UK Terror Response Begins: Deportation or Rendition?

Human Rights groups would argue the latter. Security officials say it's the former. BBC NEWS UK reports that "'Threats to UK security' detained" Amng those detained: an Islamic cleric sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia for a series of bombings. Another alleged extremist has been arrested in Lebanon. Here are the details:

Ten foreign nationals said by the Home Office to pose a threat to national security have been detained in the UK, pending deportation.

The Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada and at least two others previously detained in Belmarsh Prison without charge are believed to be among those detained.

It follows an agreement made on Wednesday between the UK and Jordan that deportees would not be persecuted...In a separate development the radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has been arrested in Beirut, Lebanon.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke announced the UK detentions, but did not reveal names.

"The immigration service has today detained 10 foreign nationals who I believe pose a threat to national security," he said.

He added: "The circumstances of our national security have changed. It is vital that we act against those who threaten it."

Human Rights groups, however, fail to see how any agreement between Jordan and Britain safeguards the detainees rights.

Under the Human Rights Act, the UK cannot deport anyone to a country where they may face persecution.

Some of those arrested come from Lebanon and Algeria, as well as Jordan, all of which have been criticised for poor human rights records.

The government has now reached agreement with Jordan that deportees will not be persecuted, and is in negotiation with 10 other countries, including Lebanon and Algeria.

The Memorandum of Understanding reads: "It is understood that the authorities of the United Kingdom and of Jordan will comply with their human rights obligations under international law regarding a person returned under this arrangement."

In it, Jordan and the UK undertake to humanely treat any deportee who is detained, quickly bring them in front of a judge and allow them access to lawyers.

Human rights groups including Liberty and Amnesty International believe such agreements will do nothing to safeguard the rights of those who are deported.

Ms Peirce said it was impossible to take assurances from countries like Jordan and Algeria that were routinely criticised for their use of torture.

"The Home Office did not think it necessary to give a single word of explanation to those individuals as to why this morning they can be safely deported to their respective countries of origin when last night they could not.

"The men themselves in any event have been throughout today deliberately put out of reach of lawyers who represent them. We do not know where they are and the Home Office will not tell us."

I understand AI's concern in this context. Britain's previous anti-terrorism law had allowed the police to hold terrorists suspects for up to seven days without charging them. The authorities used such powers to combat the IRA, whose bombing campaigne in London had indiscriminately targeted even women and children. However, cases of imprisonment of innocent people, as in the infamous Gilford Four convictions, outraged the public and shamed the government. Human Rights groups have not forgotten these security practices or their regretable results. Now, they face a British government policy that may place alleged terrorists into the hands of countries known to employ torture. Clearly, they're troubled by the non-chalance of the Home office, who reassures them with considerations that they can't know, in fact, will occur. Jordan can say anything on paper; what'll they'll actually do is anyone's guess.

Shipping alleged terrorists or terrorism supporters to countries with questionable human rights policies defies justice. However, dangerous people that have been associated with terrorist violence can't simply be allowed on the street. If deporting them is inhumane, then jail them until they're brought to trial. In fact, try them using military tribunals, so that they face military justice. They don't deserve to be treated as military prisoners-of-war, but they surely don't deserve civilian trials if there's a preponderance of evidence against them. Let them remain jailed until they're tried. If they're found guilty, and deportation is still not an option, then imprison them for life in the harshest conditions morally possible.

In the case of Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada, Britain holds another country's convicted criminal in asylum. If Mr. Qatada spent his asylum plotting against his host nation and her allies, I have little sympathy for his "rights." He abused his privilidge and deserves no further consideration.

The West can't allow terrorists to use our own tradition of Democracy and Human Rights against our society. There is a fine line that all societies walk between civil liberties and security. The West must walk that line as carefully as possible, but err on the side of imprisoning those that threaten to destroy civilization. Otherwise, entire societies will no longer enjoy the Human Rights we so carefully honored in the enemy that destroyed us with them.