Radio Interview Reviewing My Book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’

 

My terrorism book cover

Just after 12 noon (BST) tomorrow (22nd August 2018) I will be on City Talk with Mick Coyle discussing my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ and issues that come out of the book as well as a little on my career to date. I have added a link if you want to listen. I am sure Everton will also get a mention!

Me at City Talk

 (Me and Mick reviewing the newspapers on City Talk)

 

Koley and Elsheikh, Islamic State’s Beatles duo: Should they receive the death penalty or life imprisonment?

Koley and Elsheikh

Alaxanda Koely and El Shafee Elsheikh, referred to as Islamic State’s ‘Beatles duo’ may be facing trial for murder in the US. Koley and Elsheikh worked alongside another UK citizen, Emwazi (aka Jihadi John who was killed in a drone strike in Syria in 2015) with Islamic State in Syria where they guarded, tortured and killed hostages the group held. This included the killing of US citizens James Foley and Stephen Sotloff and the UK aid worker, Alan Henning that received high profile media reporting due to the gruesome videos the cell recorded of their beheading by Emwazi.

Javid

Koley and Elsheikh were captured early 2018 in Syria by one of the freedom fighter groups and handed over to US authorities in the area. The question to determine is where they will be tried for the murders they were Invovled in. On the 23rd July 2018 the UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid has written to his US counterpart suggesting prosecution of the two men in the US would be the best course of action, adding, controversially, the UK would not insist against the death penalty for these two men.

ECHR logo

Why it is controversial is because since 1965 the UK abolished the death penalty for murder and in 1998 when the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was enshrined into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, the death penalty for treason, piracy and arson of the Queen’s dock yards (basically the Royal Navy’s dockyards) was also abolished. As such extradition of persons from the UK to the US will only be on the basis those extradited will not receive the death penalty. We saw this with the extradition of the Islamist preacher Abu Hamza, a decision supported by the European Court of Human Rights who held the extradition did not violate Hamza’s right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR) and because he would not receive the death penalty so preserving his right to live (article 2 ECHR).

The difference with the extradition of Koley and Elsheikh is that under section 2 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, they were stripped of their British citizenship under a temporary exclusion order from the UK. It is this legal issue that has led to Javid informing the US that there are ‘strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty in this specific case.’

The UK Labour Party’s shadow attorney general and former head of the group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti to see this move as a ‘grave human rights abuse’. is this really the case? This is potentially a one-off extradition and as many have posted on social media sites there is little or no sympathy for Koley and Elsheikh as they had no regard for the human rights of those they tortured and killed. This is an understandable response. Rather than claiming a grave human rights abuse will occur, it is preferable to request that neither men receive the death penalty as it will take away the potential for Islamists to  claim that Koley and Elsheikh are martyrs, should they receive the death penalty. This will remove any potential propaganda Islamist groups will use as they distort the truth. If found guilty in a court of law it is better they receive life sentences being left to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Perhaps Javid could consider this as an option should Koley and Elsheikh be tried in the US.

My terrorism book cover

The law in this area can be found in my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy‘ published by Routledge this year.

Post Brexit will it be the UK or the EU’s security that will be the weaker?

barnier

In June 2018 Brexit negotiations were seeming to make slow progress and at an address to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier threw a cat among the pigeons  by stating post Brexit the UK will be locked out of the EU’s policing and security databases, lose access to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and no longer have a role in managing agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Barnier added that security cooperation is based on trust, a trust that is founded on an ecosystem and that cooperation between the UK and EU on crime and security would be conditional on the UK remaining subject to the European Court of Human Rights. In relation to the latter, Barnier should have no concerns as there are no moves in the short term for the UK to leave the Council of Europe and thereby withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a document that in 1953 was written primarily by British lawyers!

If Barnier’s threat come to fruition what the UK will lose includes:

  1. Access to the Prum Treaty on the exchange of DNA profiles;
  2. Access to the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II);
  3. Europol’s other databases related to terrorist and criminal activity;
  4. Use of the EAW.

At the EU Summit in Brussels on the 29th June 2018 the UK’s Prime Minister, Theresa May warned the EU that should the UK be frozen out of cooperation on security and criminal activity related to serious crime this would put not just the UK but citizens in the other 27 EU Member States at risk. This raises the question if the UK is denied access to important databases will it compromise UK security? In essence I do not think it will, but it could slow down progress in investigations into terrorism and serious crime.

map of europe

Firstly I think it is totally wrong of Barnier and his team to even to contemplate having the issue of cooperation related to terrorism and security on Brexit negotiations’ agenda. The key issues in those negotiations should focus on freedom of movement of trade and persons, trade and customs tariffs and so on, not security. Of course by leaving the EU both the UK and the EU should have separate negotiations on issues related to cooperation on terrorism and serious crime, but one where negotiations are carried out with a great desire  to reach an agreement without any politicking that benefits citizens in the whole of Europe, not just those in the EU. There appears to be an arrogance with the EU in thinking of itself as Europe, but there are many European nations that are not in the EU and have no intention of doing so. Of course post Brexit the UK will be come a third country (that is one not in the EU), but please note that also post Brexit the UK will still be a European state! As such intelligence sharing and cooperation between the UK and EU Member States will still be important. Terrorists and criminals to not take into account national state borders when carrying out their activity. Both terrorist acts and serious crime like the trafficking of persons, drugs and firearms have a devastating affect on its victims. In short this is simply about nothing more than keep all European citizens safe be they in or out of the EU.

