Federal antiterror comitie

federal antiterror comitie

A Number of Federal Anti-Terror Laws; B Scope of Federal Anti-Terror Laws review by the Security Legislation Review Committee ('Sheller Committee'). NCTC is staffed by more than 1,000 personnel from across the IC, the Federal government, and Federal contractors. NCTC's workforce represents approximately. The Department of Justice directed the formation or expansion of terrorism task forces and councils (with members from many federal, state.

Federal antiterror comitie - congratulate, your

Money laundering is the process of making the proceeds of criminal activity appear to have been legally obtained. According to the IMF and World Bank, criminals launder an estimated two to nearly four trillion dollars each year.

Among those who seek to disguise the illegal proceeds of their crimes are drug traffickers, terrorists, corrupt public officials, and organized criminal groups. Introducing illegally obtained funds into the stream of legitimate commerce and finance allows criminals to profit from their illegal activity, taints the international financial system, and erodes public trust in the integrity of the system.

Some criminals use the financial system to support terrorists or acts of terrorism. Terrorist financiers and other criminals use the formal financial system, new payment methods such as bitcoin and Ripple, traditional methods of value transfer such as hawala*, trade based money-laundering, and cash couriers, particularly in countries with non-existent or weak national anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) tools.

AML/CFT tools can:

  • Expose the infrastructure of criminal organizations, webs of corruption, and conspiracies to commit terror acts
  • Provide authorities with roadmaps to those who facilitate criminal and illicit activities
  • Lead to the recovery and forfeiture of unlawfully-acquired assets
  • Support broad and effective deterrence efforts against a wide range of criminal activities, including the financing of terrorism.

Only a comprehensive anti-money laundering regime which draws on such tools can prevent those that finance terrorism from succeeding.

INL has an important role in creating these capabilities and connections on a global basis.

INL’s RoleINL works in global and regional forums to negotiate, assess, and promote effective implementation of international standards. In addition, INL cooperates directly with foreign countries to help national authorities adopt, implement, and strengthen their AML/CFT regimes, as well as pursue legal cases, obtain convictions, and confiscate the proceeds of crime.

In addition to leading AML efforts, INL supports the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) and Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) in their work related to countering the financing of terrorism.

Policy Development and Capacity Building: INL represents the U.S. Department of State in multilateral processes and organizations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)  and related regional bodies that develop and evaluate the implementation of international AML/CFT standards. INL also develops, funds, and implements technical assistance projects to build AML/CFT capacity in foreign countries in response to traditional and emerging threats, such as kidnapping for ransom, wildlife trafficking, exploitation of the gaming industry, and misuse of non-bank financial products including hawala and other unconventional and emerging payment methods.


*- In the system of hawala, funds are paid to an agent who then instructs a remote associate to pay the amount to the final recipient, but no physical form of money changes hands during the transfer.

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism includes:

  1. Oversight of the Department of Justice's
    • Criminal Division
    • Drug Enforcement Administration
    • Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
    • Office on Violence Against Women
    • U.S. Marshals Service
    • Community Oriented Policing Services and related law enforcement grants
    • Bureau of Prisons
    • Office of the Pardon Attorney
    • U.S. Parole Commission
    • Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as it relates to crime or drug policy
  2. Oversight of the U.S. Sentencing Commission
  3. Youth violence and directly related issues
  4. Federal programs under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (including the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act)
  5. Criminal justice and victims' rights policy
  6. Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
  7. Oversight of the U.S. Secret Service
  8. Corrections, rehabilitation, reentry and other detention-related policy
  9. Parole and probation policy
  10. Oversight of anti-terrorism enforcement and policy
  11. Oversight of Department of Homeland Security functions as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy
  12. Oversight of State Department consular operations as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy
  13. Oversight of encryption policies and export licensing
  14. Oversight of espionage laws and their enforcement

Senate committee urges tougher anti-terror measures

OTTAWA—A Senate committee is urging a range of tougher anti-terror measures to fight the “Islamist fundamentalist menace” through criminal bans on radical speech, preachers, charities and those who “glorify” terrorism.

And in what would likely be seen as an unprecedented reach by the state into the religious sphere, the report also says the federal government should explore “options to train and certify imams in Canada”

Many of the 25 recommendations released Tuesday by the Conservative-dominated committee on national security and defence seek to counter radical ideas, speech and ideology, saying more effort should be made to “create an effective counter-narrative to denounce the ideology of Islamist fundamentalism.”

The 38-page document also says the government should create a “no-visit” list to bar suspected foreign radical preachers and leaders from visiting Canada, and should create new libel protections for people who criticize radical Islamist extremism.

Overall, it says the federal government, RCMP, CSIS and the anti-terror financing agency FINTRAC, along with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, are not doing enough to fight terrorism — specifically the spread of “the ideology promoted by the global Islamist fundamentalist movement.”

