UK Wants Similar Powers to Controversial US Patriot Act
By Westminster Editor James Cusick
Sweeping new emergency legal powers to deal with the aftermath of a large terrorist attack in Britain are being considered by the government.
The measures could potentially outlaw participation in a protest march, such as last week's demonstrations during President Bush's state visit, making it, in effect, a criminal offence to criticize government policy.
Similar Powers to the US Patriot Act
In an attempt to give the UK government similar powers to those rushed through in the US after the 9/11 attack on New York in 2001, it is understood that a beefed-up version of the current civil contingencies law is being considered. It will allow the government to bypass or suspend key parts of the UK's human rights laws without the authority of parliament.
In the US, the Patriot Act has been widely condemned by civil rights groups throughout the country. Many lawyers have blamed the Patriot Act as an excuse for eroding civil rights that dated back to the founding principles of the US constitution. The fact that the UK government is considering seeking similar power in a crisis situation indicates the heightened level of concern following the terrorist bombings in Istanbul.
New Powers in the Event of a State of Emergency
The new powers would only come into force if a state of emergency was proclaimed with the authority of the sovereign. The government, if the new measures were introduced, would be able to prohibit any assembly or activity it believed threatened national security. However, government legal sources have urged that any new laws in such a sensitive area would not be forced through without widespread consultation.
Aware of the current level of scare-mongering following the Istanbul bombing and the threats made by al-Qaeda-linked groups that further suicide attacks were being planned on targets both in the UK and abroad, a source close to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, last night denied his department was seeking a massive and immediate injection of cash from the Treasury. This would be needed to foot the bill if Britain's streets were to be flooded with armed police in an almost constant level of red alert.
Despite Blunkett saying he was "sick and tired" of people pretending there was not a threat from terrorists and insisting only "very, very good intelligence would save us," the Home Office seems to have no plans to boost security spending this or next year.
If "Fortress Britain" were to be achieved, with countrywide security checks, increased police surveillance, and widespread detention of any suspect group or individual, the Home Office's annual budget would skyrocket.
The Home Office source said: "We have absolutely no plans, advanced or otherwise, for seeking a level of increased spending. And we haven't even begun to think about next year."
Terror Hits Home
Special Report: 23 November 2003
Following the recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul and the heightened level of threats made by al-Qaeda-linked groups, the UK government is considering sweeping new emergency powers similar to the controversial US Patriot Act. These measures have raised concerns among civil rights groups regarding the erosion of individual liberties and government overreach.
If these new powers are implemented, they could potentially restrict participation in protests and criminalize criticism of government policies. Similar to the United States, where the Patriot Act has faced widespread condemnation, legal experts have expressed their apprehension about the possible erosion of human rights laws that form the basis of the UK's legal system.
The proposed powers would be enacted in the event of a state of emergency and would grant the government authority to suspend key parts of the UK's human rights laws without parliamentary approval. While the government emphasizes the need for swift action in response to a terrorist attack, legal sources insist that any new laws would undergo thorough consultation to address the sensitivity of the issue.
Despite concerns, the Home Office has denied seeking increased funding for extensive security measures, citing the necessity of relying on intelligence-driven strategies rather than overwhelming public spaces with armed police. The threat level has heightened in recent times, but the government is yet to allocate additional resources to strengthen security.
As discussions around these new powers continue, it remains crucial for the government to ensure transparency, maintain a balance between security and civil liberties, and consider the potential long-term implications of such legislation.