In saying this the non-EU states of Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland have limited access to EU terrorism and criminal databases through the Schengen Aquis, so why can’t the UK have the same access? It might be the EU is taking  a hard line stance against the UK because the UK does not want the Court of Justice of the European Union to have any form of governance over UK law. It could also be because post-Lisbon Treaty 2009 no EU Member State has wanted to leave the EU with its many unelected bureaucratic bodies (hence the democratic deficit that has been seen with the EU). As such it can be argued that the likes of Barnier is using Brexit and its hard line stance with the UK as a lesson to other EU Member States should they wish to leave the EU in the future. At the time of writing my recent travels has revealed how widespread is the desire of many citizens in EU Member States for their home state to leave the EU. In part this could be down to how the EU has developed from the European Economic Community based solely on trade to a quasi-federalist state post Treaty of Union and Treaty of Lisbon.

If asked I see the hard line Barnier is adopting would more detrimental to the EU and the citizens in its remaining Member States than the UK. The UK has what is termed a ‘gold standard’ in relation to intelligence gathering and sharing among its security services and the police and it is a model that is constantly developing and improving. GCHQ’s Director, Jeremy Fielding recently came out saying that in 2017 GCHQ and the UK played a critical role in foiling a least four attacks on mainland Europe. Fielding’s statement came out following Barnier’s threats and it is very rare for a security service director or senior police officers to feel the need to come out and get involved in a political issue. The UK’s intelligence model is one that other EU Member States want to emulate. Also the UK is part of the Five Eyes, which is an intelligence sharing agreement between the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and as such currently vital intelligence can be rapidly fed in to the EU systems by the UK, something the EU would lose if Barnier’s threats are realised. The EU should be grateful to the UK as Europol’s former director, Sir Rob Wainwright, who left the post earlier this year, shook up Europol by introducing and improving its intelligence and cooperation structures, all based on the UK’s model. He is currently assisting the UK’s Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee on the status of Brexit negotiations on security and the options available for future policing and security cooperation between the UK and the EU.  In relation to EAW’s, there is a possibility that the UK and the EU can negotiate a similar extradition procedure that is as rapid as the EAW because the use of EAW’s has been a two-way process as just as many EAW’s have been carried out by UK policing agencies on behalf of Member States as the UK has made requests. I am confident that as such the UK and the EU can agree on a form of swift extradition. This is important as many EU Member States’ constitutions prohibit extradition of its citizens to third countries, for example Germany.

While in my opinion it is wrong for the EU to use security and serious crime as a political football I am confident pressure will be put on the EU by the Member States and its security services and policing agencies to maintain close cooperation with the UK. As I said the UK is not leaving Europe, it is leaving the EU and the EU is not Europe. Should the EU maintain a hard line on these issues I think the biggest loser with be the citizens of the remaining 27 member States.

Sputnik logo

I discuss these issues in greater detail in my interview with Radio Sputnik

 

Does the UK need to introduce more anti-terrorism powers to its police and security services?

CONTEST 1

 

On the 22nd April a 120 page draft report of the UK Government’s new terror strategy was passed onto journalists at the Sunday Times that in essence contains proposed amendments to the UK’s anti-terrorism policy CONTEST and a proposed counter-terrorism Bill.

 

In relation to the Bill, the proposals revealed include:

 

1.       People convicted of terrorism offences receive longer sentences;

2.       Police and security services to be given the power to warn government departments, Scottish and Welsh politicians and local authorities of individuals they consider suspicious, even before they have been placed on the MI5 watch list.

 

Other proposals include:

 

1.       Increased security at sporting events and concerts;

2.       Focus on detecting ‘British jihadi’ trying to get work at airports;

3.       Improve the detections of terrorist activity involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive material.

 

In relation to the Prevent strand of CONTEST, which is the pre-criminal strategy to help those who are vulnerable to being drawn towards terrorism, the proposals call for more focus on communities where the threat form terrorism and radicalisation is the highest. The report says the existing Prevent strategy has been divisive, with the UK’s Muslim community saying they have been unfairly singled out.

