The extrajudicial detention of terrorists and their aiders and abettors is justified if accuseds post an existential threat to the life of state

Demands of some parliament members to provide Rishad Bathiudeen, a member of parliament whom is detained and accused of aiding and abetting with Jihadist Easter Sunday Attackers, with immunity under Parliament privileges not only endangers norms and life of state, but also render these members of parliament also aiders and abettors themself demanding so.

It seems the definition of terrorism and what it means to be a terrorist is still a vague idea for Sri Lankan politicians. At least some of them are acting like it. That triggers us to ask the question if they are too becoming aiders and abettors of terrorism. For some extent this disillusion is somewhat justified by the fact that not only the US and UN cannot agree on a single definition of what it means to be terrorism.

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims qualifies the definition. As the monopoly of violence is always held within state apparatuses what is lawful and what is unlawful is always determined by the state and with larger public consensus. In the case of Easter Sunder attack the global Jihadist movement ISIS took the responsibility for the attack. That has make it clearer of its political aims also.

When it is that much clearer it is rather puzzling to see some politicians seek the release of Rishad whom was detained under Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is further worrisome when they seek his appearance in Parliament sessions under parliament privileges, where freedom of speech is exercised with lack of respect to interest of state and only display political vulgarism and opportunism.

Let’s imagine, for a second, that the accusations and investigations levelled against Rishad were driven by some political vendetta. But, end of the day, this is not a petty crime that he was accused of. Therefore, no one is in any position to seek his release from detention until all due processes are exhausted. 

If such clear distinction cannot be drawn to our politicians it is such a pity state we are living in. Hope, few examples might unclog their minds. The best example is accomplices and junior Jihadist terrorists accused of 9/11 atrocities. After all the family members of Al-Qaida leader were shot dead, except the one who lives in UK, eight hundreds accused gone through Guantanamo Bay and still fortyinmates remains in Guantanamo Bay, after all this years. 

In the case of US, UK, Denmark, Germany, France, Australia and Sweden, and in most other civilised counties including Australia too employ a new and smart tactic to keep terrorists away from their shores indefinitely. They just renounce their citizenships, making them simply stateless and therefore above the laws of civility. These countries not only have rightly discarded the basic rights of terrorists but also have found a smarter way around to stay away from yearly list of counties appearing in UN reports on extrajudicial and arbitrary detentions. All these direct and indirect common practices point at customary laws which exists since antiquity. Extrajudicial detention can be the only solution regarding some detainees who pose a threat to norms and civility of state. A commonwealth solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue might also openly agree with me. 

Therefore, it has to be clear enough to our lawmakers that they are endangering state norms and life of state when they publically argue for release of a detainee, which was detained under the prevention of terrorism act. Insertion of such systematic political pressure, under the pretext of parliamentary privileges and freedom of speech, should also mount to be an act of aiding and abetting terrorism. No one should be able to exercise of freedom of speech to protect terrorists and traitors. 

Exercise of parliamentary privileges needs to always safeguard life of state and national interests. Allowing a terrorist to address the supreme establishment within any given state, not only undermine the norms and interests of that state and therefore the very existence of the parliament but also makes that parliament a lighter in the eyes of observant, and rightly so.

Author - A.V. Anuradha Samapth

MA in International Security and Law from Denmark & BA Hon in International Politics from UK
LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/amarasinghevidanage