In the end, the report failed to win the support of three Senate Liberal members who say it was rushed out before the election, failed to call for more resources for national security agencies or for more academic research into the counter-radicalization, and did not present a balanced view of the national security threats facing Canada.

Sen. Grant Mitchell, a Liberal who co-chaired the committee and is drafting a dissenting report, said in an interview the committee heard evidence that Canada faces a terrorist threat from right-wing racist ideologies as well, and “not just from one group” yet the report focuses almost completely the Islamist extremists.

Amira Elghawaby, a spokeswoman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said the organization is “deeply concerned” the Senate is suggesting only Muslim religious leaders require special vetting.

“This particular recommendation actually bears the hallmarks of racial and religious discrimination,” she told the Star’s Ethan Lou.

She said the Senate’s recommendation suggests “something untoward is going on” with imams, when the actual situation is the exact opposite.

The report urged unspecified “measures” to stop foreign money from promoting extremist views, citing testimony that “wealthy Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis are using charities as conduits to finance Canadian mosques and community centres” in order to “promote their own fundamentalist brand of Islam — Wahhabism — here in Canada.”

In another part, it says radical views are being promoted to youths in universities and community centres. But it expresses doubt about the RCMP’s and CSIS’s ability to know who’s who, and suggests their outreach efforts have led them to rely on suspect individuals.

The report expressed frustration with the head of CSIS, Michel Coulombe, whose agency had acknowledged 145 Canadians have left to fight in various jihadi movements across North Africa and the Middle East, with more than 90 having returned. The committee said it is unacceptable that more haven’t been charged under laws outlawing the departure from Canada to participate in terrorist groups.

“This is concerning, given, that there are approximately 93 Canadians — so-called ‘high-risk travellers’ — the authorities believe want to leave Canada to engage in terrorist activities,” the report says.

It recommended the government publish a “Wanted Terrorist List,” of those Canadians for whom a warrant (national or international) has been issued on grounds of terror-related activities.

Among its other findings:

  • The committee recommended the federal government make it a criminal offence to be a member of a terrorist group. The Conservative government and its Liberal predecessors have determined membership alone in any group cannot be criminalized because the law penalizes what people do, not who they are, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees of freedom of expression and association suggest such an offence wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. The law does now criminalize all activities and actions that would support or facilitate terrorism, however.
  • The committee recommended the federal government criminalize the “glorification of terrorism” — which the Conservative justice minister told Parliament this spring it rejected because it would likely not pass a charter challenge. Instead, Bill C-51 criminalized the advocacy or promotion of terrorism. In fact, the committee urged the government to update Canada’s hate laws to “consider including a prohibition on the glorification of terrorists, terrorist acts and terrorist symbols connected to terrorism and radicalization.”
  • The committee says the government should make it a priority to investigate and discourage “the spread of the ideology promoted by the global Islamist fundamentalist movement.” Yet it notes elsewhere the RCMP has assigned 600 officers from other public safety duties to fight terrorism, “an indication of the priority it has placed on confronting this threat.”
  • The committee recommends the establishment of a dedicated team of lawyers in the department of justice to specialize in terrorism prosecutions. Terrorism prosecutions are already handled by specialized federal lawyers in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. However, the committee seems to contradict its own reasoning for that recommendation when it says police find it too bureaucratic to go through the federal prosecution service to obtain consent for terror charges. The report says “the centralizing of criminal proceedings under the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service for . . . terrorism charges appears to be overly complicated.” It recommends removing the requirement for the consent of the federal attorney general before laying charges.
  • The committee says Canada Revenue Agency and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) should be more aggressive and transparent in pursuing charities that support terrorist activity, the directors and individuals behind them, as well as foreigners who it says are funneling money to groups that support radical ideologies in Canada. It said FINTRAC identified 683 transactions linked to terrorist financing between 2009 and 2014, but no charges have been laid on these grounds. (FINTRAC reports suspicious transactions to police, but it is not a law enforcement agency.)
  • In an emailed statement Jeremy Laurin, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, did not respond when asked if the minister had read the report, and what his comments were. But he wrote: “We thank the Senate committee for their thorough report. Once again, it is clear that the threat posed by the international jihadist movement is real.”



    Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

    Sign In


    Conversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the Code of Conduct. The Star does not endorse these opinions.

    Five-year limit for anti-terror powers: Senate committee

    A Senate committee says that some sections of the federal government's anti-terrorism legislation should have a time limit.

    The senators released their report on Thursday, and joined a chorus demanding that a five-year sunset clause be placed on new police powers.

    Bill C-36 would give police the right to detain suspected terrorists for three days without charging them, and to compel witnesses to testify.

