SINGAPORE'S JI DETAINEES

Singapore today has declared that it will continue to hold 17 suspected Islamic militants in detention under the internal security act (ISA). The island will be releasing two, who are to be kept under heavy surveillance.

17 JI members to be detained 2 years more
The Singapore government on Wednesday extended for another two years the detention orders on 17 suspected Islamic militants accused of terrorist plots against foreign and Singapore targets.
A statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs said: 'It is assessed that these persons remain at risk of re-involvement in terrorism-related activities and their continued preventive detention is necessary.'
It noted that the suspects - said to be members of a local chapter of the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) or of the Philippines-based Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) - had had 'long and extensive exposure' to militant ideology, military or terrorist training and that several of them had even been directly involved in terrorism-related activities, including terrorist targeting.

Initially, Singapore detained 21 members of JI and MILF – which, incidently, has an acronym the precedes the film American Pie by several years.

Four detainees have now been released and placed under surveillance.

The arrests were made in August 2002 following a tip-off from US forces in Afghanistan, who had uncovered a JI surveillance video reviewing possible ways to bomb a civilian subway station.

The ISA allows for state to hold suspects in detention without trial for up to two years before any review. While it has been abused in the past - both here and in neighboring Malaysia - the JI arrests were an example of how the act can be used properly.

The ISA has been criticized in the past - often legitimately - as a tool the state can use to target non-violent political opposition. The JI arrests were the first time Singapore had used the act in around 14 years. And, while full judicial review was absent, there was a very public review of the evidence and charges against the men who were arrested.

After the arrests were announced in September 2002, the local papers and television stations carried details of the alleged plots for months. The authorities played up the threat the men presented rather than trying to hide the arrests, which effectively quashed any possible complaints of a unjust crackdown by the broader Muslim community here.

In that sense, Singapore's anti-terror arrests have been more effective than the arrests carried out under Malaysia's ISA and even the detention of the inmates at the beautiful Camp X-Ray in tropical Cuba.

The War on Terror cannot be fought entirely before the courts and some infringement of civil liberties may at times be necessary. However, whenever possible – and wherever it is not a security risk – details about ISA and Guantanamo-type detentions, should be made public. Releasing information about enemy detainees should simply be considered a part of the 'hearts and minds' campaign.

Malaysia has been accused of using its ISA to crackdown on domestic opposition - with several members of the Islamist PAS and other opposition parties arrested without any public display of evidence. This weakens Malaysia's ability to claim that any arrests have been legitimate. The US, meanwhile, has been far too reticent about releasing details on the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

I don't doubt that the majority of the Camp X-ray detainees are nasty bastards. Most were picked up during the Afghan campaign either during or immediately after combat operations. They weren't there as tourists.

Still, the US authorities should have given more information on the prisoners - if only to shield itself from accusations that it was conducting secretive Kafkaesque trials.

Australian opposition to the detention of David 'Taliban Dundee' Hicks would, for instance, have been far more muted had people known more details about the man at the time his detention was announced. As the Age noted recently:

We know that he is a violent, religious fundamentalist and anti-Semite who
studied in some of Pakistan's most notorious Islamist colleges. We know he
trained with al-Qa'ida. We know that as a member of the terror group
Lashkar-e-Taiba he spent time firing live rounds across the Pakistan border into
Indian Kashmir. And we know he took up arms for a Muslim militia against the
Serbs in the civil war in Kosovo. These are all facts undisputed by his family
and supporters, and all on the public record.

If trials are to be suspended for suspected terrorists, the process should be done in as public a way as possible. While some information could be withheld when national security reasons merit doing so, it is also a matter of national security that people maintain faith in the rule of law.

If a state denies the public the ability to judge whether a detention is justified, then the state in undermining its own authority. That is not a way to achieve victory.