Speeches and Statements
Countering Terrorism in a Democracy
This speech was given by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to the Smith Institute and the Centre for the Study of Terrorism 3 June 2008.
I’m delighted to be here at the invitation of the Smith Institute and the Centre for the Study of Terrorism at St Andrew’s.
This evening, I would like to explore our response to the scale and nature of the threat we now face from international terrorism.
And I will set out the solutions we’ve developed – and are continuing to develop – within our legal and democratic framework to protect our citizens and to prevent violent extremism from taking hold in our communities.
Scale and nature of threat
Britain does not, today, face a direct threat to our national security from any one country – but rather a range of diverse challenges.
Some of these – the consequences of ‘failed states’, or the potential use of weapons of mass destruction – are not new. In some shape or form, they have been issues of great and pressing concern to the British government throughout the 20th century.
But since the 1990s, we have seen other, increasingly serious, threats as well. The impact of trans-national organised crime, for example, or even the effects of climate change.
International terrorism is another such threat. It now represents an attack on our values and our way of life of a completely different order to the terrorist threats we have faced in the past.
When we published the national security strategy in March, we said this threat would persist for many years. It is severe and sustained, but we are managing it – keeping our response in proportion and in perspective.
Of course, we have been attacked by terrorists before. For thirty years, Northern Ireland suffered from sectarian killings and terrorism that took an enormous toll of human life. But without in any way diminishing the suffering that those attacks caused, we have now seen a new form of terrorism emerge as the primary threat to the UK.
International in scale and ruthless in nature, it has taken the form of no-warning mass casualty attacks – like the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and a litany of atrocities since. Thousands of innocent people have been murdered by Al Qaeda in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and East Africa, Pakistan, India and Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, America, Spain – and here, of course, in Britain as well.
During this period, we and other countries have prevented most terrorist plots from succeeding – thanks to our police, security and intelligence agencies, thanks to intelligence sharing and cooperation, and thanks to knowing what tools and skills are necessary to meet this threat. Counter-terrorism has saved many, many lives.
Why we are under attack
But why are we under attack? What is the purpose of these terrorists?
Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the governments of many Muslim countries, and to impose on them a new social, political and economic structure.
And it should come as no surprise that Al Qaeda has never set out a social vision of its own in any detail. It knows very well how deeply unattractive that would be to the vast majority of people around the world.
Little or no place for the rule of law or women’s rights. Little or no quarter given to pluralism, or to freedom of speech and culture. Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, we had a foretaste of how bad it could be.
Al Qaeda also wants to change the way that we relate to the Islamic world. For Al Qaeda, there can be no meeting of minds between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds – or even between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain.
What Al Qaeda wants – what its actions aim to foment – is a state of relentless hostility and confrontation between us.
Lacking a positive vision, Al Qaeda can only define itself by what it opposes. Lacking support, it can only attack those who stand in its way. Lacking an argument, it can only resort to terrorism to make an impact.
Indiscriminate attacks
These attacks are indiscriminate, killing ordinary people going about their daily lives – and it does not matter to Al Qaeda that many of its victims are Muslims. It has attacked the United Nations, in Iraq and in Algeria. It has forced vulnerable people to carry out atrocities, like the recent use of a child in a ‘suicide’ attack in Iraq.
Growing numbers of people around the world are seeing Al Qaeda for what it is and expressing their revulsion to it. In Iraq, Muslim communities – Sunni and Shia, working with the Iraqi authorities – have risen against the brutal reality of repeated Al Qaeda attacks and removed it from the scene in many areas.
These achievements deserve our acknowledgement and our support. And they have been replicated elsewhere, notably in Saudi Arabia, where in March the Grand Mufti condemned Al Qaeda as 'an organisation that is known for its evil and for hurting Islam and its followers.'
Confronted with the reality of Al Qaeda, communities reject it. And as so many Muslims in the UK have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. There is nothing in Al Qaeda’s distorted view of global events – its twisted ‘single narrative’ – that can justify what it does.
What is our response to these tactics, these plots, this terror campaign? For me, getting the balance right between individual freedom and collective security must always be at the heart of what we do.
There is no contradiction between pursuing our counter terrorism objectives and defending our freedoms and civil liberties.
Terrorism is an assault on our civil liberties, our democracy and our values. And our response, therefore, must continue to be based on these values and liberties – ardently pursued through our democratic framework, primarily our criminal justice system.