    In its report after reviewing the bill, the Liberal-dominated Senate committee says Canada needs tougher measures to track down and prosecute terrorists. But it argues that changes are needed to Bill C-36 to protect the rights of Canadians.

    The request is for a five-year limit on police powers, such as the ability to arrest and hold people because police believe they are about to commit a terrorist act.

    The report argues that if the government wants to extend those powers beyond five years, it should justify the request to Parliament.

    The senators also suggest strict supervision of ministers with new powers, such as drafting lists of terrorists, suspending privacy laws and quashing access to information requests.

    They suggest an officer of Parliament, similar to the privacy commissioner, be appointed and report annually on the use of these new measures.

    Some MPs, including members of the governing Liberals, have expressed reservations about parts of the anti-terrorism legislation. They think more protection is needed for ordinary citizens, and have also advocated a time limit on certain powers.

    A Commons committee is reviewing the same bill, but has not reported its findings yet.

    Police oppose sunset clause

    Law enforcement agencies are telling the Commons committee a sunset clause would be a bad idea.

    "Terrorism is an evolving public security and safety concern that may eventually be controlled, deterred or diminished, but will not be extinguished," Grant Obst, president of the Canadian Police Association, told the Commons Justice Committee on Thursday.

    "To suggest that the law should be repealed in three, or even five years, would deter the initiation of investigations near the end of the period, cause delay tactics by defence counsel and render the law essentially useless."

    Obst predicted the fight against terrorism will go on for years, and said that police officers would support a time limit only "if we saw a sunset clause on terrorism" itself. He also argued that the legislation contains checks and balances to protect civil rights.

    Justice Minister Anne McLellan has already said she is opposed to an expiry date on the legislation, especially those measures that back United Nations resolutions against terrorism.

    "I think that's a very disturbing message for the global community when they have just ... called upon all nations of the civilized world to take up the challenge to defeat terrorism," McLellan said Thursday. "The government's view here is quite clear: we can't sunset those obligations."

    There were reports earlier this week that Prime Minister Jean Chrtien has told Liberal MPs he has no intention of putting a sunset clause in Bill C-36.

    Anti-terrorism legislation

    Laws enacted against terrorism

    Crystal Clear app kedit.svg

    This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as more sources is required, and thorough reclassification of legal system is needed.You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.(May 2022)

    Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

    Because of this suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a form of lois scélérates which may unjustly repress all kinds of popular protests. Critics often allege that anti-terrorism legislation endangers democracy by creating a state of exception that allows authoritarian style of government.

    International conventions related to terrorism and counter-terrorism cases[edit]

    Terrorism has been on the international agenda since 1934, when the League of Nations, predecessor of the United Nations, began the elaboration of a convention for the prevention and punishment of terrorism.[1] Although the convention was eventually adopted in 1937, it never came into force.

    Today, there are 15 counter-terrorism international conventions in force. They were developed under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Moreover, on 8 September 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a "Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy".[2]

    Conventions open to all states[edit]

    A 16th international convention, a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, is currently under negotiations.

    Security Council Resolutions[edit]

    • UN Security Council Resolution 731 (January 21, 1992)
    • UN Security Council Resolution 748 (March 31, 1992)
    • UN Security Council Resolution 883 (November 11, 1993)
    • September 28, 2001 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which makes it legally binding to member states. Among other provisions, it favored the exchange of intelligence between member states and legislative reforms. It established the United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) to monitor state compliance with its provisions. Later resolutions concerning the same matter were UNSC resolutions 1390, 1456, 1535 (which restructured the CTC), 1566, and 1624.

    Regional conventions[edit]


    Commonwealth of Independent States[edit]

    The Americas[edit]



    • SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (Kathmandu, November 1987)
    • Additional Protocol to the convention, Islamabad, January 2004 [As of 30 August 2005 not yet in force].
    • The ASEAN Convention On Counter Terrorism, Cebu, Philippines, 13 January 2007 [In force from 27 May 2011, on 22 January 2013 all ASEAN members signed the ACCT]

    South Korea[edit]

    • Act on prohibition against the financing of terrorism (February 29, 2008)

    →(rev)Act on prohibition against the financing of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (March 29, 2016)

    • Act on anti-terrorism for the protection of citizens and public security[6] (March 3, 2016)

    League of Arab States[edit]

    Organization of the Islamic Conference[edit]

    Anti-terrorist legislation in the European Union[edit]

    European Union[edit]

    European Court of Human Rights cases related to anti-terrorist legislation[edit]


    • Belgium Anti-Terrorism Act 2003


    France has passed a variety of anti-terrorist laws, the first of which being the 19th-century lois scélératesrestricting freedom of expression. Today, magistrates in the Justice Ministry anti-terrorism unit have authority to detain people suspected of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism" while evidence is gathered against them.[7]

    Ireland (Republic of)[edit]


    Further information: History of the Italian Republic

    Italy passed various anti-terrorist laws during the "Years of Lead" (anni di piombo) in the 1970s.

