Advocacy organisation CAGE has said that the actions of Jamal al Harith, who conducted an ISIS suicide operation in Iraq last week, should not lead to further securitisation.
Al Harith, a former British Guantanamo Bay detainee, detonated a car bomb at an Iraqi army base in Mosul leading to many reported deaths.
Since his death many have criticised the decision of former British governments to petition for his release from Guantanamo in 2003 and then to pay him £1m in compensation for his ordeal in 2010.
But CAGE said both decisions were correct at the time. The financial settlement was only agreed when the government was required to disclose damning documents that would prove their complicity in the false imprisonment and torture of the British former Guantanamo detainees.
And CAGE said the victims of torture should not be made to feel ashamed for receiving a settlement and indeed the vast majority of ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees have attempted to rebuild their lives peacefully, often with very little support.
Moreever, despite being cleared of all charges against them, several have experienced varying degrees of harassment from the authorities, closing of bank accounts, stops at airports and continuous unwanted media attention and surveillance.
Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said: “As a nation we have passed on average nearly one piece of anti-terror legislation every other year since the year 2000. We need a serious level of introspection to examine the impact of these laws on community relations and especially public safety. We therefore welcome the readiness of the new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to recommend the abolishment of unnecessary laws and offences ‘introduced in knee-jerk reaction’ to terror attacks.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
“It is difficult to prevent every single committed individual from taking the path that Al Harith did, however many powers we afford to the authorities. While there is a need for necessary safeguards to protect the public, there must also be a balance in law that prevents excessive state intrusion, in line with the principles of justice, and a free society. We cannot allow isolated incidents to become the tool of those who seek to further the security state.
“The UK does not require more laws and more powers, when these have only alienated and disenfranchised communities. Rather, we need more dialogue, more openness and greater understanding of one another.”
