Eps 9: The Use of Extrajudicial Actions Against Extremist Groups
— The List
| Host image: | StyleGAN neural net |
|---|---|
| Content creation: | GPT-3.5, |
Host
Troy Kennedy
Podcast Content
-
In the face of terrorist threats, some countries have turned to extrajudicial measures such as targeted killings to combat them. These actions, however, have been criticized for stifling rights and targeting minority groups. Human Rights Watch has condemned governments for using extrajudicial measures and called on them to improve protection of human rights and freedoms. This includes the right to association, peaceful assembly and free expression. Extrajudicial actions should only be used when there is a present concrete imminent threat that cannot be addressed by other means. This does not mean there is a contradiction or tension between security and human rights; governments must still disclose criteria used in making decisions about when such actions can be taken.
Extrajudicial actions against extremist groups are only allowed in very narrow circumstances and must be necessary to prevent imminent threats. Such actions must be the last resort, and whenever possible, non-lethal means should be employed. The use of lethal force is only permissible when a terrorist group is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens or committing acts of terrorism, and the target poses an imminent threat that cannot be otherwise addressed through diplomatic or other legal means. The use of extrajudicial action against extremist groups outside of armed conflict zones is highly controversial and violates international law, which stipulates that civilians should not be targeted in conflict situations unless they pose an immediate threat to the safety of people on the battlefield.
Boko Haram, a militant Islamist group based in Nigeria, has been one of the most active extremist groups in recent years. It launched an insurgency in 2009 with the aim of overthrowing Nigeria's secular government and establishing an Islamic state. The group has perpetrated a variety of terrorist attacks, including bombings of marketplaces, kidnappings, and displacing civilians from their homes. In addition to its military campaign against Nigerian targets, Boko Haram has also attempted assassination of prominent individuals such as officials and political actors. In 2015 Bangladesh police arrested several members of the group who were allegedly preparing to launch terrorist attacks targeting civilians and gatherings of prominent individuals.
The arrest of the members led to the eventual death of the Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, and reduced their ability to launch terrorist attacks. However, despite this success, Boko Haram continues to remain a threat due to its attacks against armed bandit groups and identity based violence. This has left increased attacks on my constituents and civilians in general. In order to combat the group’s activities, the Philippine Armed Forces set up a task force in 2017 that was composed of regional and multinational joint forces. This task force has been able to contain many acts of mass atrocity crimes associated with Boko Haram as well as reduce their ability to launch terrorist attacks on population centers.
In the Philippines, suspected vigilante groups often carry out extrajudicial killings, raids and kidnappings in the name of fighting terrorism. Security forces are also suspected of carrying out such actions and Amnesty International reported hundreds of killings since 2006. The United States condemned these acts as other forms of human rights violations. Despite this, the Philippine security services have continued to carry out raids and kidnappings in the past several years, as well as extortion and other activities associated with terrorism. While such actions have had some success in combating extremism, they also raise serious concerns about their human rights implications.
Extrajudicial killings are often carried out by security forces against suspected terrorist members, including in the fight against Boko Haram in Nigeria. During the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, special action forces were created to carry out extrajudicial executions and other counterterrorism operations. These operations have been highly controversial as they have often violated human rights and those of the security forces involved. In Venezuela, the Bolivarian National Peoples Army has engaged in extrajudicial killings with less frequency than other national police forces, although some members of the force have still been accused of engaging in such actions.
In the Philippines, extrajudicial actions against extremist groups have included human rights training, detentions, torture, and force arbitrary detentions. Forces loyalist paramilitary groups have also been accused of engaging in extrajudicial detentions and other ill treatment of human rights defenders. Additionally, reports have been made of extrajudicial killings by Philippine security forces, including further reports by special rapporteurs. In Northern Ireland, the human rights situation has been described as “dire” due to extrajudicial executions and other abuses carried out by security forces loyal to the United Kingdom Government. In response to these occurrences, the UK government has established a law enforcement enforcement academy for police officers that includes human rights training as part of its curriculum. Additionally, international law requires all countries to ensure that their law enforcement personnel comply with international standards for the use of force when apprehending suspects or dealing with other situations involving potential criminal activity.
Extrajudicial killings raise a number of questions and concerns. In particular, investigating the murder of people who are suspected of being terrorists or extremists by law enforcement personnel may raise serious issues as to whether the state is in compliance with international standards for the use of force. Egypt has been one of the countries that has employed extrajudicial action against extremist groups in its fight against terrorism. It has used apparent extrajudicial killings as one tool in its efforts to mitigate extremist violence, and it is estimated that hundreds of suspected terrorists have been killed in this way. This practice raises grave concerns about human rights violations, and a number of international organizations have raised these concerns with Egypt’s government. In addition to extrajudicial killings, Egypt has also received annual security assistance from the United States under the terms of the Patriot Act, which grants new authorities to U.S. law enforcement personnel when dealing with terrorist threats or other criminal activity such as drug dealing or money laundering.
This has enabled the Egyptian government to respond to recent terrorist activity by Hizbul Mujahideen and other extremist groups. Similarly, Nigeria has received security assistance from the United States in recent years in response to threats posed by ISIS and other extremist groups operating within its borders. The use of extrajudicial actions against extremist groups has been met with criticism from human rights organizations, who point out that such actions are a violation of international human rights law. This was demonstrated in August 2020 when Indian security forces killed three Indian troops belonging to the militant group Asaib Ahl al-Haq, claiming that they were responsible for an attack on a convoy. The incident sparked outrage among human rights activists, who argued that such extrajudicial killings threaten national security and undermine reform efforts within the security sector.