Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for counterterrorism

counterterrorism

Strife Series: Legal Violence and Legitimacy Building in the United States – The Torture Memos & the Legacy of U.S. Empire, Part II

by

Then-US army Reservist Lynndie England forcing an inmate to crawl and bark like a dog on a leash, from the Abu Ghraib Prison abuse scandal, Iraq. Photo Credit: US Government, Public Domain.

The last instalment in this series laid out the basic facts of the Bush Administration’s plan to justify the use of torture through narrow interpretations of the terminology used to describe the practices labelled as “enhanced interrogation.” This article will be centred on the practices that skirted the legal category of torture under Bybee’s framework.

Torture’s Implementation and Impact

Contrary to Bybee’s claim about the effects of waterboarding, Zubaydah did have immediate and longstanding psychological impacts. New York Times article by Carol Rosenberg discussing some of the negative impacts of the Program, Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times over 4 years. In a declassified Senate Intelligence Committee report from 2014, the CIA’s program was described as “brutal and far worse than the C.I.A. represented.” In Zubaydah’s own words he stated, “They kept pouring water and concentrating on my nose and my mouth until I really felt I was drowning, and my chest was just about to explode from the lack of oxygen.” Zubaydah further describes the immense pain he experienced in other torture methods. During the practice of “walling,” he states how he was blindfolded and had his head forcefully struck into a wall behind him. Rosenberg’s article details how with each strike, he was blinded for a few moments, would collapse, and “be dragged by the plastic-tape-wrapped towel ‘which caused bleeding in my neck.’” Zubaydah also states how he was denied sleep by being bound in uncomfortable positions and doused with water for “maybe two or three weeks or even more,” experienced convulsions and vomiting during waterboarding, and even lost consciousness.[i]

Contrary to the Bush Administration’s official position, prolonged physical and mental suffering were direct impacts of America’s use of torture. As detailed in How America Tortures, Mark P. Denbeaux writes that the CIA “The CIA admitted that sleep deprivation can induce hallucinations; however they falsely claimed, ‘those who experience such psychotic symptoms have almost always had such episodes prior…[ii]’” Denbeaux also references the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence findings that “…five detainees experienced ‘disturbing’ hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation (e.g., one detainee was ‘visibly shaken’ by his hallucination of dogs mauling and killing his sons and family). In at least two of those cases, the CIA continued the sleep deprivation.” Denbeaux also cites well-established psychological research that maintains sleep deprivation has negative impacts on mental stability within twenty-four hours. Even in this short time, individuals can develop permanent visual distortions, anxiety, and instability. Within thirty to forty-eight hours, illusions and simple visual hallucinations begin. Complex visual hallucinations occur within fifty-three hours, auditory within sixty, and develop within seventy-two.[iii] Denbeaux also writes how PTSD and other mental disorders are strong possibilities in those subjected to psychological torture. He states “Researchers conducted a survey on the use of physical torture as opposed to psychological torture, and the ‘researchers collected medical assessments of whether the torture survivors showed signs of PTSD…’They found no difference in the prevalence of this disorder between the two groups.[iv]” Following his torture, Zubaydah developed numerous mental and physical ailments as detailed in an LA Times article which states “…he suffers blinding headaches and has permanent brain damage. He has an excruciating sensitivity to sounds, hearing what others do not. The slightest noise drives him nearly insane. In the last two years alone, he has experienced about two hundred seizures… Already, he cannot picture his mother’s face or recall his father’s name. Gradually, his past, like his future, eludes him.[v]”