MI5 logo

 

The potential problems the UK government face in successfully introducing these proposals includes giving the police and security services the power to warn other government departments of individuals they consider suspicious. In May 2017 it was reported that over 3,500 potential terrorists are being monitored. It will be interesting when the details are published how the UK Government is going to support the police and the security services in carrying out this task. It is proposed to increase the number of staff in the security services by 1,900 by 2020. When this was first proposed, this was to help the services deal with their current workload. Since 2010 the austerity cuts on the police has seen the number of officers in England and Wales reduced by 21,000. The policing role that has suffered the most from these cuts is neighbourhood policing (community policing), which is a key role in acting as a conduit between the public and the police, and that includes receiving information and intelligence from the community. While there has been no reduction in counter-terrorism policing, there has not been an increase in its resources either as their workload increases. Although 13 major terrorist attacks were prevented in the UK since March 2017, as seen in the 2017 attacks that were successful, it is difficult to monitor all the intelligence systems, so to meet these proposals there will have to be an increase in police staffing and funding.

prevent logo

 

The second issue worth considering is the focusing on communities where the threat of terrorism and radicalisation is highest. Although the report acknowledges the existing Prevent strategy has been divisive, something I have pointed out in the past, this is because when it was introduced, it focused solely on the violent Islamist narrative. Since 2011, the strategy considers all forms of extremism, a message that has not successfully been communicated by the Home Office. Here is the issue regarding this proposal, who are these communities? If the language used over the last few months by the current Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, is taken into consideration it appears the communities she is referring to are the Muslim communities. Figures released by the Home Office in March 2018 reveal that out of the 6,093 referred to prevent over a third of those referrals were as a result of far right concerns. Let us not forget that the UK has witnessed a number of attacks carried out under the influence of the far right narrative that have resulted in murder, including the assassination of a British MP in June 2016 by Thomas Mair (something the Islamists have not carried out). Which communities will be monitored in relation to far right terrorism?

 

UK police and security services already have some of the widest powers under terrorism related legislation among the Western states, so it is questionable if further powers are needed. In relation to Prevent, it does need re-marketing. While not perfect, the strategy does have many successes and is a vital strand of CONTEST that requires as much support as possible both in resources and marketing. I know that the Home Office is looking to introduce a separate Prevent website that is more user friendly and interactive. With all the recent good work done in Prevent, it is important that these proposals do not return to focusing solely on the UK’s Muslim communities thereby making them suspect communities. All forms of extremism are potentially dangerous and the community that should work together is the whole of UK society, not just one or two minority communities.

Sputnik logo

 

I discussed this in more details on my interview with Sputnik Radio, which you can listen to on the link

 

Terrorist Incident in Trebes France

Trebes

In relation to Islamist inspired terrorist attacks it has been relatively quiet in Europe over the past few months but once more France has suffered another tragic attack where it is reported that three people have been killed.

The gunman, who has not been named but is believed to be a Moroccan, has been shot and killed by the French police. The incident started in Carcassone where the gunman hijacked a car killing the passenger and injuring the driver. En route to the supermarket in Trebes he shot a wounded a police officer who was jogging. Reported to be heavily armed, the gunman entered the supermarket in Trebes taking staff and shoppers hostage.

salah abdeslam

It is reported that the gunman had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam who was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks and who was recently convicted of terrorist offences linked to those attacks. Although more information has yet to be released, it does appear that once more we have witnessed another tragic act of terrorism committed by a person who has been inspired by the Islamist narrative of the group Islamic State rather than acting under direct orders of the group. While Islamic State have lost control of key territory in Syria/Iraq and Libya, this incident reveals how potent the narrative of Islamic State still is in influencing the vulnerable and inspiring people to carry out acts of violence in the group’s name. Their media activities via electronic communications has not decreased and this attack should put us all on notice of the potential threat Islamist groups still pose to Western states’ security.

ACT Campaign

We can all play our part by passing information of activity we think is suspicious to the police and in the UK this is part of the current ACT  Campaign Action Counters Terrorism) where if you are suspicious where you can either call 0800 789 321 or compete an online form.

radio scotland logo

I will be discussing this incident in more detail on BBC Radio Scotland just after 6pm (GMT) today.

Osborne Convicted of Terrorist Murder: Time for all extreme far right groups like Britain First to be banned?

METROGRAB:Suspected  Finsbury Park attacker is detained by police and members of the public
Photo credit: Nawaf Atiq/ Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/nawaf.atiq

Darren Osborne has been convicted of murder and the attempted murder of nine others when he drove a van into Muslim worshippers at Finsbury Park in June 2017. Osborne received a life sentence where he will serve a minimum of 43 years in prison. While tried for murder, as it usual with terrorist incidents when persons are killed, the political cause (here extreme far right) was a sentencing factor and the trial judge, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb stated that Osborne’s actions was a terrorist attack as he intended to kill.

