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

Why did Britain come to play such a prominent role in the war on terror and why did the military instrument come to be the dominant theme in the British prosecution of what was an ideological and political struggle? This book is an analysis of Britain’s war against Al Qaeda and the phenomenon of international terrorism which marked a paradigm shift in the nature and conduct of war in the twenty-first century. At the heart of the book is an attempt to understand why Britain, which possessed a wealth of experience in the conduct of counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and small wars, developed a strategic and operational design to defeat the Islamist threat which proved to be deeply flawed. In addressing this question the book explores the complex intellectual, doctrinal and geopolitical challenge posed by Al Qaeda and international terrorism and how and why the British response took the form that it did. In conducting this analysis the book raises important questions about the assumptions and perceptions of those in government who led the UK into this conflict, the nature of the civil military relationship in Britain and how well it functioned, and finally the competence of its security forces in being able to deal with this threat both domestically and overseas.

Work of the Committee In 2007 : Fourth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence

Examines the Counter-Terrorism Bill before its second reading in the House of Commons. This title concentrates on five significant human rights issues needing thorough parliamentary scrutiny: pre-charge detention; post-charge questioning; control orders and special advocates; the threshold test for charging; and the admissibility of intercept.

"Constitutes the Terrorism Series' first expansion into non-U.S. legal regimes, and this initial volume deals solely with the UK's approach to security law. Ever since the London bombings of July 7th, 2005, the UK has been faced with the challenge of improving the nation's security while maintaining its proud tradition of civil liberties."--Publisher's website.

This report examines the Government's intention, as part of its counter-terrorism measures, to increase the pre-charge detention limit from 28 to 42 days. The Committee believes that there is a clear national consensus that the case for further change has not been made by the Government. In the Committee's view a truly consensual approach should lead the Government to accept that it has failed to build the necessary national consensus for this very significant interference with the right to liberty and withdraw the proposal; to proceed with it as detailed by the Home Office calls into question the Government's commitment to a consensual approach and raises questions of compatibility with human rights. The Committee does not accept that the Government has made the case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days, for the following reasons: i) it can find no clear evidence of likely need in the near future; ii) alternatives to extension do enough, in combination, to protect the public and are much more proportionate; iii) the proposed parliamentary mechanism would create a serious risk of prejudice to the fair trial of suspects; iv) the existing judicial safeguards for extensions even up to 28 days are inadequate.

Work of the Committee In 2008-09 : Fourth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal Minutes