Quora Answer: Is Not Giving Terrorists a Trial Justified?

 The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is it justified to not give terrorists a trial?”

Quoting the Singapore experience, yes, it is justified.  Firstly, trials are public spectacles.  In the course of the trial, it will likely devolve into a circus, and it becomes an inadvertent public relations event for the very terrorist groups we want to shut down.  In essence, we are running a recruitment event for these groups at the public expense, and making the terrorists political martyrs.

Secondly, when there is a public trial, there has to be a public establishment of the charge, whether it be aiding and abetting a terrorist group, sedition, waging war against the state, or lesser charges.  The defence will have the opportunity cross examine members of the prosecution, the investigating team, and intelligence assets.  This undermines the state intelligence apparatus, and compromises our ability to infiltrate and dismantle these groups.

There are two ways of dealing with terrorists.  The first is the utilisation of the Internal Security Act, which provisions for detention without trial for a period of not more than two years, with the option of renewing that detention period continuously.  This is useful for detainees who have the potential of being rehabilitated, and are sources of intelligence.

Although it is called detention without trial, this is a misnomer.  The security services must first establish a case.  It must be approved by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and signed off by the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Chief Justice.  This means that the people involved are satisfied that were the case to go to an open trial, they would have a conviction.  The detainee does have the option of appointing legal counsel to challenge the detention, but it will not be a public trial.  This is very unlikely to happen since those detained are caught with irrefutable proof, and they know they are guilty.

Secondly, in the case of militants, they are seldom detained.  It is far more efficient and pragmatic to simply have them taken out in the field by specialist groups.  For example, in the case of the hijack of SQ117, in 1991, it would have been extremely inconvenient if they were taken alive.  Being non-citizens of Singapore, there would have been political pressure from Pakistan to make some sort of a deal to accommodate domestic politics.

Having them in detention would also have put Singapore citizens and assets at risk in Pakistan and elsewhere.  It would have been an incentive, for example, to kidnap or target Singapore diplomatic staff to force a prisoner exchange.  The state must not be seen to be embarrassed.  Dead, they are no longer a bargaining chip, and that was conveniently what we had when the aircraft was stormed.

When it comes to how we deal with terrorism, we should not be naïve, and be beguiled by talk of human rights and decency.  We are not dealing with decent people, and we are not obliged to show any form of mercy.  That is a weakness, and only invites more attacks.  It is better to be feared for being ruthlessly efficient in addressing the issue, than lauded for our defence of human rights.  The human rights of our citizens, their right to security, to safety and to confidence that the state guards their interests supersedes the human rights of terrorists.