It is important we recognise the dangers the extreme far right pose to the security and safety of citizens, not just in the UK but globally. Extremism in all its forms from Islamist to extreme far right.

National Action 2

In the UK, while the UK extreme far right group National Acton was proscribed in December 2016 as a terrorist organisation (that was followed the groups morphed after National Action was proscribed, Scottish Dawn and NS131), there are other extreme far right groups whose extremist message is influencing others towards violence carried out in their name. That violence is invariably targeted towards minorities, that for many far right groups does not just focus on race and religion but sexuality and political views.

Jayda Fransen court case

The group Britain First is a prime example of an extreme far right group the UK government should seriously consider proscribing as a terrorist organisation. Currently its leader, Paul Golding, and its deputy leader Jayda Fransen are on trial for allegedly carrying out religiously aggravated harassment. The pair  targeted a person related to a rape trial. This is not the first occasion Golding and Fransen have been arrested and appeared in court. There are many examples  including in December 2017 Fransen appeared at Belfast Magistrates Court for allegedly using anti-Islamic comments. In December 2016 Golding was jailed for eight weeks for breaching  am injunction prohibiting him from entering mosques in Bedfordshire. In November 2016 Fransen was convicted for religious aggravated harassment, receiving a £2,000 fine.

Britain-First-badge

While Britain First’s mission statement does not explicitly state it is anti-Islamic, there is a picture of Golding and Fransen with their supporters with a banner saying ‘Time to fight Islamic terror’. The statement says Britain First’s policies are pro-British, loving ‘our people, our heritage and culture’, defending them no matter what odds the group faces, the question is who is ‘our’? The statement is clear the group is anti-foreigner,. anti-asylum seeker and anti-migrant, adding that Christianity, that the group sees as the bedrock and foundation of Britain’s national life, is under ‘ferocious assault, with Christians facing discrimination and persecution.

donald trump 1

It is perhaps time now for the UK government to proscribe Britain First as their narrative does influence others to believe their skewed and warped ideology. The problem of them being free to release anything they want to say is the group can grasp any legitimacy of its narrative, especially when that legitimacy comes from an unexpected source like the US President. In November 2017 US President, Donald Trump retweeted three of Fransen’s tweets that purported to show actions of Muslims , with those actions being shown to be a false depiction of what Fransen was using them for. Fransen jumped on this using it to legitimise Britain First’s narrative claiming that the US President supports them. This incident caused a bitter row between the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May and Donald Trump. Donald Trump has since said he is prepared to apologise for retweeting Britain First’s tweets, claiming that he had no knowledge of what the group stands for.

Although small in membership numbers, groups like Britain First and National Action do inspire others to carry out violent attacks. This is why they should all be proscribed a it gives the security services and the police wider powers and a wider number of offences to deal with the far right. This is seen in the number of arrests there have been on members of National Action, where even in January 2018 six alleged members of National Action were arrested in the UK. In addition to the wider powers being proscribed organisations reduces the platforms from which to spread their damaging and dangerous narrative with which to inspire those less aware of current affairs or special issues from carrying out acts of violence. Anything that does this has to be a positive move.

prevent logo

It is important counter-narratives are developed and used against all forms of extremism and this is an important strand of Prevent strategies. While Prevent has had its problems in the past, there is no credible alternative to use at the moment and the strategy does work. We should all work towards the goal of helping those who are vulnerable to being drawn towards terrorism by producing an effective counter-narrative and making as hard as possible for any extremist group to get their message out.

UK Cybersecurity: Claims that a major cyber attack is due

national cyber security centre logoMinistry-Of-DefenceLogo

 

 

 

 

 

The head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin has said that so far the UK has been lucky to avoid a ‘category one’ cyber attack targeting the UK’s infrastructure. This can range from UK defence systems, energy companies and financial institutions (both public and private). Martin’s warning follows on from the UK’s Chief of General Staff, General Sir Nick Carter who echoes similar concerns, in particular that posed by recent Russian activity, both militarily and in cyber space.

trident submarine

In January 2018 these concerns have been made public by a number of authorities including the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) where in early January at RUSI Dr Beyza Unal and Dr Patricia Lewis presented a paper examining the threats and vulnerabilities of cyber security, especially in relation to nuclear weapons systems. They presented the consequences a cyber attack would have, including the problems it would pose to the UK’s Trident missile system. Essential in helping to prevent a cyber attack is in having constant risk assessments to monitor potential weak areas and to have analogue systems replaced by digital ones.

Key to protecting the UK’s cyber systems is the role GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence play and that includes adopting a cyber offensive approach. We all rely on cyber related equipment, none more so than the public sector and major private businesses and institutions. So it is essential that these concerns are acted upon (and financed properly), as going public with these concerns are not to be taken lightly.

BBC Radio Merseyside logo

Here is a link to my interview with BBC Radio Merseyside on this topic that is 39 minutes 27 seconds in