As the independent reviewer of CT legislation, Lord Carlile, said recently: 'Every citizen in this country has a civil liberty which is that national security should be protected, so that their kids are not blown up in a bus in Tavistock Square.'
Our objectives
The primary objective of government, police and security service is to protect the public from terrorist attack, and thereby to defend everyone’s right to life.
Every day, decisions have to be made which must weigh the cost of action on the one hand, and the cost of inaction on the other.
For example, in issuing a warrant that allows the Security Service to enter private property, I have to consider whether this is both proportionate and necessary. Finding the equilibrium requires careful and measured consideration.
In opposing terrorism, we will not lose sight of our values. Our response must reinforce our shared values, not weaken them, because it is on these values that our security ultimately depends.
In many respects, counter-terrorism work is distinctive in nature and not like other areas of law enforcement. The work of our security and intelligence agencies is, of necessity, covert – as those who plan to attack us are discreet, secretive and hard to detect, and hide their criminal intentions to avoid disruption and prosecution.
We depend on the police and Security Service to identify these individuals before their plans come to fruition, to stop an attack from happening. This contrasts with the majority of police investigations, which happen after the crime has taken place. And the greater the potential threat, the greater the need to act early.
Pre-emptive action places a premium on intelligence works, and means that agencies play a very major part in countering terrorism. This also means that much of the detail of the threat we face and our response to it remains secret until suspects come to trial. As a result, there is a risk that the facts and figures I and others use to illustrate the situation we face can arouse disbelief or even cynicism.
Working around the clock
But let’s not be under any illusions. This work is going on around the clock. There are 2000 individuals of concern in the UK, and more than 200 groupings or networks.
Recent plots, from the foiled fertiliser plot in 2003 to the investigations in 2006 and last year, have been characterised by enormous technological and logistical complexity. Those involved are of many nationalities, located around the world and using false identities, encrypted communications and multiple email addresses and phone numbers.
That makes close international cooperation essential. We depend, as never before, on other states for intelligence, and they rely on us. Many face a similar or greater threat than us. In Pakistan – where a car bomb outside the Danish Embassy in Islamabad claimed further lives yesterday – more than 20 suicide attacks this year alone have killed nearly 300 people and injured hundreds more.
So. The terrible human consequences of terrorist actions…the imperative to stop them…the vital role played by the intelligence agencies and the police… the scale and technical complexity of plots…their international reach, creating the need to work with many countries, some of which have very different legal and investigatory systems to our own – these are the factors which make striking the right balance between public safety, and civil liberties such a sensitive and delicate pursuit.
Protecting citizens, preventing violent extremism
We need to be ever-vigilant in how we calibrate that balance. In how we do the right thing, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, to protect 'the security of all and the liberties of each.'
Sometimes the courts have pushed back our actions to protect the public, such as using powers to freeze terrorists’ assets, or over the deportation of Abu Qatada – the man whose extreme beliefs made him 'a truly dangerous individual', in the words of a senior judge.
And independent judiciary and a free press are part and parcel of a serious and robust democracy. These are vital checks and balances – but they can never be the last word on any subject. They do not have a veto.
The judiciary takes its responsibilities seriously – and so do I. Which is why I may have to return to the elected legislature to find a way to maintain our protections in these specific areas.
Across all government departments, our overall strategy to counter terrorism – known as CONTEST – has been measured and proportionate. It commands support and commitment right across the board.
And its strength derives from that broad base of support, as do its aims of doing much more than merely arresting suspects and disrupting terrorist activity.
As well as protecting our national infrastructure and preparing for the consequences of an attack, our priority is to prevent people from becoming terrorists or violent extremists in the first place. This is our challenging, long-term objective and I will return to it in more detail later.
With closer scrutiny and better legal and political oversight of intelligence and security operations, we have made our counter- terrorism work as transparent for parliament and the general public as we can. And we have done so on the basis of proportionality and necessity – and on the basis of law, including the ECHR.
The counter-terrorism bill
As we have seen in the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which returns to the Commons next week, legislation is often an area of our response that excites controversy.
Due to the nature of terrorism, it is necessary for us to have a body of counter terrorism law, with each extension reflecting the evolving nature of the threat. For example, training and preparing to commit terrorist acts, and encouraging others to do so, have all become criminal offences, with 13 convictions to date.
The current bill provides for measures to strengthen our efforts to bring terrorists to justice, including post-charge questioning and improved information sharing.
