UK and US security laws used to arrest journalists

FMT:

 

UK and US security laws

used to arrest journalists

Letter to the Editor

-23 Aug 2024, 10:00 AM

Some anti-terror legislation has also been extended to rein in academics as well.

8

Shares

Total Views: 933

From Kua Kia Soong

Malaysian NGOs and activists who look upon the West as the fount of human rights and have no catch-all 

national security

 or 

anti-terrorism

 laws should think again.

A few days ago, Richard Medhurst, an independent British journalist who defends Palestinians’ right to resist Israeli apartheid and genocide was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport and held for nearly 24 hours under the UK Anti-Terrorism Act 2000.

Medhurst is well known for his work opposing US, British, and Israeli war crimes in the Middle East and for his advocacy of formerly imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

He was accused of allegedly 

expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a prescribed organisation

. Violators can be punished with up to 14 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Medhurst said he was searched, handcuffed, and taken in a police van to a station where he was searched again, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in solitary confinement. His phone and work equipment were seized.

Like Julian Assange – who was freed in June following a plea deal with the US government – as well as Scottish author Craig Murray, Grayzone correspondent Kit Clarenberg, and Brazilian politician David Miranda, Medhurst is yet another journalist who has been targeted for his political beliefs and expression.

Assange’s Wikileaks released a video named 

Collateral Murder

 in 2010, which showed US helicopters firing on Iraqi citizens and medical personnel.

A few months later, Swedish prosecutors issued the first arrest warrant for Assange, accusing him of sexual assault. Assange denied the accusations and the investigation was eventually dropped but that kicked off a 14-year saga that saw the publisher be confined for over 12 years, first in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for nearly eight years and then more than four years in the UK’s notorious Belmarsh Prison.

Assange was released in June of this year after signing a plea deal with the US, which was seeking his extradition on espionage charges. By that time, according to his family, his health had seriously deteriorated. He has rarely been seen in public since.

Former Brazilian politician David Miranda, who was instrumental in revealing the Edward Snowden leak, was also detained in the UK some years ago under the same law that Medhurst was arrested for.

Miranda successfully sued the UK government, arguing that the law did not apply to those participating in journalism. However, the law has since been amended to include 

expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed (deemed a terrorist) organisation,

 if 

in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.

Earlier this month, former UN weapons inspector and frequent Sputnik radio guest and columnist Scott Ritter’s house was raided by the FBI on alleged Foreign Agent Registry Act (Fara) violations. Ritter has denied the charges.

All this harassment is meant to send a message to all other journalists and commentators that if you dare speak against Israel and its Western allies, it could happen to you.

A catch-all definition to go after journalists, bloggers

The current definition of terrorism by the UK is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety.

David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to deal with dissidents.

He said that in other European and Commonwealth countries the bar is set much higher and there must also be an 

intention to coerce or intimidate

.

And it looks like these counter-terrorism laws can currently be applied to journalists and bloggers as well.

The anti-terror legislation has also been extended to rein in academics as well. Ernest Moret, a French publisher was on his way to the London Book Fair when he was detained and questioned under the UK’s Anti-Terrorism Act by police officers on April 19, 2023.

The legislation gives police officers the power to stop, question and detain people to determine if they were involved in the 

preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism

, as read by the Metropolitan police’s definition.

The officers said Moret took part in demonstrations in France against a controversial pension reform. The UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) was among the organisations that condemned Moret’s arrest.

UK police have also used powers under the Terrorism Act to seize the laptop of a young Newsnight journalist, Secunder Kermani in a case that has shocked BBC colleagues and alarmed freedom of speech campaigners.

Kermani has produced a series of reports on British-born jihadis. He has built a reputation for making contact with Western-born Isis fighters and interviewing them online about their motivations. The development has caused alarm among BBC journalists.

There are also concerns that police may use the legislation to go after sources of academic research into Islamic extremism. Kings College London’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation has built a huge data base of Western jihadists.

The anti-terror law must change

At the Court of Appeal, David Miranda, the partner of former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, challenged a ruling that he was lawfully detained at Heathrow airport under the Terrorism Act in 2013, resulting in the seizure of 58,000 highly classified documents he was carrying for the journalist in encrypted files.

The appeals court said the detention of Miranda was lawful as the law stood but the clause under which he was held is incompatible with European human rights convention.

The ruling rejected the broad definition of terrorism advanced by government lawyers. The correct legal definition of terrorism, the appeals court has now determined, requires 

some intent to cause a serious threat to public safety such as endangering life

.

The judgment in effect says the police acted within the existing law, but the law itself needs to be altered.

In response, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: 

The Terrorism Act should be used in dealing with terrorists, not for journalists or whistleblowers. The ruling recognises the important role journalists play in holding government to account and shining a light on a range of issues.

 

Kua Kia Soong is an academic and former MP.