Sources of Justification for Torture

After the memos were released, they quickly became the subject of public scrutiny and critique. Jack Goldsmith, who took over the OLC in 2003 stated the legal analysis they put forth was “deeply flawed” and “sloppily reasoned.[vi]” Instead of serving any tangible aim, the US use of torture exemplified a blatant disregard for the US Constitution as well as human rights. According to Torture and the Biopolitics of Race by Dorothy E. Roberts, these practices, whether occurring under the Bush administration or elsewhere in US History serve to uphold US hegemony and are an embodiment of white supremacist ideals. According to Roberts, the use of torture can be seen throughout the history of the US, especially in the colonial context. During the US colonial administration in the Philippines, torture was frequently used with overtly racist motivations. During the coverage of an insurrection, American correspondence stated Filipinos were “little better than a dog,” and that US troops were “not dealing with civilized people.” William Howard Taft, who was Governor-General at the time stated that the conflict was a war “between superior and inferior races.[vii]” During the Vietnam war, similar sentiments are echoed, as the US continued previous practices from the French colonial administration.[viii] On the use of torture during the War on Terror, Roberts writes that those attempting to justify the US’ actions “…focused largely on the precise definition of torture, or, more precisely, narrowing the definition enough to exempt U.S. officials from criminal liability under international and domestic laws.[ix]” Referring to the celebratory nature of lynching in the US, Roberts states “Whites purchased photographs of the mutilated bodies as mementos of the event and mailed gruesome picture postcards to their friends and relatives.[x]” She continues “…scholars have noted parallels between the contemporary mass circulation of photographs showing scenes of sexualized torture… Some poses in the Abu Ghraib photographs strikingly (and perhaps deliberately) mirror lynching iconography-the hooded detainee with a noose around his neck; the naked detainees posed in sexually humiliating positions, lacerated, shackled, and held by a dog leash; the U.S. soldiers grinning triumphantly in front of their degraded victims.[xi]” Islamophobia has been a foundational effort of the War on Terror since its earliest stages. According to Khaled A. Beydoun in Exporting Islamophobia in The Global “War on Terror,” this racism is best exemplified by President George W. Bush’s words “This is not . . . just America’s fight. And what is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance, and freedom . . .. The civilized world is rallying to America’s side.” Bush’s words are a clear us vs them mentality with the “them” being a faceless and ambiguous yet inherently Muslim enemy.[xii] Since any Muslim has been presumed as a lesser enemy, the inhumane treatment is automatically justified.

Conclusion

Despite having declassified much of the information surrounding the use of torture in the War on Terror during the Obama administration, historical acknowledgement of the practice remains sparse. Additionally, torture has not been completely expunged from the possibility by the United States. In 2016, during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump stated the US should “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” adding “I like it a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.” Likewise, racialized comments remain within US political vernacular. As to why the US should continue to practice torture, President Trump stated, “We have to fight so viciously and violently because we’re dealing with violent people, vicious people.[xiii]” With the sentiment of “us vs them” remaining dominant in the US counterterrorist strategy (and to some extent policing domestically), the likelihood that torture will once again be implemented has not completely diminished.

[i] Carol Rosenberg, “What the C.I.A.’S Torture Program Looked like to the Tortured,” The New York Times, December 4, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/cia-torture-drawings.html.

[ii] Mark Denbeaux et al., “How America Tortures,” papers.ssrn.com, December 2, 2019, 26, (Rochester, NY, November 27, 2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3494533.

[iii] Denbeaux, et al., 29

[iv] Denbeaux, et al., 37

[v] Joseph Margulies, “The Suffering of Abu Zubaydah,” Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2009, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-30-oe-margulies30-story.html

[vi] Michael Isikoff, “Torture Report Could Be Trouble for Bush Lawyers,” Newsweek, February 13, 2009, https://www.newsweek.com/torture-report-could-be-trouble-bush-lawyers-82707.

[vii] Dorothy E. Roberts, “Torture and the Biopolitics of Race,” University of Miami Law Review 62, no. 229, (2008): 241, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1574&context=faculty_scholarship.

[viii] Roberts, 241-242

[ix] Roberts, 237

[x] Roberts 234

[xi] Roberts, 234

[xii] Khaled A. Beydoun, “Exporting Islamophobia in the Global ‘War on Terror,’” New York University Law Review Online 95, no. 81 (2020): 82, https://www.nyulawreview.org/online-features/exporting-islamophobia-in-the-global-war-on-terror/.

