Hvor går langt kan vi gå?

Jon Wessel-Aasadvokat/partner i Bing Hodneland

Paradigmeskifte;

fra reaksjonær strafferett og målrettet bruk av tvangsmidler, mot preaktiv strafferett ("precrime"-logikk) og vedtagelse av brede, vilkårlige inngrep i sivile og politiske rettigheter

tilsidesettelse av tradisjonelle skranker for inngrep i sivile og politiske rettigheter

utvisking av grensen mellom normaltilstand og unntakstilstand - samfunnsvern blir overordnet

Identifisert av en mengde akademikere, innenfor både jus og samfunnsvitenskap

Også i flere rapporter av FNs spesialrapportør på terrorbekjempelse og MR, EU-finansiert forskningsprosjekt INEX, samt bl a International Commission of Jurists, jf omfattende rapport "Assessing Damage, Urging Action"

Normale prinsipper for lovlige inngrep i f eks privatsfæren, kommunikasjonsfriheten m v ihht EMK:

Klare, forutberegnlige lovhjemler - konkret begrunnelse overfor den enkelte - målrettethet ved valg av midler - åpen etterforskning

IKKE vage lovhjemler - brede, vilkårlige inngrep - hemmelig etterforskning/etterretning

Det adferdsregulerende element

"grunn til å undersøke om noen forbereder (...) å forberede" en terrorhandling

Unntak fra disse prinsippene: Når det foreligger akutt unntakstilstand; krig eller annet som umiddelbart truer "the life of the nation"

Strenge vilkår - Europa befinner seg ikke i unntakstilstand, juridisk sett.

Trusler mot rikets sikkerhet kontra trusler om annen kriminalitet

“Of course the government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda (…) Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve.” (Lord Hoffman, i dom av House of Lords 2004)

Security professionals believe that their job has strong ethical and moral connotations, as they see it as a means to fight evil/disorder so as to achieve good/a fair order. Their self-reflection is therefore not the result of an objective analysis on the needs of society and the most effective long-term responses to address them, in light of consolidated ethical principles, but rather the consequence of irrational thinking. In light of this, security professionals admit that threats such as violent extremism or uncontrolled migration flows have been amplified by the media and manufactured for the sake of national political elites. However, they also tend to believe in the existence of such threats; they believe in the exceptionality of the policies they are mandated to implement and consider them as ethically acceptable. Here, security professionals act according to a ‘preventive logic’. In this framework, technology may then offer useful tools to settle moral and ethical dilemmas arising out from the adoption of precautionary tactics and methods against external threats. Extremists, terrorists and uncontrolled flows of migrants are considered as external threats to the internal social order, under a clear us vs. them rationale. (Rapporten "Value dilemmas of security professionalism" s 8, INEX project 2011)