    The Reale Act was adopted on 22 May 1975. It allowed the police to carry out searches and arrest persons without being mandated by an investigative judge. Interrogation could take place without the presence of a lawyer. Critics underlined that this contradicted article 3 of the Constitution on equality before the law.[9]

    Preventive detention was fixed before 1970 to two years, for a possible sentence going between 20 years to perpetuity, while it was limited to one year for charges of crimes leading to a sentence of less than 20 years. It passed to four years after 1970. A decree-law of 11 April 1974 authorized a four-year detention until the first judgment, six years until the appeal, and eight years until the definitive judgment. In case of indictment for "acts of terrorism," the preventive detention was extended to twelve years.[9]

    The Cossiga decree-law was passed on 15 December 1979. It prolonged the length of preventive detention relative to terrorism suspicions and allowed wiretaps. Critics have pointed out that this violated articles 15 and 27 of the Constitution.[9] The Cossiga decree-law also created the status of pentito (officially "collaborators of justice"): those accused of terrorism crimes and who accepted of confessing them and of informing the authorities about their accomplices could be liberated.

    Law n°191 of May 21, 1978, called "Moro law", and law n°15 of February 6, 1980, were ratifications by the assembly of decrees of emergency enacted by the executive power, respectively on March 28, 1978, and on December 15, 1979.[10]

    United Kingdom[edit]

    Main article: Terrorism Acts

    • Prevention of Terrorism Acts (Northern Ireland), 1974–89
    • Terrorism Act 2000
    • Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was supposed to be part of it as provisions, but it was dropped)
    • The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004, that the detention without trial of nine foreigners at HM PrisonBelmarsh under Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was given Royal assent on 11 March 2005. The Act allows the Home Secretary to impose "control orders" on people they suspect of involvement in terrorism, which in some cases may derogate (opt out) from human rights laws. In April 2006, a High Court judge issued a declaration that section 3 of the Act was incompatible with the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act was described by Mr Justice Sullivan as an 'affront to justice'. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, JUSTICE and Liberty have opposed it. Criticism of the Act included complaints about the range of restrictions that could be imposed, the use of closed proceedings and special advocates to hear secret evidence against the detainee, and the possibility that evidence against detainees may include evidence obtained in other countries by torture.
    • The Terrorism Act 2006 increased the limit of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days after a rebellion by Labour MPs. Originally, the Government, and Prime Minister Tony Blair, had pushed for a 90-day detention period, but this was reduced to 28 days after a vote in the House of Commons. Home Office Minister Damian Green announced on 20 January 2011 that the period would revert to 14 days as the order extending the period to 28 days would be allowed to lapse at midnight on 24 January.
    • The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, a section of which would have controversially increased the limit of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects for 42 days. This measure was dropped from the bill after it failed to win approval in the House of Lords.[11]
    • Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010, which led to the
    • Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010
    • Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 received royal assent on 14 December that year.
    • Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015

    UK anti-terrorism legislation is subject to regular review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

    Anti-terrorism legislation in common law countries (other than the UK)[edit]


    The Civil Rights Network opposes such legislation. Elizabeth Evatt, a federal judge, has criticized John Howard's 2005 anti-terrorism bill, particularly provisions relating to control orders and preventive detention, saying that "These laws are striking at the most fundamental freedoms in our democracy in a most draconian way."[12]


    Anti-terrorism Act, 2009 passed in Bangladesh. This act is effective from June 11, 2008. Under section 28 of this Act, a special anti-terror Tribunal tries people charged under this act.[13]



    New Zealand[edit]


    Further information: Court system of Pakistan

    • Suppression of Terrorist Activities Ordinance, 1975 enacted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[17] The law remained in force in the Sindh Province and the Punjab Province until its repeal in 1997,[17] and remained the law in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan until August 2001.[17]
    • 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act, signed on August 17, 1997, by then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.[18][19] The law, which included a broad definition of "terrorism", was enacted after a January 1997 bombing by Mehram Ali, a member of the Shia militant organization Tehrik Nifaz Fiqh-i-Jafaria (TNFJ).[17] The Anti-Terrorism Act created specials Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATC) as well as an Anti-Terrorism Appellate (ATA) Tribunal.[17] Merham Ali was subsequently tried before those special courts, but made an appeal to the Supreme Court, which confirmed his death sentence, but declared most of the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act unconstitutional.[17]
    • 24 October 1998 Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance issued by Nawaz Sharif's government to respond to most of the Supreme Court's objections.[17] According to political scientist Charles H. Kennedy, "Special Anti-Terrorism courts remained in place but the judges of such courts were granted tenure of office (two years, later extended to two and one-half years); the special Appellate Tribunals were disbanded, appeals against the decisions of the Anti-Terrorism courts would henceforth be to the respective High Courts; and restrictions were placed on the earlier act's provisions regarding trial in absentia to accord with regular legal procedures."[17]
    • Pakistan Armed Forces (Acting in Aid of Civil Power) Ordinance, 1998.[17] Applying itself to the Sindh Province, the ordinance granted broad judicial powers to the military.[17] It also created the new crime of "civil commotion,"[17] which exposed to a penalty of 7 firm prison years. The ordinance defined "civil commotion" as