[xiii] Rory Cox, “Historicizing Waterboarding as a Severe Torture Norm,” International Relations 32, no. 4 (September 20, 2018): 488–512, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818774396.

Strife Series: Legal Violence and Legitimacy Building in the United States – The Torture Memos & the Legacy of U.S. Empire, Part I

by

Photo from Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq, detailing detainee abuse. Photo Credit: US Government, Public Domain.

The Torture Memos are a collection of documents from the US Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel regarding the use of torture against alleged members of al-Qaeda. The basic motivation of these documents was to determine whether the United States’ practice of “enhanced interrogation techniques” constituted torture under US and international law. They unilaterally justified the US’ practices. After the memos were leaked in 2004, they were lambasted as a clear disconnect from the War on Terror’s emphasis on protecting human rights. The memos are an extension of the legal strategies used to legitimize violations of liberal principles in order to maintain U.S. hegemony and empire. In this article, I will discuss the basic provisions of the torture memos. The next installment in this series will focus on the implementation and impacts that the Bush Administration’s controversial legal strategies caused.

Narrow Interpretations, Broad Implications

The first memo, titled Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, was authored by Jay Bybee, then-Assistant Attorney General, on 1 August 2002. Addressed to Counsel to the President, Alberto R. Gonzales, this document breaks down Section 2340 and requests the Office of Legal Council’s opinion on what constitutes torture under this statute. Bybee’s arguments are vague, and many were later determined to be untrue. From the earliest sections of this memo, Bybee asserts that torture is a very narrow practice according to Section 2340. He states the statute “makes it a criminal offense for any person ‘outside of the United States to commit or attempt to commit torture,’” adding that the statute defines torture as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering… upon another person within his custody or physical control.”[i] Bybee hones in on the language of the statute, stating it “requires that severe pain and suffering must be inflicted with specific intent…” adding “the defendant had to act with the express ‘purpose to disobey the law’ in order for the mens rea element to be satisfied.”[ii] According to Bybee, infliction of pain without “specific intent” does not violate the statute. If a defendant commits an act that does inflict pain with the knowledge that pain is likely, but not certain, “general intent” is satisfied, disqualifying the perpetrator from torture.[iii] Bybee further dissects the language of the statute, arguing that it does not define “severe” in relation to physical pain and “prolonged” in relation to mental harm. Bybee’s interpretation is that torture, as defined by Section 2340, is “not the mere infliction of pain or suffering on another, but is a step well removed. The victim must experience pain…equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death organ, failure, or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body function will likely result. If that pain or suffering is psychological, that suffering must result from one of these acts outlined in the statute, in addition, these acts must cause long-term mental harm.”

In section II, Bybee argues that international law reinforces his interpretation of 2340. He references the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which states that torture is

 “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

In response, Bybee states, Accordingly, severe pain or suffering need not be inflicted for those specific purposes to constitute torture; instead, the perpetrator must simply have a purpose of the same kind… the pain and suffering must be severe to reach the threshold of torture.[iv]”

Bybee authored another memo titled Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative in which he addressed John A. Rizzo, General Counsel of the CIA, following a similar request to that of the Gonzales. This document covers the torture of Abu Zubaydah and goes into detail about the interrogation practices in question. At the time, Zubaydah was incarcerated in the US under the presumption that he had information on terror cells and plots in the US and Saudi Arabia. According to Rizzo and the CIA, the level of “chatter” surrounding the supposed cells warranted an “increased pressure phase” which was ultimately the interrogations involving torture. He states that the “interrogations” will last “no more than several days but could last up to thirty days” and will employ 10 techniques to “dislocate expectations regarding the treatment he believes he will receive and encourage him to disclose the crucial information” and employ ten different methods.[v] In describing these methods, all of which involve a degree of physical pain, discomfort, and/or mental strife, the illusion to specific intent is seen. In describing one of these methods, called “facial/insult slap” where an interrogator slaps a prisoner in the face in such a way to increase pain, he writes the intent is to “not inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead… to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.”

