Dr Mohamed Kirat
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
Terrorism presents a global threat to democracy, the rule of law, human rights, peace and security. It also constitutes an attack on mankind’s most fundamental value: the right to a life lived in peace, freedom and dignity. The terrorists’ intentional, indiscriminate killing of civilians is a cynical denial of the respect for the sanctity of life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states.
In the War on Terrorism, what becomes of international human rights? It seems without any doubt that the war model poses a threat to international human rights, because honouring human rights is neither practically possible nor theoretically required during war. Acts of terrorism are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, religious or other similar nature. Terrorism is like totalitarianism in the sense that whoever kills an innocent citizen in order to impose his/her views follows a totalitarian ideology. Terrorism is seen as a major threat to political stability in many countries. Respect for internationally recognised human rights is a fundamental responsibility of national governments. Can governments prevent terrorism while also respecting human rights, or must authorities trade off some human rights to reduce terrorism? If the latter is the case, which human rights can or should be sacrificed for the goal of stopping terrorism? States may use the real or perceived presence of a terrorist threat to justify treating prisoners in a way that may otherwise be contrary to international human rights standards. Governments have a clear right and possibly a duty, to protect citizens from terrorist attacks and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice. It is, however, the manner in which these counter-terrorism measures are conducted which may affect fundamental human rights. Powers of search, arrest and detention may be affected by the counter-terrorism measures adopted by states. The threat of terrorism may also result in limitations on other rights such as freedom of expression and religion and the right to seek asylum. Those suspected of terrorist offences must be treated in accordance with certain basic international human rights standards.
In a Statement at a special meeting of the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee with International, Regional, and Sub-Regional Organizations, on March 6, 2003, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asserted: “Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aims to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism - not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension”.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, President Bush stated that the perpetrators of the deed would be brought to justice. Soon afterwards, the president announced that the United States would engage in a war on terrorism. The first of these statements adopts the familiar language of criminal law and criminal justice. It treats the September 11 attacks as horrific crimes — mass murders — and the government’s mission as apprehending and punishing the surviving planners and conspirators for their roles in the crimes. The War on Terrorism is a different proposition, however, and a different model of governmental action — not law but war. Most obviously, it dramatically broadens the scope of action, because now terrorists who knew nothing about September 11 have been earmarked as enemies.
Today in a global world, terrorism seems to be closer than ever. On a daily basis, we hear, watch or read about some new attack, some new threat or some new victims of terrorism. Fear pervades the world and people feel unsafe. Terrorism is known to surprise. Today it does not surprise anymore and that is the most frightening thing. Terrorism has become a part of our lives and we are already used to living with it. Long time ago institutions and army have started fight against terrorism but after September the eleventh fight it has culminated because USA, as a leader of west liberal democracy, has declared war against terrorism. Terrorists and terrorist organizations anti – west disposed, as target have symbols, institutions and citizens of liberal democratic states.
Using innocent victims as a method to approach their goals, terrorists are showing that they do not respect human dignity or any human rights. From that point of view, we can believe that the fight against terrorism is a fight for human rights, for human dignity and for all those ideals in which liberal democracy has its roots. In today’s world, fight against terrorism leaves a deep mark on the democratic institutions and on the democratic process. Every individual, being a part of liberal and democratic society is potential victim of some terrorist attack but in the same time is a victim of the control and “liberating from freedom” that has been done by legal, liberal and democratic political authority. International human rights law provides a number of rights on arrest and detention. These include the right to be informed of the reasons for your arrest and the charges against you, the right to be brought promptly before a judge and the right to bring proceedings before a court for review of the reasons for your detention. Arrested persons normally have the right to have someone informed of their detention and to receive legal advice without delay.
Unfortunately the last two decades provided us with hundreds of cases of human rights abuses by Western democracies and other countries of the world. Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, Iraq, Afghanistan and thousands of arrests of innocent people in several Western countries are clear examples of fighting terrorism by using unlawful measures, procedures and means. In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the “antiterrorist policy” both at international and national levels has gradually led to the restriction — or even the suppression, in many cases — of human rights. Does war on terrorism mean war on human rights?
Is it time to think about other means to fight terrorism than war, violence and terror?
