PSPD in English Archive 2002-08-24   1235

Undemocratic Anti-Terror Bill

The shock and horror of the September 11 terror attack was global. In its aftermath everyone had the wish to see the end of the harming of other’s lives, as well as of making other victims in the name of revenge and justice. As has been shown, people’s wishes have not come true. Excessive anti-terror measures around the world have meant that a whole variety of rights violations has been taking place: those violations include, among other things, infringement on privacy, curtailment of freedom of thought, undermining of fair trial principles, and restrictions on freedom of assembly and association. Quasi-judicial organs have been proposed in places like Britain and India.

Korea is no exception. The National Intelligence Service, the security agency of South Korea, announced, on 12 November 2001, its intention to propose a bill on anti-terror measures. The proposal was processed extraordinarily expeditiously, and was tabled in the National Assembly just two weeks later. The bill was given special treatment in the National Assembly in terms of the speed and attention it gathered from lawmakers.

Civil society organizations and human rights NGOs have been fiercely opposing the bill. Having formed an umbrella network consisting of 95 human rights groups, they have campaigned against the passing of the bill, petitioning the National Assembly, holding press conferences, and expressing street protests. The National Human Rights Commission and Korean Bar Association have been on board as well. The future of the bill will be decided upon in an extraordinary parliamentary session in April 2002.

There are many problems with the Anti-Terror Bill, some of which are outlined here. First, the definition and scope of the ‘crimes of terror’ and ‘terrorist organization’, stipulated in article 2 of the bill are extremely vague and abstract. In order for an act to be a crime of terror, according to the bill, it needs to have ‘political, religious, ideological, or national objectives, and to have elements of ‘actively pursuing its objectives and disseminating its causes’. The bill also considers an act as one of terror if it has elements of ‘impacting on national security and diplomatic relations and causing significant social unrest’. This vagueness is highly likely to lead to arbitrary interpretation and application of the law on the part of the authorities concerned.

Second, the bill would leave much room for violating human rights if enacted. For example, the bill proposes an additional punishment for an act which can be dealt with through existing legislation. There is no explanation whatsoever about why existing laws are supposed to be insufficient for the threats of terror. According to article 21 of the bill, non-reporting, whether intentional or not, of a possible terrorist act which has resulted in a terror incident could be punishable. The lack of clear criteria for deciding what should be reported under what circumstances by whom makes the bill dependent on a very weak foundation for a just legislation. It is evident that this clause may put severe restrictions on the freedom of conscience. In addition, the bill intends to indict those who have made a false report; this is contradictory to the above clause in that one runs the risk of making a false report when one makes a report, and of committing non-reporting when one decides not to make a report. Moreover, the bill discriminates against ‘foreign nationals’. Article 11 stipulates that the authorities could take necessary measures including ‘surveillance on the person’s whereabouts and movement’ and, if necessary, deportation of the person, when there is sufficient ground to believe that the foreigner is implicated in terrorist activity. But there is no safeguard or steps to make appeals to this decision. The level of subjectivity this proposal implies when making a judgment about whether a foreigner is a terrorist suspect is indeed very high.

Third, all the anti-terror measures outlined in the bill revolve around the National Intelligence Service. Cynics may call this bill not by its name, but as the Bill for Reinforcement of the National Intelligence Service. The NIS will have power to have within it an anti-terror center which will play a coordinating role for all the anti-terror measures of the nation. The organization, budget, and level of staffing of the center are to be kept a strict secret and will be headed by the head of the NIS. Furthermore, the proposed ‘steering committee’, which lies between the center and the prime minister, will also be headed by the NIS chief. In essence, the whole gamut of proposals for the anti-terror measure seems to be a thinly disguised attempt to radically expand the already omnipotent security organization. As the recent past has clearly demonstrated, the misuse of the power of the NIS can never be overestimated. Some examples of this include political engineering, sabotage against the civilian population, and blatant disregard for human rights, to name but a few.

It should be concluded therefore that under no justification of anti-terror measures should the human rights of people be sacrificed. If there is one genuinely radical solution to terrorism it is to work out a comprehensive blueprint for human rights. The bill must be rescinded in line with voices from civil society organizations and international society.

Ryu Eunsook (Sarangbang Human Rights Group)

정부지원금 0%, 회원의 회비로 운영됩니다

참여연대 후원/회원가입


참여연대 NOW

실시간 활동 SNS

텔레그램 채널에 가장 빠르게 게시되고,

더 많은 채널로 소통합니다. 지금 팔로우하세요!