The
scale and nature of the controversy over the U.K.'s counterterrorism proposal
is fascinating, in light of the acknowledged threat to the Western world caused
by Islamist extremism. There are two major points of contention in the
proposal. The first is a provision revoking the passport of any British citizen
suspected of going to the Middle East for terrorist training. The second
provision that has Britons worried would compel internet and cell phone service
providers to record and store the electronic lives of suspected terrorists.
Opponents
of the proposal see the revocation of one's passport as a violation of human
rights and international law. They also perceive the surveillance provision as a
violation of civil liberty. The proposed legislation seems very restrained and
directed in comparison to similar laws in France and the U.S. The provision allowing
for the revocation of one's passport only applies to suspected radicals who
return to the U.K. after spending time in nations known to be hotbeds of Islamic
terrorism, e.g. Iraq, Syria and Yemen. The provision is aimed at British
citizens who have openly expressed sympathy, and in many cases allegiance, to
groups like ISIS. It is unrealistic to expect any nation-state to repatriate
citizens who claim allegiance to organizations openly advocating violent
overthrow of that nation-state. Furthermore, unless one is part of a licensed humanitarian
aid organization, there are very few legitimate reasons one would choose to
spend their time in war-torn Northern Iraq. The passport control provision may
cause some inconveniences for British Muslims returning home from business; religious;
or family events through airports in cities like Riyadh and Dubai, as these
airports often act as midpoints for those flying to less conventional
destinations. However, there is so much legitimate traffic that flows from the
Middle East to the U.K. every day that British border security will have no
choice but to develop rigorous procedures for screening out potential threats.
One
of these proposed procedures is electronic surveillance on suspected radicals. My
understanding of the British legal system is, admittedly, very limited. I know that
British law enforcement and intelligence services routinely surveil members of criminal
or terrorist organizations. The aspect of this new proposal that seems to concern
people is that it compels private companies to assist the government in spying
on British citizens. I think the concern over the rise of ubiquitous surveillance
states in the Western world is fundamentally valid. However, this practice
seems little different than a detective asking a judge to subpoena the phone
records of a suspected drug trafficker. The British law does not allow for the
wholesale collection of every citizen's data for later analysis, as practiced
by the American national security apparatus.
No comments:
Post a Comment