But the main issue of contention has been our proposals for an extension to the period that terrorist suspects can be held for investigation before charge.
We do not want a permanent, automatic or immediate extension to pre-charge detention beyond the current maximum limit of 28 days.
With the changes we are making today, we are making crystal clear that our proposal is for a reserve power, that could only be used in very exceptional circumstances, only with the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions, only with the backing of parliament in a vote in both Houses, only subject to high judicial safeguards, and only for a temporary period before automatically lapsing.
When it comes to dealing with the risks we face in the short-term from terrorism, my message is very straightforward.
We cannot simply hope for the best – we need to have plans in place that prepare us for the worst.
Increasing complex cases
Since 9/11, the trend of increasingly complex and international terrorist plots is why we have increased the period of pre-charge detention from 7 to 14 to 28 days – specifically to increase the chances of gaining successful convictions against terrorists. On each occasion, the extended period has been needed. 11 individuals have now been held between 14 and 28 days, with 3 being charged on the 27th or 28th day.
I cannot ignore a trend that suggests the police may need more than 28 days in the future to build a case against a suspect. Faced with the need to intervene early to protect the public, faced with complex international plots, more time may be needed to gather admissible evidence and to get to the bottom of a plot.
I cannot ignore the word of Britain’s five top counter-terrorism police officers on this. And I cannot ignore authorities like Sir Richard Dearlove, the ex-head of the Secret Intelligence Service, or Peter Clarke, until recently the national co-ordinator of terrorist investigations, when they say it is certain that some terrorism cases will require more than 28 days’ investigation.
And let me say this about concerns about the impact of the Bill’s provisions for Muslim communities. I didn’t become Home Secretary to introduce laws which discriminate, or are a knee-jerk or disproportionate response to the threats we face. I am determined only to bring in protections that all in our communities need, so they can get on with their lives free from fear and intimidation.
It’s not after passing a piece of legislation that Muslim children get bullied in the playground or young Muslim men feel unable to travel on the tube without getting suspicious glances.
It is in the wake of events such as 9/11 or 7/7, where the criminal actions of a violent and extreme minority can lead to recriminations – unfairly, wrongly – against the wider community.
I know that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims do not and could never support the crimes that a violent extremist minority commits in the name of a perverted form of Islam. But I also know how the actions of that criminal minority can – directly or indirectly – cause anxiety and damage to the innocent and law-abiding majority.
Some suggest that our proposals put us at the top of the global ‘league’ for detaining individuals. This is wrong. In this country a judge needs to authorise any detention beyond 48 hours. This will remain the case.
Comparisons are difficult
Comparisons with other countries with very different legal systems to our own are not straightforward. No other European country has the same charging process and threshold tests as us, nor the same adversarial system. In France, the initial period of police detention following arrest can only continue for 6 days, but after that it is possible for a suspect to be detained for up to 4 years while the investigation continues, under the authority of an examining magistrate.
Even with other common law countries, direct comparisons make no sense. In the United States, the threshold for charging is lower and extensive use is made of holding charges and of plea bargaining.
As Lord Carlile has said: 'Every comparable country, perhaps by different means such as a very small holding charge, has at least as long periods of detention as are envisaged in this country. If we have the right protections, we can do an awful lot better than any comparable country in the world.'
Since 2007, 67 terrorists have been convicted in our courts. There will barely be a day over the next 18 months when a terrorism trial is not before the courts. This shows that when dealing with suspected terrorists, prosecution is and will continue to be our preferred approach.
There will still be individuals we are unable to prosecute but who are nonetheless reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism. We have mechanisms in place to manage the risk to the public posed by those individuals, while safeguarding their individual rights under the ECHR.
In these cases, if the individual is a foreign national we will seek to deport them – a right that is well established in international law. We will continue to press for deportations, where necessary seeking diplomatic assurances that removals are compatible with our international commitments and the Human Rights Convention.
Control orders are the best means available for managing the risk posed by those we cannot prosecute or deport – and are designed to prevent, restrict or disrupt involvement in terrorism-related activity, subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny and with numerous protections in place for the rights of the individual.
The systems, safeguards and legislative tools that we have in place in Britain compare favourably to elsewhere.
Defeating terrorism in the long term
Pursuing terrorists, protecting our national infrastructure, and preparing for the consequences of an attack are essential to security. We continue to develop our capability to match the threat, but it is only our work to Prevent people being lured into violent extremism that will defeat terrorism in the long term.