Waterboarding is one of the more infamous methods that the US employed during its duration of the use of torture. Bybee’s memo discusses the practice in detail, and establishes the Bush administration’s legal strategy around this unsavoury tactic as follows:

“…the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench… The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. Once the cloth is completely saturated and covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds… this causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic’ i.e., the perception of drowning.” He continues by stating “You have orally informed us this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning.” Bybee also acknowledges technique will be used on Zubaydah stating a medical professional would be in attendance to “prevent severe mental or physical harm to Zubaydah.[vi]”

Bybee goes on to claim that these methods, waterboarding included, did not result in “prolonged mental harm.” Because the tortured subject “may” be aware that they are not drowning despite the fact they feel like they are, the act cannot be considered torture because of the purported sanitizing quality of this possibility. Additionally, he focuses on the lack of physical pain involved in simulated drowning. He references his memo to Gonzales stating “’ pain and suffering’ as used I section 2340A is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts…the waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not in our view inflict ‘severe pain or suffering…[vii]’”

[i] Jay Bybee, “Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A,” August 1, 2002, 2–3, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.08.01.pdf.

[ii] Bybee, 3

[iii] Bybee, 3

[iv] Bybee, 14-15

[v] Jay Bybee, “Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency Re: Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative,” Justice.gov, August 1, 2001, 1 , https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2010/08/05/memo-bybee2002.pdf.

[vi] Bybee, 3-4

[vii] Bybee 11

US Foreign Policy: The impact of the War on Terror on the Uyghur people

by

By Carlotta Rinaudo

Flickr, 2009.

In June 2019 former President Donald Trump publicly signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, imposing sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the oppression of the Muslim minority in the Xinjiang region. Behind the closed doors of the G-20 summit in Osaka however, Trump seemed to have a different agenda. According to former national security adviser John Bolton, Trump told Chinese leader Xi Jinping that re-educating the Muslim minority “was exactly the right thing to do”. He then allegedly asked Xi Jinping to help him win the elections in 2020.
Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of inconsistent U.S. policy towards the Uyghur people and Central Asia.  

For centuries, the Xinjiang region was an arid and sparsely populated land, traversed by a network of lonely trade routes that transported Chinese silk to the Roman world. Its inhabitants, the Uyghurs, were oasis farmers and herders who spoke a Turkic language and practiced Sunni and Sufi Islam, sharing cultural and ethnic ties with the other Turkic tribes of Central Asia.

In 1759 the Xinjiang region was annexed by the Qing Dynasty, while the territories of the other Turkic tribes of Central Asia were slowly absorbed by the Russian Empire, thus becoming known as “Russian Turkestan”.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian Turkestan became what today is called Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and the southern part of Kazakhstan. As the Uyghurs watched their Turkic neighbours achieve self-determination, they too demanded independence. China’s reaction to this has grown increasingly assertive over recent years, sparking a heated debate between Washington and Beijing. 

On one side, the Chinese government insisted that Uyghur separatists are engaged in terrorist activities, responsible for various bombings and assassinations, and connected with Chechen rebels, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. In particular, Beijing focuses on a Uyghur separatist group known as the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). In the 1990s, representatives of ETIM travelled to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and eventually Afghanistan, where they met with Osama Bin Laden in order to gain support for their insurgency in Xinjiang. This framing allowed Beijing to legitimise a massive education program which it claims is necessary to fight terrorism and eradicate extremism in the region. 

But where Beijing says there are “vocational education and training centres”, and “de-radicalisation measures”, Washington instead sees “detention camps”, and “cultural genocide”. In particular, the Trump administration accused China of human rights abuses, torture, systematic rape, and forced sterilization against the Uyghur minority.

In this dire situation, however, what’s often overlooked is the United States’ own complicity in the origins of the very repression that it publicly condemns.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Beijing labelled Uyghur separatists as terrorist threats. In response, President George W. Bush said that China should not use the War on Terror as an “excuse to persecute minorities”. However, by 2002, Washington had changed its tune. Seeking China’s support in its invasion of Iraq, the US listed ETIM as a terrorist group, and assisted in having ETIM recognised as a terrorist threat by the Security Council. In addition, since 2002, the US has detained 22 Uyghurs in Guantanamo Bay. Blinded by its own interests in Iraq, Washington favoured the initial international legitimisation of repression against the Uyghur minority – the same repression it today condemns.