    "creation of internal disturbances in violation of law or intended to violate law, commencement or continuation of illegal strikes, go-slows, lock-outs, vehicle snatching/lifting, damage to or destruction of State or private property, random firing to create panic, charging bhatha

    [protection money/extortion], acts of criminal trespass, distributing, publishing or pasting of a handbill or making graffiti

    or wall-chalking intended to create unrest or fear or create a threat to the security of law and order..."[17]

    • 30 January 1999: the Pakistan Armed Forces Ordinance of 1998 is extended to the whole country.[17] It was also amended to enable "absconders" from justice to be tried in absentia by any military court.[17] The opposition filed many constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the ordinance, resulting in Liaquat Hussain versus Federation of Pakistan issued on 22 February 1999. The Supreme Court declared the ordinance "unconstitutional, without legal authority, and with no legal effect.".[17] It rejected Nawaz Sharif's claim that the ordinance was temporary and limited to Sindh Province.[17]
    • 27 April 1999: repeal of the Armed Forces (Acting in Aid of Civil Power) ordinance. However, "civil commotion" is included as a crime under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997.[17]
    • 27 August 1999: amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act, authorizing ATC (Anti Terrorism Court) in all of the country.[17]


    In 2017 Ukraine opened a case against Russia for involvement and financing of military-occupiedAutonomous Republic of Crimea and part of Donbas.[20]

    South Africa[edit]

    United States[edit]


    • Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
    • Executive Order 12947 signed by President Bill Clinton Jan. 23, 1995, Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, and later expanded to include freezing the assets of Osama bin Laden and others.
    • Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995
    • US Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (see also the LaGrand case which opposed in 1999-2001 Germany to the US in the International Court of Justice concerning a German citizen convicted of armed robbery and murder, and sentenced to death)
    • Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush Sept. 23, 2001, among other things, authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists. 66 Fed. Reg. 49,079 (Sept. 23, 2001).
    • 2001 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools for Intercepting and Obstructing Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act)(amended March 2006) (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was integrated to it)
    • Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296.
    • Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005
    • Real ID Act of 2005
    • Military Commissions Act of 2006
    • Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006




    China passed Anti-terrorism Law on December 27, 2015.[24]

    The Anti-terrorism Law has 10 chapters and 97 articles, taking effect on January 1, 2016. Before the promulgation of Anti-terrorism Law, though anti-terrorism laws can be found in the Criminal Law or some other emergency action regulations, there was not a systematic legal structure or source for anti-terrorism actions.

    The most controversial provisions of the Anti-terrorism Law are the numerous new restrictions on the operation of internet and technology based companies, among which Article 21 says that an internet operator or provider is obligated to verify the identity of each user and shall refuse to provide services to a user who refuses such verification or fails to provide a clear identity. Any company who fails to meet such obligation may face fines, orders of rectification and its management and executives may face fines and even detentions from 5 to 15 days. In addition, Article 18 says any telecommunication operator or internet provider shall provide technology access and source code or other de-encryption support and assistance for the purposes of preventing and investigating terrorism by Public Safety Department or National Security Department.


    Human Rights Watch has criticized the Chilean government for inappropriately using anti-terrorist legislation against indigenous (Mapuche) groups involved in land conflicts. While the legislation in question was originally enacted by the Pinochet dictatorship, the democratic governments that have followed have actually increased its severity.[citation needed] Human Rights Watch has expressed special concern that the current version of the law lists arson as a "terrorist" offence. This has allowed the application of the law against Mapuche vandals. While recognizing that crimes have certainly been committed, the international organization believes that they are not comparable to terrorist acts.[25]

    El Salvador[edit]

    El Salvador, presided by Antonio Saca of the right-wing ARENA party, had adopted in September 2006 an anti-terrorist law. All major parties, including the FMLN, have criticized the law, claiming it could be used against social movements[26]

    The government first attempted to use the law against illegal street vendors who violently resisted removal by the police. These charges did not result in convictions.

    In July 2007, the Salvadoran government charged fourteen people with acts of terrorism for their participation and/or association with a demonstration against privatization of the nation's water system. Charges were dismissed against one of those arrested. The remainder, known as the Suchitito 13, were released, but continued to face charges under the Special Law Against Terrorist Acts.[27][28] The charges were reduced to "disorderly conduct" in early February 2008 and then completely dropped later in the month.