There is no overnight solution or quick fix to these complex challenges. But the work is firmly underway in many parts of the country.
Only this morning, Hazel Blears, Ed Balls and I had the privilege – and I use the term advisedly – of meeting a group of inspirational young people in Leytonstone who have graduated from a young Muslim leadership project supported by the council and police.
Their readiness to use their learning and self-confidence to challenge perverted ideology and give an authentic voice to young British Muslims was uplifting. They are determined to use their skills in challenging violence and extremism and they have the energy and the credibility to do it. They are the future and we should all look to support them and take pride in their endeavours.
The new PREVENT Delivery Plan launched today has five key objectives. The first of these is to undermine the ideology of violent extremism, supporting mainstream Muslim voices – especially among our youth – to expose the weaknesses of Al Qaeda’s ‘single narrative’ and to reaffirm our commitment to universally shared values.
This is not to say that we expect everyone we want to work with to agree with all our positions – we wouldn’t be a democracy if that was the case.
We know that personal circumstances and individual life experiences can also play a role in drawing people towards terrorism. As very recent examples have shown, vulnerable young individuals can be exploited and recruited to the cause of violent extremism. Supporting these vulnerable individuals is the second objective of our PREVENT strategy.
From prisons to colleges, the internet to sports clubs, violent extremists are actively on the look out for those who may be undergoing a change in their lives and could be open to approaches. Thankfully, most of our youth don’t succumb, but a very tiny minority do.
So our third objective is to work with partners in these facilities to disrupt violent extremists and their recruiters and to help stop people being exploited.
We need to create ‘safe spaces’ in which young people can discuss violent extremism and address grievances that they hold without fear of prosecution or exploitation. Young people in those communities need to hear and have access to the truths in Islam, and the opportunity to discuss their issues and concerns openly.
And because we know that the speed someone can succumb and become an active proponent of violent extremist ideology can be very quick – sometimes only a few months – our fourth objective is to increase the resilience of our communities to extremist messages.
Working closely with Muslims
I welcome the way communities – such as the members of the Bristol mosque who reported their concerns about Andrew Ibrahim so quickly to the police – are showing greater resilience and confidence in exposing those who support violence.
And I recognise, too, that some Muslim communities have grievances. Sometimes these can be uncomfortable truths – nonetheless, we are working hard to address them. But sometimes they are founded on misunderstanding, or on mistruths wilfully spread.
Our involvement overseas, including in Iraq, is controversial for many people. Violent extremists use these examples of our involvement when recruiting others to their cause.
But let’s not forget – Al Qaeda has been killing innocent people of all nations and beliefs since the 1990s, and is killing people in countries which have nothing to do with Iraq. We may disagree on certain issues, but no disagreement can justify the use of terror.
The dividing line is not between Muslims and non-Muslims.
It is between those of us who share the same values – peace, prosperity and justice for all, equally applied – and those who are prepared to hijack a great religion to justify indiscriminate violence for narrow political goals. That is why addressing grievances of Muslim communities and others is the fifth objective of PREVENT.
It is important, too, that we use the right language in describing and addressing international terrorism. It’s not semantics or political correctness to describe Al Qaeda as ‘anti-Islamic’.
It’s the truth.
This is not ‘going soft’ or being afraid to describe the situation as it is. It reflects the impact that the language and phrases we use can have, on our communities and on a wider audience.
Violent extremists are themselves very careful with their words, and have developed a slick media strategy to justify their actions and exploit grievances which resonate with individuals, manipulating theology as well as history and contemporary politics.
We need to communicate in a way that counters – rather than fuels – the terrorist narrative and helps to build co-operation between all sections of society who oppose the actions of violent extremists.
Conclusion
This evening I have given an overview of how the Government is dedicated to countering terrorism and violent extremism. It is precisely because we take our values so seriously – and are so committed to the institutional expression these enjoy in our democracy, in our judicial system and in wider society – that we must engage with the increasing terrorist threat in a measured, but nonetheless determined and clear-sighted, way.
Through open and democratic debate, from the local grass roots to the Houses of Parliament, we will continue to discuss and examine these questions, always ensuring that we balance the proportionality and necessity of our actions with the rights and freedoms we hold so dear.
There is only a narrow path to tread between actions that would betray our values and those which would put us at risk. The challenge for democratic government, the criminal justice system and civil society is to stay on that right path, today and in the future.
