In recent weeks, we have heard once again about the danger of a terrorist attack on Britain. Britain's security service, MI5, believe that the threat is at its highest for at least a decade -- in other words higher now even than the aftermath of 9/11. This is partly because of dissident Irish Republican violence, and partly because of terrorist violence inspired by al Qaeda. It is clear that violent Islamic extremist plots have not gone away.
I have been a strong and consistent supporter of educational programs to teach young Muslim kids that violence is against the true teachings of Islam. In the long term, this is the only way to prevent young people from turning to terrorism.
But when we do have good evidence that someone has taken part in a terrorist plot, the state should come down on them with its full force. I believe that the traditional offenses which Britain charges potential terrorists with are not enough.
British subjects who plot to destroy the fabric of British life, destroy government buildings, transport or businesses, who sow fear into the seam of the daily life, who seek to rupture the day-to-day workings of the British economy or the business of State, or who act to spread disorder and fear, should be considered not just terrorists, but traitors. They should be charged with treason. This would not be so new - it used to be used against Irish insurgents.
Treason, after all, essentially means betraying one's nation. All British nationals owe allegiance to the Queen, wherever they are. If you have the privilege to have a British passport, you should not be plotting violence against her subjects.
The main counterargument would probably be that such terrorists have not committed treason. Arson, murder, terrorism or other violent crimes, perhaps; but treason - no.
But I would argue that although these latter offenses might speak to the specific physical characteristics of the crime, they don't address the mental one - those of the intention of the crime - at all.
A terrorist is not the same as someone trying to cause physical damage who does not know why. They are seeking very specifically to rupture British security as a nation, damage our institutions, and disrupt the quality of British daily life. And here's the point. They do not want to do these things to damage a building or cause injuries in a crowd. They want to do them because these things are British. That deserves its own form of recognition in law, and 'treason' is the offense which best captures it.
It is time we bought the offense of treason back. These terrorists are not just criminals - they are traitors.
Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Hmmm, I'm I imagining it or is this happening more than we think?
You also write from a desperately american perspective - you may consider whether 7/7/2005 was more important for security in the UK than 9/11/01
The only obvious traitors in Pakistan are the ISI and the legacy kleptocrats in power.
While the best way to end these regimes is nonviolence political movements, neither of these regimes are legitimate, except they are recognized as legitimate by America and its World Order.
The issue becomes that foreign powers seek to impose their interests by forcing regimes and politicans on a people. As evident in Gaza, open elections brought Hamas to power and Israel and America have embargoed and attempted to unseat them.
Open election in Algeria brought FIS close to victory but with American approval, the Algerian military cancelled the elections and even infiltrated the GIA to use false flag atrocities to end popular resistance and political opposition to the regime.
Turkey too had experienced several elections overturned by military coups.
The reality is many Muslim countries are the playing field of foreign powers who seek to subjugate and influence Muslim people and impose their interests on them.
As long as these powers continue this, people will have only two options: capitulate or resist. And as is the case for many forms of human resistance to foriegn occupation and power, resistance often includes extremism and radicalism. Causation is undeniable.
It's not obvious to me that AQ; the Muslim Brotherhood ; Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq are comparable movements. In fact it's clear that they are all unique and markedly different from each other. Roping them all together doesn't help your argument at all. It could be argued that since we invaded Iraq, those Iraqis who support us are traitors/Quislings/Benedict Arnolds. It all depends on who wins obviously
I also fail to understand why you think "religiously motivated" terrorists are any different from politically motivated ones.
But the EDL have been found to have planned bombings of mosques and even government buildings. And yet no terrorism charges have been filed. Does future sir Ibrahim want the EDL to be charged with treason even when they true blue Englishmen?
The Home Office likes the presence of the EDL as a force that counters Muslim radicalism and pushes more to moderation, "go along to get along".
That's why there were no terrorism charges against EDL boys.
So it seems "terrorism" is really a loaded, political term, usually meant for the weak.
They aren't going to be shot, we are too civilised for that, they'll go to prison anyway, so what's the point?
Also your idea that violence is against the teachings of Islam would seem to be contradicted by the life of the Prophet , so good luck with that one.
Finally it's usually a mistake to treat political malefactors as simple criminals.
So apart from that I think you make a lot of sense. blimey