The UK's Response to Terrorism Domestically Since 9/11 (Essay Sample)

Evaluate the UK’s response to terrorism domestically since 9/11.
Name
Course
Tutor
College
Date
Introduction
Terrorism is a global threat affecting all nations ranging from developing countries to developed countries. The United Kingdom had developed some strategies to combat terrorism before the terror attack on 11 September in the United States that led to the death of about 3000 people. Although there were few efforts to implement UK security strategies, the terror attack on 11 September worked as awake for most countries on the reality and detrimental consequences of terrorism attack in the United Kingdom not an exceptional. Since terrorism keeps on changing gradually with terrorists devising new techniques for an attack, terrorist attacks are unpredictable. The UK government recognizes the need to keep on reviewing its counterterrorism measures to face the terrorism threat and possibly prevent it where possible (Jacobs and Hough, 2010, p103). This paper will discuss the various measures that the United Kingdom has employed to respond to terrorist threats domestically after the 11 September terrorist attack.
Enforcement of Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7
As mentioned above, the United Kingdom had legislations to counter terrorism before 11 September but were not fully implemented. After the 11 September attack, the Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7 that empowers police officers, customs officers and immigration officers at the airports or port to stop and question any person suspected of terrorist activities to ascertain whether they are terrorists was enforced. Any person who is directly or indirectly involved in charging, preparation and commencement of terrorism act is termed as a terrorist (Svendsen, 2010, p311).
This law allows the officers to stop and question a person suspected to be a terrorist without grounds for suspicion. The officers can detain the suspected person for up to 6 hours for questioning and request the person to answer questions and provide information regarding the terrorist suspicion. Further, the officers can search any property belonging to the person and seize them where necessary to collect further information. Where an officer fails to take the duty or a person fails to comply with a request for questioning, they face a punishment to a maximum of three months imprisonment (Ashworth and Zedner, 2008, p44).
However, schedule 7 stands to be challenged according to its implementation. According to Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the total cases of schedule 7 indicate disproportions in terms of racial background. The act may have in many situations led to an act of racial discrimination in the United Kingdom. The detention of David Miranda, an author of intelligence stories in the Guardian newspaper, who focused on Edward Snowden’s intelligence surveillance story, made it, even more, controversial. Mr. Miranda was detained for 9 hours in Berlin and his electronic devices seized because they were suspected to contain information leaked by Snowden. He challenged his detention under the schedule 7 and brought a judicial review. Although his review was dismissed it raised an alarm on some loopholes that may exist in implementing schedule 7 and what amendments may be necessary (Coleman, 2009, p904).
Passports withdrawal
The United Kingdom government in 2013 changed the rules regarding withdrawal of British passports from people suspected to have threats to the United Kingdom. The House received a Ministerial Statement from the Home Secretary proving that it was undesirable for a person posing a terrorist threat to have a British passport as opposed to a prior situation where it was demonstrably undesirable. The statement sought to restrain movement of any person capable of causing harm to the UK or its neighbors by withdrawing the passport from them. The withdrawal affects people who may want to engage in activities related to terrorism and may want to travel to various places to acquire skills on how to conduct terrorist activities. This rule is helpful in restricting terrorists, sympathizers or people who may want to perpetrate terrorist activities from free access to knowledge, skills, and equipment essential in committing terrorist activities (Forest, 2007, p167).
Citizenship stripping
The UK government has also used the issue of dual citizenship to respond to the issue of terrorism in the country. The House Minister using the power granted through the British Nationality Act can deprive a British citizenship to a person who have dual citizenship and suspected to have acquired their citizenship through fraud or pose threats to the citizens of the United Kingdom. The deprivation takes place with immediate effect and the House Minister does not require any judicial approval before the deprivation. The affected person can only challenge the move through a legal appeal (Sheldon, 2012, p84).
This method has been effective for controlling Britain citizens with dual citizenship fighting in Syria. The UK government had deprived 24 citizens their citizenship by 2013 (). This method has limits in its application. First, the method can only be applied to citizens who have dual citizenships. Using the method to deprive a mono-citizenship would lead the affected person stateless. Although there has been a debate to legislate, a law that would allow deprivation of mono-citizenship acquired through naturalization if the person in question has conducted himself or herself in a manner that contravenes the interest of the United Kingdom or any of the islands. The United Kingdom being a UN member who participated in the United Nation convention of 1961 that sought to reduce statelessness, deprivation of a mono-citizenship undermines the very objective of the UN convention (McCulloch and Pickering, 2009, p633).
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
These are measures taken by the government to oversee and prevent people suspected of terrorist-related activities from doing such activities. This method applies to those people who cannot face prosecuted or deported. The measurements replaced the control orders in 2012. The Home Secretary with an approval from the court has the power to make decisions of subjecting the person in question to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures. The Home Secretary however, may proceed without a prior approval from the court where the case is an emergency and the court has seven days notice to consider the TPIM since its issue.
The secretary of state can make the TPIM notice where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been involved with terrorist activities. The person gets a representation of a professional special advocate appointed by the Attorney General because they cannot participate in the hearing directly. The secretary of the state can also make TPIM after complying with certain conditions (Bonino, 2012, p7-9).
More often, people under TPIM have tags that help the authority to track their activities to ensure that they comply with TPIM. Individuals who abscond the TPIM face prosecution and cab be imprisoned if found guilty. The UK judiciary, however, does not give a lot of weight to the charges related to absconding of the TPIM. Various individuals charged with this count were acquitted the charges by the CPS based on lack of conviction. The common case being that of Mohammed Ahmed, who had traveled to Somalia obtained training and fought in Somalia.
Mohammed later assisted other British citizens to travel to Somalia for the same purpose. After Mohammed was put under TPIM, he absconded by entering a mosque and removed the tag. Mohammed later faced other related charges. Most of the suspects facing charges face allegations of tampering with the tag. Further, no investigations have been done on the possible health risk associated with the tag. These loopholes, therefore, limit the ability of the method to work effectively (Gregory, 2009, p4 & Bonino, 2012, p9).
De-radicalization and Rehabilitation of those subject to TPIMs
The United Kingdom has a strategy to de-radicalize people subjected to TPIM. The plan also incorporates rehabilitation of the subject. The program aims at helping the subject reform and changes their stands that on values and beliefs that induced them to undertake terrorist related activities. The program helps in reducing the internal terrorist threat by ensuring that people who pose terrorist threats are reformed. Additionally, the program acts as an exit strategy. It helps the subjects establish a good relationship with the probation officer making it possible for the subject to undergo the probation period successfully before lifting the TPIMs. Few efforts have been made to ensure successful rehabilitate and de-radicalize people under the TPIM. The government opposed the proposal to enforce the attendance of the de-radicalization meeting despite an ascent from the National Probation Service, Human Rights committee and the police unit (Hammond, 2008, p212).
Countering extremist narratives
A considerable number of terrorist attacks take place out of inducement from extremist narratives. The narratives are mostly delivered through learning institutions, religious gathering or through the internet. The internet through social media such as Facebook and YouTube can be associated with the Syrian fight. Rebels and terrorist, post pictures and videos that fuel fights in different parts of the world. The government integrates parties such as parents, teachers and religious leaders to counter the extremist narratives. The government provides an enabling environment for parties countering the extremist narratives rather than providing alternative ways of doing it.
The government further facilitates to the success of the program by enabling people who stand in a better position to counter extremist...