The writer is a professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
Terrorism presents a global threat to democracy, the rule of law, human rights, peace and security. It also constitutes an attack on mankind’s most fundamental value: the right to a life lived in peace, freedom and dignity. The terrorists’ intentional, indiscriminate killing of civilians is a cynical denial of the respect for the sanctity of life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states.
In the War on Terrorism, what becomes of international human rights? It seems without any doubt that the war model poses a threat to international human rights, because honouring human rights is neither practically possible nor theoretically required during war. Acts of terrorism are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, religious or other similar nature. Terrorism is like totalitarianism in the sense that whoever kills an innocent citizen in order to impose his/her views follows a totalitarian ideology. Terrorism is seen as a major threat to political stability in many countries. Respect for internationally recognised human rights is a fundamental responsibility of national governments. Can governments prevent terrorism while also respecting human rights, or must authorities trade off some human rights to reduce terrorism? If the latter is the case, which human rights can or should be sacrificed for the goal of stopping terrorism? States may use the real or perceived presence of a terrorist threat to justify treating prisoners in a way that may otherwise be contrary to international human rights standards. Governments have a clear right and possibly a duty, to protect citizens from terrorist attacks and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice. It is, however, the manner in which these counter-terrorism measures are conducted which may affect fundamental human rights. Powers of search, arrest and detention may be affected by the counter-terrorism measures adopted by states. The threat of terrorism may also result in limitations on other rights such as freedom of expression and religion and the right to seek asylum. Those suspected of terrorist offences must be treated in accordance with certain basic international human rights standards.
In a Statement at a special meeting of the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee with International, Regional, and Sub-Regional Organizations, on March 6, 2003, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asserted: “Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aims to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism - not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension”.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, President Bush stated that the perpetrators of the deed would be brought to justice. Soon afterwards, the president announced that the United States would engage in a war on terrorism. The first of these statements adopts the familiar language of criminal law and criminal justice. It treats the September 11 attacks as horrific crimes — mass murders — and the government’s mission as apprehending and punishing the surviving planners and conspirators for their roles in the crimes. The War on Terrorism is a different proposition, however, and a different model of governmental action — not law but war. Most obviously, it dramatically broadens the scope of action, because now terrorists who knew nothing about September 11 have been earmarked as enemies.
Today in a global world, terrorism seems to be closer than ever. On a daily basis, we hear, watch or read about some new attack, some new threat or some new victims of terrorism. Fear pervades the world and people feel unsafe. Terrorism is known to surprise. Today it does not surprise anymore and that is the most frightening thing. Terrorism has become a part of our lives and we are already used to living with it. Long time ago institutions and army have started fight against terrorism but after September the eleventh fight it has culminated because USA, as a leader of west liberal democracy, has declared war against terrorism. Terrorists and terrorist organizations anti – west disposed, as target have symbols, institutions and citizens of liberal democratic states.
Using innocent victims as a method to approach their goals, terrorists are showing that they do not respect human dignity or any human rights. From that point of view, we can believe that the fight against terrorism is a fight for human rights, for human dignity and for all those ideals in which liberal democracy has its roots. In today’s world, fight against terrorism leaves a deep mark on the democratic institutions and on the democratic process. Every individual, being a part of liberal and democratic society is potential victim of some terrorist attack but in the same time is a victim of the control and “liberating from freedom” that has been done by legal, liberal and democratic political authority. International human rights law provides a number of rights on arrest and detention. These include the right to be informed of the reasons for your arrest and the charges against you, the right to be brought promptly before a judge and the right to bring proceedings before a court for review of the reasons for your detention. Arrested persons normally have the right to have someone informed of their detention and to receive legal advice without delay.
Unfortunately the last two decades provided us with hundreds of cases of human rights abuses by Western democracies and other countries of the world. Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, Iraq, Afghanistan and thousands of arrests of innocent people in several Western countries are clear examples of fighting terrorism by using unlawful measures, procedures and means. In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the “antiterrorist policy” both at international and national levels has gradually led to the restriction — or even the suppression, in many cases — of human rights. Does war on terrorism mean war on human rights?
Is it time to think about other means to fight terrorism than war, violence and terror?
The writer is a professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