    Israel has suffered Arab terrorism from the day of its creation. Many years Israel has relied on mandatory regulations as a legal basis for fighting terrorism and for convicting terrorists both in civilian and military courts. In 2016, after a long and thorough work by the Minister of JusticeAyelet Shaked, the Israeli Knesset passed a comprehensive law against terrorism, forbidding any kind of terrorism and support of terrorism, and setting severe punishments for terrorists. The law also regulates legal efforts against terrorism.[29]


    Peru adopted anti-terrorist laws in 1992, under Alberto Fujimori's presidency. The laws were criticized by Amnesty International, who declared in its 2002 report that "Detainees falsely charged with 'terrorism-related' offences in previous years remained held. 'Anti-terrorism' legislation which had resulted in unfair trials since its introduction in 1992 remained in force. Members of the security forces accused of human rights violations continued to have their cases transferred to military courts."[30]Lori Berenson, a US citizen serving a 20-year prison term in Peru, has been condemned in virtue of these laws, on charges of collaboration with the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement.


    Main articles: Human Security Act and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

    The Human Security Act of 2007, signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and effective since July 2007, officially aimed at tackling militants in the southern Philippines, including the Abu Sayyaf group, which has links to al-Qaeda and has been blamed for bombings and kidnappings in the region.[31]

    Under the law, three days of warrantless detention are authorized,[31] although arresting officers are obliged to immediately inform a judge about the arrest.[31] Furthermore, detained terrorists are entitled to see a lawyer, a priest, a doctor, or family members.[31] The law allows eavesdropping on suspects[32] as well as access to bank accounts for authorities.[31] Convictions could result in 40-year prison sentences, but compensations are provided for in case of miscarriage of justice.[31][32] Terrorism was defined by Section 3 as "sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand",[32] a formulation criticized by Wilson Fortaleza, national president and third nominee of the labor party-list group Sanlakas, who claimed the law could be used to crush political dissent.[32]


    Following the October 2002 Bali bombings, Indonesia adopted Government Regulation in Lieu of Law 1/2002. Under the Indonesian legal system, a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law has the same power as a parliament-enacted legislation, except that it can only be issued under emergency circumstances and is subject to review by the next parliamentary session. Nevertheless, Indonesian Parliament enacted this emergency regulation into Law 15/2003. As since, Indonesia has an anti-terror legislation with strong political support. The Anti-Terror Law cultivates many criticism, however. The Law contained provisions which can circumvent normal criminal proceeding such as quick and long detention. One of the main contentious provision of the Law is that it allows Intelligence Information to be used as a preliminary evidence that can be used for apprehending a suspect. The role of Intelligence Information as evidence has been a subject of hot debate in Indonesia.[33]


    Further information: Human rights in Turkey

    Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713; April 1991), slightly amended in 1995 and later repealed,[34] imposed three-year prison sentences for "separatist propaganda." Despite its name, the Anti-Terror Law punished many non-violent offences.[35] Pacifists have been imprisoned under Article 8. For example, publisher Fatih Tas was prosecuted in 2002 under Article 8 at Istanbul State Security Court for translating and publishing writings by Noam Chomsky, summarizing the history of the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey; he was acquitted, however, in February 2002.[35]

    State Security Courts were transformed into Heavy Penal Courts following June 2004 reforms to the 1982 Constitution, enacted following the 1980 military coup.

    As of 2008, detainees arrested under the Anti-Terror Law have access to lawyers at the very beginning of their detention.[36]


    In 2017 Ukraine opened a case against Russia for involvement and financing of military occupiedAutonomous Republic of Crimea and part of Donbas.[20]

    Anti Terrorist Act, 2009 passed in Bangladesh[edit]

    This act is effective from 11 June 2008. Under section 28 of this Act, anti terrorist special Tribunal is trying the crimes.[citation needed]

    See also[edit]


