Counter-terrorism changes- progress at last?

The news today that the government is going to have an enquiry into the torture and rendition of terror suspects is to be welcomed. We have yet to see whether the government will be able to follow through on some of these civil liberties issues that I for one have high hopes about, but this has to be a good start at least (even if I would prefer it to be held in public).

The recent complaints that people leaving prison after serving sentences for terrorism offences (not all of which are related to actually carrying out or planning terrorism) are facing probation conditions that are tantamount to house arrest or control orders is more concerning (reported by the Guardian ). The worry is that situations such as this not only damage the principle of civil liberties, but also prove to be counter-productive.

My view is that it is important to treat terrorism consistently. We either treat it as a political problem- and therefore recognise that there is at least a degree of legitimacy to the political claims of the terrorist organisation, fight the terrorists politically by undermining their claims, and perhaps can therefore argue for different treatment of those accused (political prisoners, in a similar way to prisoners of war). Or, we treat terrorists as ordinary criminals, reject their political claims and any legitimacy of their means, and prosecute their illegal acts in the same way as any other criminal.

Whichever option we choose, I am not convinced that treating people so harshly after release from prison is productive. Civil liberties need to be upheld in any case. But if we’re treating terrorism as a political problem then harsh responses risk increasing the motivation of others, and reinforcing political resolve. The terrorist that has been caught and punished is part of a wider community after all (often political prisoners are treated more leniently, as challengers to the power of the state rather than the community within the state).

If we’re treating terrorists as criminals, then anything that treats them differently to ordinary criminals makes a mockery of that policy, reignites any political motivation, and has the potential to damage the state’s claim to be reinforcing law and order in a fair and equal way.

Ultimately a large part of the problem is that the word terrorism often really means ‘anything we don’t like’. Trying to treat terrorists differently because it is a special sort of crime ends up becoming problematical because terrorism is not objectively defined, increasing tensions between different groups of people with different political ideas.