deficiencies often have an adverse and serious impact on the human rights of detainees, thereby delegitimizing the use of preventive detention. Based on her investigation Diane Webber puts forward a new approach to preventive detention, setting out ten key minimum criteria drawn from international human rights principles and best practices from domestic laws. The minimum criteria are designed to cure the current flaws and deficiencies and provide a base line of guidance for the many countries that choose to use preventive detention, in a way that both respects human rights and maintains security.

Terrorism detention Powers : Fourth report of session 2005-06, Vol. 2: Oral and written Evidence

Counterterrorism and Investigative Detention explores the practice of investigative detention of terrorist suspects in the legal systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. In addition to illuminating the characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of various investigative detention regimes, this book examines ways in which international law and national security imperatives have served as vectors for change and convergence in these otherwise divergent legal systems.

Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.

Incorporating HC 1020-I-III, session 2006-07, not previously published