Washington’s inconsistent foreign policy extended well beyond the Xinjiang region. Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush built a strong relation with Islam Karimov, the first President of Uzbekistan, whose secret police regularly persecuted political opponents, torturing them in sound-proof cells with electric shocks, asphyxiation, and food deprivation. Nonetheless, Washington turned a blind eye to such oppressive violence.

Sitting on the Northern border of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan provided in fact an ideal location to establish a military base and a supply route that could support the American invasion of Afghanistan. Washington’s silence was a trade-off for Uzbekistan’s logistical support against Afghanistan. Once again blinded by its own interests, the US called its foreign policy a “policy of strategic patience”, perhaps an euphemism for what in reality was a policy of “strategic complicity”.

Today, Washington accuses Beijing of practices that are very similar to those committed by Karimov in Uzbekistan. The only difference being that China is a rival superpower, while Uzbekistan was an ally that served American interests in the War on Terror.

As a part of its policies in Xinjiang, Beijing has announced a poverty relief plan that aims to lift Uyghurs out of poverty by sending them to work in various factories all over China.
But again, what Beijing calls “promotion of poverty alleviation”,  Washington today calls “forced labour.”
Ironically, some factories where such “forced labour” occurs are part of the supply chains of American companies like Apple, Nike, and Coca-Cola. American firms are therefore, consciously or unconsciously, benefitting from the same labour that their government claims to be a form of slavery. 

In September 2020, the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act was approved by the House of Representatives, in an attempt to impose stricter controls on goods that could be produced by forced labour. In turn, Beijing claims that Washington is instrumentalising the narrative of “forced labour” to ban Chinese imports amidst a ferocious US-China trade competition. Meanwhile, companies like Nike, Apple, and Coca-Cola have already started to lobby the US Congress in order to weaken the bill. It could undermine their supply chain, they say.

This chaotic situation not only demonstrates that the US and China remain heavily interconnected in their supply network, but it also shed lights on the wide-reaching repercussions of the War on Terror. In 2002, when the US’ enemy number one was Al Qaeda, Washington was ready to label Uyghur separatist groups as terrorist groups, and to justify China’s actions against them. But in 2020, when the US’ primary perceived threat is China itself, Washington has removed that same separatist group from the list, accusing Beijing of human rights abuses.

As the Biden Administration aims to reengage in the defence of human rights, a more consistent policy in Central Asia should be established – one that learns from past mistakes. After all, a global policeman should not be driven by their own agenda, but by the values they claim to protect. 

Hizbul Mujahideen in Assam: A non-existential threat

by

By M.A. Athul, published 17 October 2018

Hizbul Mujahideen militants (Credit Image: Swarajya)

 

Assam, in Northeast India,  has been experienced a long spell of ethnic insurgency since 1979. Yet the state is witnessing a consolidation of peace and stability, (the insurgency related fatalities has fallen from 305 in 2014 to nine in 2018), with ethnic insurgent violence in its last leg. However, the recent arrest of Islamist militants from the state is an indicator that religious militant groups are also trying to find footing in the state, which borders Bangladesh.

three individuals, identified as Hizbul-Mujahideen (HM) militants on 14th and 15th September 2018. They were arrested from Hojai, Udali (Nagaon District) and Byrnihat along Assam-Meghalaya border respectively. Reports indicate that the HM operatives were attempting at supplying arms including the AK 47 assault rifles for its operatives in the state.

On 18 September 2018, three more people were arrested for links with the Kashmiri insurgent group, from Hojai District and on  on 23 September 2018, an HM linkman identified as Abhumanyu Chouhan was arrested from Mosoka .

