The idea of terrorism is extended to several forms of social fight and protest. Dissident political and trade union opinions become criminalized. An environment movement such as Greenpeace or animal rights activist is even prosecuted as terrorist in some countries.

By Atty. Raf Jespers*
Progressive Lawyers Network, Belgium
Posted by Bulatlat.com

The attacks in New York, London and Madrid were the signal for the U.S. and Europe to curtail without scruples, the fundamental rights of its citizens. Under the banner of “the war on terror,” they have taken measures which up to a certain point, can be compared to the fascization of Europe in the 1930’s under Hitler and Mussolini. The war on terror starts long before 9/11; but after 9/11 it became accelerated and did not stop just at today. A new historical period of repression was started.

Terrorism has to be combated; innocent citizens have to be protected.

The traditional judicial definition of terrorism is the use of organized violence against civilians.

There is no question that a state should arm itself against terror deeds like those from Al-Qaeda. These blind extreme right and fascist terror actions do not deserve our understanding. The victims of these actions are the innocent persons in the streets of New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai. So too are the Iraqi people, who are victims of the unlawful occupation in Iraq by the U.S. and Great Britain. This state terrorism also does not deserve any understanding. These two forms of terrorism are each other’s breeding grounds. Without Al Qaeda, Bush would have had a more difficult time invading Iraq and taking drastic measures against fundamental rights such as in the Patriot Act. The invasion of Iraq and the terror of the United States against the people became the pretext for all sorts of fundamentalists to meddle in the Iraqi quagmire.

9/11 is the beginning of a new era of war on civil liberties

The U.S. is in the world arena without doubt the engine and leading power for the so-called anti-terrorism measures. All violators of human rights are justified with their argument that they are necessary in the fight against terror. Imperialist states and their allies have in the course of history developed and brought to perfection their state system to break the resistance of the peoples against injustice and oppression.

The measures taken in the past five years mean a historical modification in the field of expansion of the apparatus to impose or preserve worldwide the power of the U.S.-imperium. That imperium has been threatened indeed by the rise of the developing countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. By 2040, those countries will have left the old industrial countries (U.S., Japan, Europe) economically behind them.

We must be aware that the “measures against terror” mean a new era of repression.

After the second world war there was an enormous extension worldwide of fundamental rights as a result of the victory against fascism in Europe and Japan and under the influence of the rise of socialism and anti-olonialism of which peoples and citizens could enjoy.

There was the establishment of the United Nations Organization which in its charter established the principle of the prohibition on war. It only allows very exceptionally (if in response to aggression or with the approval of the UN itself) a state to conduct war. With the war in Iraq, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have violated theses principles.

In 1949, the conventions of Geneva (four conventions and two protocols) fixed strict rules on the treatment of soldiers, prisoners of war and civilians in armed conflicts. In the war in Iraq and during the aggression war in Israel of July-August 2006 against Lebanon, these conventions were heavily violated. In 1966, within the framework of the UNO the very important treaties on the civil and political rights and on the economic, social and cultural rights were adopted. In 1950, the important treaty for protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms had already been adopted in Europe.

These progressive achievements of international law stand today strongly under pressure and are ignored worldwide. As progressive lawyers we must defend these fundamental rights obstinately: “fight for these rights, for respect for these rights, for the concrete application of it, for the extension of these rights.”

With this main point in focus, it will be clear that the “war on terror” requires a particular responsibility on the shoulders of progressive lawyers.

Power lines from the anti-terror policies of U.S. and EU: A permanent state of terror, a perpetual state of “war on terror”

1.Extrajudicial killings, torture, secret prisons, secret flights of prisoners.

The Philippines is the most terrible example of the strategy to combat social and political oppression by the killings of their activists (757 killed, 184 missing since Arroyo came into power in 2001).

The secret prisons of the U.S. in countries like Egypt, Romania and Poland and the secret flights with war-prisoners were reasons for worldwide protests.

2.Exceptional “anti-terror” legislation

Before 11th of September there were in certain countries such as Spain, the United Kingdom and Turkey special anti-terrorism laws. Especially the Turkish law meant far-reaching restrictions on the right to promote political change. This law came about under the influence of the military dictatorship in Turkey. It is thus not astonishing that in Turkey from the seventies on, there was a record of number political prisoners.

What we see after 9/11 is that this type of fascist legislation, which is normal to dictatorships, is introduced in almost all countries. You can see it in the U.S. with the Patriot Act I and II. In Europe, it is implemented by the application of a special resolution of the European Union and in the Philippines with the current law proposal.

The nature of this legislation means that a type of common political offense is inserted in most penal laws whereas previously in most of the penal laws only very specific political offenses had been formerly registered, like for example collaboration with a foreign enemy, insult of a Head of State, etc.

This kind of legislation implies that the political fight which normally must be realized with political resources (debate, elections, mass demonstrations, parliament, bills…) and that takes place in the field of the executive and legislative powers, from now on will also be conducted by the courts. This is a very dangerous evolution because it makes an indictable offense of political opposition and because it criminalizes politically other options and actions.

The nature of all this legislation is that it is meant to maintain the existing capitalist order in each country and that it blocks the social action for social and political improvement. This is also said in an explicit way in all those laws.

All these laws against terror introduce a broadly defined prohibition:

· To modify the existing political, economic and social order of the country, in other words it is considered terrorism to stand up for another form of society than the one where private property of production resources and of the capital dominates;

· To force the governments and international institutions with radical resources not to take certain decisions or to force them to take certain decisions they do not want to take;

· “To scare the population”: which is meant to cover organizing broad social action, and instilling fear for example about general strikes

 Save as PDF