    1. ^See Lyal S. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law: Developments in Codification and Implementation (Brill Publishers, 1997) pp. 191-203.
    2. ^International instruments to counter terrorism, United Nations
    3. ^"ETS no. 090 - European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism". Council of Europe. 1977-01-27. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
    4. ^"ETS No. 190 - Protocol amending the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism". Council of Europe. 1977-01-27. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
    5. ^"Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No. 196)". Council of Europe. 2005-05-16. Archived from the original on 7 August 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
    6. ^"국민보호와 공공안전을 위한 테러방지법". Retrieved 2019-11-25.
    7. ^"Help From France Key In Covert Operations". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
    8. ^ ab"Safety & Security: Terrorism". The Department of Justice and Equality, Republic of Ireland. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
    9. ^ abcSchimel, Anne (1998-04-01). "Justice « de plomb » en Italie". Le Monde diplomatique (in French). Retrieved 2022-01-19.
    10. ^"usurped title". 2021-04-12. Archived from the original on October 8, 2002. Retrieved 2022-01-19.CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
    11. ^Dominic Casciani (24 January 2008). "Terror bill: Key elements". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
    12. ^Michael Pelly, Tony Stephens and Marian Wilkinson (25 October 2005). "Former leaders call for debate". Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 11 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-11.
    13. ^"Bangladesh Anti-terrorism Act, 2009".
    14. ^Radia, Andy (19 Apr 2013). "Harper government to fast track anti-terrorism bill". Canada Politics. Yahoo! Canada. Retrieved 22 April 2013.
    15. ^Branch, Legislative Services (2019-11-15). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2022-03-17.
    16. ^Kalhan, Anil; et al. (2006). Colonial Continuities: Human Rights, Antiterrorism, and Security Laws in India. 20 Colum. J. Asian L. 93. SSRN 970503.
    17. ^ abcdefghijklmnopqrKennedy, Charles H. (2004). "The Creation and Development of Pakistan's Anti-terrorism Regime, 1997–2002"(PDF). In Limaye, Satu P.; Wirsing, Robert G.; Malik, Mohan (eds.). Religious Radicalism and Security in South Asia(PDF). Honolulu, Hawaï, Spring: Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies. pp. 387–413.
    18. ^"The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997". Pakistan's Federal Investigative Agency's website. Archived from the original on 14 February 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    19. ^Ortega, Kellie (2002). "Anti-terrorist laws in Pakistan". Seminar Magazine. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    20. ^ abOliphant, Roland (6 March 2017). "Ukraine sues Russia in International Court of Justice for 'financing terrorism' and discrimination". Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    21. ^"Part 4". static.pmg.org.za. Retrieved 2022-01-18.
    22. ^Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. "Anti-Terrorism Bill"(PDF). Retrieved 18 January 2022.
    24. ^Shaohui, Tian, ed. (27 December 2015). "Commentary: China's anti-terrorism legislation no excuse for U.S. agitation". Xinhuanet. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    25. ^"Undue Process: Terrorism Trials, Military Courts and the Mapuche in Southern Chile"(PDF). Human Rights Watch. 16 (5): 63. October 2004. Retrieved 28 August 2008.
    26. ^"Fighting Terrorism". Latin America Monitor. Business Monitor International Ltd. October 2006. Archived from the original on 22 February 2007. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    27. ^"El Salvador: Amnesty International Criticizes El Salvador for Using Anti-Terrorism Laws to Punish Social Protesters". Amnesty International USA. July 18, 2007. Archived from the original on November 10, 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
    28. ^"Democracia Azul: Access to Water as a Human Right in El Salvador". Center for International Policy. 18 January 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
    29. ^"Terror bill passes into law". The Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post. 16 June 2016. Retrieved 16 June 2016.
    30. ^Toledo, Alejandro (December 2002). "2002 Report on Peru". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 17 March 2007. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    31. ^ abcdef"Philippines approves terror bill". 2007-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
    32. ^ abcdRomero, Paolo. 'No haven for terror in RP', ABS News, March 7, 2007
    33. ^Movanet. "Rewriting the antiterror law". Retrieved 2022-01-19.
    34. ^Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (22 June 2004). "Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights by Turkey". Council of Europe. No. Resolution No 1381. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    35. ^ ab"Questions and Answers: Freedom of Expression and Language Rights in Turkey". Human Rights Watch. April 2002. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
    36. ^"Retrograde Human Rights Trends and Stagnation of the Human Rights Reform Process". Retrieved 13 August 2019.

    Further reading[edit]

    External links[edit]


    Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee will hold special meeting in India focused on new and emerging technologies

    Mindful of the increasing threat posed by the misuse of new and emerging technologies, the United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) has decided to hold a special meeting on this theme, with the support of its Executive Directorate (CTED), in India on 29 October 2022.

    The special meeting will specifically focus on three significant areas where emerging technologies are experiencing rapid development, growing use by Member States (including for security and counter-terrorism purposes), and increasing threat of abuse for terrorism purposes, namely (a) the Internet and social media, (b) terrorism financing, and (c) unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

    CTC’s 20th anniversary

    CTC’s 20th anniversary

    2021 marks the 20th anniversary of Security Council resolution 1373 which was unanimously adopted on 28 September 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. This landmark document established the basis of the Security Council’s future response to the terrorist threat. Resolution 1373 (2001) also established the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) as a subsidiary body of the Council, mandated to assess Member States’ compliance with the resolution’s provisions. Click here for more information.