The arrests came soon after a HM militant of Assam origin, identified as Qamar-uz-Zama was arrested by Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on 13 September 2018 from Kanpur. According to reports, he was planning to conduct attack during Ganesh Chaturthi, a Hindu religious festival. Initial reports of Qamar-uz-Zama joining HM had surfaced on 8 April 2018 after his picture holding an automatic rifle went viral on the social media declaring him having joined Hizbul Mujahideen with the codename “Dr Hurairah”. According to his family, he had gone to the United States of America in 2011, returning in 2014 and going to Bangladesh the same year.

 

Hizbul Mujahideen

HM, which became operational in 1989 in Jammu Kashmir with Pakistani patronage, is one of India’s oldest militant groups. The group was formed as a proxy for Pakistan and a counter weight for another militant group Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which was propagating ‘independence’ rather than accession to Pakistan. HM was established by Master Ahsan Dar as its chief. It was formed as a militant wing of Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir. Mohammed Yusuf Shah alias Syed Salahuddin has been heading the organisation since 1990. Although earlier the group has a cadre strength of about 1,500, current estimates point at 400 active militants.

Security forces in J&K have had a significant tactical success against the group in recent times. According to partial data compiled by SATP, From January 2017 to September 2018 at least 74 HM militants have been killed in J&K, with about 29 HM militants being killed in the first eight months of 2017.

 

Back ground of Islamist Groups Operating in Assam

Traditionally, Assam’s insurgency landscape has been dominated by ethnic insurgent groups such as United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA-Independent) and National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). However, groups such as Muslim United Liberation Army (MULTA) and Bangladesh based Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) have also been operating as Islamist groups in Assam in addition to Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULF), Islamic Liberation Army of Assam and People’s United Liberation Front (PULF). According to the Assam Police, the Islamic terrorist groups started appearing in Assam after the Nellie massacre in 1983.

During the Assam violence in July 2012, the Central Government identified at least 19 Muslim fundamentalist organisations to watch in connection with violence in Assam.

NO Name of Organisation
1 Muslim Security Council of Assam (MSCA)
2 United Liberation Militia of Assam (ULMA)
3 Islamic Liberation Army of Assam (ILAA)
4 Muslim Volunteer Force (MVF)
5 Muslim Liberation Army (MLA)
6 Muslim Security Force (MSF)
7 Islamic Sevak Sanng (ISS)
8 Islamic United Reformation Protest of India (IURPI)
9 Revolutionary Muslim Commandos (RMC)
10 Muslim Tiger Force (MTF)
11 Muslim Liberation Front (MLF)
12 Muslim Liberation Tigers of Assam (MLTA)
13 Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULFA)
14 Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULTA)
15 Islamic National Front (INF)
16 Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF)
17 United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA)
18 United Islamic Revolutionary Army (UIRA)
19 Peoples United Liberation Front (PULF)

 

Historically, the most active among these groups were the MULTA, and the People’s United Liberation Front (PULF)]. While the former confines its activities to Assam, the latter operates in Manipur as well.

Major global Islamist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and IS are also reportedly targeting the region. Notably, at the time of its formation in September 2014, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) had specifically mentioned Assam as its target, along with Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, IS in its ‘world dominion map’ has covered Assam among other parts of India. However, there is no visible signs of presence of these formations in the state.

 

Recent incidents

The presence of JMB in Assam was exposed after discovery of the Burdwan Module in West Bengal: an accidental blast at Burdwan on 2 October 2014, in which two JMB militants were killed and another was injured. NIA claimed that during the course of investigations, it had been found that operatives of JMB had established their networks in different Districts of Assam, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. According to the NIA Charge sheets, five accused in the case belonged to Assam. The NIA also , JMB operatives ‘were engaged in preparation of bombs, ammunition/arms, maintaining hideouts and organizing terrorist training camps in pursuance of a larger conspiracy to organise terrorist attacks in different parts of India and in Bangladesh’. One of the charge sheeted persons, Lal Mohammed aka Ibrahim, a JMB cadre arrested by Jharkhand Police on 18 April 2015 (the NIA officially arrested him on 27 April 2015), reportedly revealed to interrogators that JMB’s sabotage plans in Assam were to counter Bodo  . Reports indicated that MTFA was formed for the massacre of Muslims in the Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) in May 2014.