    Civil society perspectives: ISIL in Africa - Key trends and developments

    A growing number of ISIL-affiliated groups in Africa have shown an ability to launch deadly and coordinated attacks, capture strategic territories, recruit followers using anti-Government propaganda, and conscript child soldiers. With the exception of attacks carried out by the Islamic State — Sinai Province and the Islamic State in Somalia (ISS), the frequency of ISIL attacks and the resulting casualties across the continent indicate that African States are facing an unprecedented terrorist threat.

    Gillibrand Announces Restoration Of $100 Million In Federal Anti-Terror Funding Has Cleared Key Senate Panel

    Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee Approves $700 Million in Transportation and Port Security Funding, Plus an Additional $20 Million for Securing the Cities Program

    Washington, DC –U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced today that a restoration of $100 million in funding for securing the nation’s transportation systems and ports has cleared a key senate panel. The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved $350 million for transit security and $350 million for port security in the FY2011 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, an increase from the $300 million allocated to each program last fiscal year. The subcommittee also approved $20 million to maintain funding for the Securing the Cities program, funding which was facing elimination, that provides resources to protect the New York metropolitan area against the threat of a radiological or nuclear attack.

    Last fiscal year, anti-terror funding for each of these programs was cut by nearly $100 million from the previous year’s funding level of $400 million per program. In a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this month, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) and several of their colleagues requested funding be restored to fiscal year 2009 levels of $400 million for transportation security funding and $400 million for port security funding.

    “After the Times Square bomb attempt, we must redouble our efforts to keep Americans safe. We must always remain vigilant in guarding against terrorist attacks and ensure that law enforcement at every level is armed with the resources they need to protect New York and our nation,” said Senator Gillibrand.  “Adequate homeland security funding to secure our transit systems and ports and prevent a radiological attack is essential to combat terror attacks.  I am pleased that the Homeland Security Subcommittee has recognized the urgency of funding these programs.”

    Anti-terror funding under the Public Transportation Security Assistance Act mainly goes toward the Transportation Security Grant Program, which would provide security for New York City’s two thousand bridges, five million subway riders, tunnels and other key infrastructure. The Port Security Grant program would help protect New York’s port infrastructure, cargo and passenger terminals, improve risk-management capabilities and increase training.

    Senator Gillibrand has also strongly advocated to preserve funding for the Securing the Cities program, which has been targeted for elimination. Gillibrand introduced legislation to maintain long-term funding and successfully pushed to avert the program’s elimination last year. Securing the Cities is the nation’s only program designed to address the threat of a dirty bomb attack – which combines radioactive materials with conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material over a large area – an act of terrorism considered among the most dangerous threats to global security.

    This federal funding is critical in keeping New York and the nation safe. In New York City, there have been at least nine planned terror attacks since the September 11th attacks, including the recent Times Square bomb plot scare.

    Senator Gillibrand and Senator Casey’s letter to Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HA) and Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS) was also signed by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Roland Burris (D-IL).

    Full text of the letter is below. 

    Dear Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran,

    We are writing to bring to your attention the urgent need to adequately fund our nation’s transit and port security grant programs. Over the past two Fiscal Years, funding for these programs has been significantly cut, which has in turn lowered the amount of funding available for grants to our respective states. Therefore, we request that you include $400 million for Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance, and $400 million for Port Security Grants in the FY2011 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

    These grants are critical to ensuring that law enforcement in states at high risk of being attacked have the resources that are needed to keep transportation infrastructure safe from the threat of a terrorist attack. We know that transportation systems are often an attractive target for potential terrorists because of the ability to inflict mass casualties and cause major infrastructure damage. We also know that several foiled terrorist plots against major American cities since September 11, 2001 have involved threats against surface transportation. In the last decade, terrorists have successfully attacked the London Underground and the commuter railways of Spain and Russia. We cannot allow that to happen in the United States.

    In FY2009, the baseline budgets for the Transit and Port Security grant programs were nearly equal to the funding received in FY2008 of $350 million. Understanding the importance of these programs, Congress sought to ensure that our rail and freight lines as well as our ports continued to upgrade security by adding an additional $150 million to each of these programs through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Nevertheless, last year, the Transit Security Grant Program’s funding decreased by 49.1 percent to $253.4 million and the Port Security Grant Program decreased 46.5 percent to $288 million.

    These grants are used for training personnel who protect subways, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure, for public awareness efforts to help citizens to be vigilant against the threats of terrorism, as well as for physically protecting the infrastructure and assets of public transit systems – all crucial components to hardening transit systems against terrorist threats.

    The recent attempted attacks on major U.S. cities only solidify the fact that terrorist attacks remain a real threat and this is simply not the time to be cutting funds that help the high-risk states and metropolitan areas protect against terrorism. We look forward to continuing to work with you to address the ongoing needs of homeland security officials in our states.

    Thank you for your leadership, and we urge your committee to restore this vital funding.

    federal antiterror comitie

    Related Videos

    Pakistan prime minister charged under anti-terror law


    Leave a Comment