In a significant incident, six JMB militants were arrested in back-to-back operations in Goalpara and Chirang Districts of Assam on 25 September  2015. Earlier on 18 September 2015, a JMB training camp was uncovered at Daukhanagar in Chirang District.

 

Number of Islamist Militants arrested in India’s Northeast Region from 2015 to September 2018

 

Year Militant Groups
2015 JMB MTFA MULTA MLA PULF IM HM NS
  20 19 10 1 1 0 0 6
 
2016 24 6 1 0 0 1 0 0
 
2017 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 2
 
2018 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 2
Total 45 25 18 1 1 1 7 10

(Source : SATP)

 

State Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rockybul Hussain had informed the State Assembly on December 16, 2014, that between January 2001 to November 2014, 130 Islamist extremists, including 106 MULTA militants, 14 Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), and 10 JMB militants, were arrested in Assam. He also added that between 1995 to 2014, 626 militants of Harkat-ul-Jihad (HuJI), MULFA, PULF and Islamic Security Force of India (ISFI) were arrested.

Despite the long list of Islamist militant groups present in Assam the fact that there is indicative of the lack of operational capabilities of such groups and the success . Moreover, given that groups such as Bangladesh-based JMB is using the region more as a safe house to escape crack down by the Bangladeshi authorities than as an operational area, likelihood of Islamist groups pulling of a successful attack remains rather remote.  Moreover, with HM coming under pressure in its core area of operations in J&K its ability of expand its area of operation is rather limited. In this light, possibility of more militant groups finding a foot hold in the state is a remote possibility and the detection and arrest of HM cell is unlikely to be a harbinger of a new trend. That being said, arrest of more than 100 religious militants being arrested in the region since 2015 and the fact that Assam has the second largest internet traffic related to Islamic State (IS) (after Jammu Kashmir) is a possible indicator that a segment of population is susceptible to Islamist radical ideology. Although the threat of Islamist militancy has been kept under check by law enforcement agencies, a pro-active effort by authorities to identity and ween away the susceptible population from extremist ideologies is required.

 

Athul Menath is a security analyst at the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP). His focus is the Insurgency in Northeast India. You can follow him on LinkedIn 

Image Source: https://swarajyamag.com/politics/hizbuls-foray-into-north-east-at-pakistans-behest-triggers-alarm

 

Strife Series on Counterterrorism and Human Rights, Part V – A perpetual state of emergency: the case of France

by

By: Silvia Sclafani

© AFP / Lionel Bonaventure | Police patrol in Paris on November 14, 2015 at the Eiffel Tower, which has been closed to the public following a series of coordinated attacks in and around Paris late November 13, that left at least 128 people dead.

In times of crisis, governments often impose a state of emergency in which national security takes priority over individual rights originally safeguarded by the state. A state of emergency and the ensuing heightened security measures are intended to last for a short period, during which the government attempts to secure the state and restore order after facing imminent danger. In the case of France, a state of emergency is declared by the President with approval by the Council of Ministers in cases of ‘imminent danger arising from grave attacks on the public order, or circumstances demonstrating public calamity.’ [1] However, the renewal of the state of emergency in France has had a minimal effect on averting terrorist threats and has had disproportionately affected citizens of migrant backgrounds as the extended powers of search, seizure and detention have led to profiling and potential abuse.

Current State of Emergency in France

Since the terrorist attacks in Paris (in 2015) and in Nice (in 2016), France has been under a continued state of emergency with no clear end in sight. After the initial Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015, President François Hollande declared a state of emergency in Paris. This was then extended to a nationwide state of emergency in November 2015 after the second terror attack on various locations throughout Paris, which killed 130 people.[2] Since the Nice attacks in 2016, this nationwide-state of emergency has been maintained and recently extended by French lawmakers until after the 2017 elections.

The current state of emergency law allows the government greater policing powers and the ability to conduct searches without warrants, ‘shut down demonstrations, impose curfews, confiscate weapons, and put people under house arrest.’ Given the increasing frequency of terror attacks, France has tightened existing counter-terror measures to decrease the likelihood of yet another terrorist attack against the nation. The French government voted to write the state of emergency law into the constitution as of February of 2016 which expands policing powers even further. The ensuing proposal to ban individuals holding double citizenships of their French one – if convicted of terrorism-related offences – also sparked serious debate. Considering that most French citizens with dual citizenship come from migrant backgrounds, fears that this could lead to higher incidences of migrants being treated as ‘second-class citizens’ rose. President Hollande withdrew this proposal after it caused much backlash and controversy.

Implications for human rights

The state of emergency has proven to have negative effects on human rights. Most notably, these negative consequences affect French Muslim and North African populations, as they make up the majority of those who have been subjected to searches and placed under house arrest. This has led to increased profiling as well as tensions between ethnic French and Arab communities. According to Human Rights Watch, ‘This abuse has traumatized families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens.’ Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Interior Minister released a statement after the November 2015 attacks condemning the abuse of these expanded powers: some restaurants and homes near Paris were raided and had their doors broken by the police. In another report, the police broke into the home of a couple in the Barbés district in Paris and began beating two men. The police detained the couple and claimed they acted because they heard them use the term ‘Daesh.’ The use of violence and increased suspicion deny these people basic rights such as security and due process.

Effects on security remain questionable  

Despite the dramatic efforts of the French government to identify terror suspects through its emergency measures, only 7 percent of 4,000 searches under the emergency laws have led to court proceedings. Furthermore, post-November 2015 attacks, between 350 and 400 people were placed under house arrest; yet, the Paris counter-terrorism office only opened five terrorism-related investigations during the same period. In reality, French legislation offers favourable powers to its judiciary to proceed with prosecutions against terrorist suspects. The low percentage of court hearings resulting out of measures from the state of emergency laws poses serious questions about their effectiveness. A study conducted by a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry found the continued state of emergencies as having a ‘limited impact’ on security. In terms of the deployment of soldiers at heritage and religious sites, the committee has questioned their usefulness as well. Under operation ‘Sentinelle’, combat troops are deployed to patrol and protect heritage sites as well as religious sites, streets, and art galleries. With over 10,000 troops across France, 6,500 have been deployed in the Paris area alone. Their presence and effectiveness in combatting terrorism have come into question. For some, uniformed soldiers with guns normalise a militarised state. While their presence provides more comfort to the locals as well as tourists, it does not help counter-terrorism efforts, as groups like ISIS have proven to be more sporadic rather than symbolic in their targets.

The populations most affected by these extended policing powers reside in France’s suburbs or banlieues. The term ‘banlieue’ has become a pejorative term referring to poorer suburbs that are located on the outskirts of French cities contain majority migrant as well as Arab populations. These populations find themselves increasingly isolated and stigmatised by society. As these heightened policing measures are increasingly used in the banlieues of France, there is a deterioration of trust between the French-Arab communities and law enforcement. Without a positive relationship between these communities and the government, it makes it more difficult to gather intelligence concerning radicalisation. Therefore, the continued usage of the state of emergency is not effective if the government fails to develop adequate community-based preventive measures. The persistence of the state of emergency is normalising extreme security measures in the name of national security while stripping some citizens of their basic constitutional rights. In their counter-terrorism efforts, lawmakers place too much focus on stricter security without regard for ameliorating social divisions and problems. Instead, the government should focus on the de-stigmatisation of the banlieues, ensure outreach to local Mosques, and increase prison imams. The state of emergency and its policies are exacerbating societal divisions and must change in 2017.

Silvia Sclafani (@ssclafani24) is completing a master’s degree in International Conflict Studies at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. She has a bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University and can be reached at ssclafani24@gmail.com.

Notes:

[1] Daniel Severson. ‘State of Emergency: How the Paris Attacks Expanded France’s Police Powers,’ Lawfare. November 15, 2015.

[2] Ibid.

Image Source: http://www.france24.com/en/20151115-what-does-france-state-emergency-mean