President Barack Obama joined by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, and King Abdullah II of Jordan, right at the UN headquarters, Sept. 20, 2016. Carolyn Kaster/Press Association Images. All rights reserved.Ten years
ago, on November 1st, 2006, Jordan enacted the “Prevention of
Terrorism Act” in
response to the 2005 hotel bombings in Amman that left sixty
people dead.

In 2014, faced with threats of spillover from the
Syrian war, the law was amended and broadened to include nonviolent acts, in an
attempt to legitimise the government’s crackdown on peaceful expression and
assembly.

Journalists, political opponents, freedom of expression advocates and
human rights defenders have since been put on trial under the pretext of
“terrorism”.

The law’s vague definition of
terrorism opened
the door to abuses. Individuals have been prosecuted for “disturbing public
order”, an accusation usually made against peaceful demonstrators and
political opponents. Others have been accused of “disturbing relations with a foreign
country”, which leaves
a window for interpretation and allows for any criticism of another
country to be silenced.

This was the case of Professor Amjad Qourshah who was detained for three months
in 2016 pending investigations by the general intelligence authority, due to a video in
which he criticised the participation of Jordan in
the international coalition against the Islamic State as being part of the US agenda, which, in his opinion, was forcing Arab States to fight a
war that is not theirs.

In July 2015, a human
rights activist for the Palestinian cause, was sentenced to ten years in
prison on the basis of confessions extracted under torture because he published
articles critical of Israeli policies.

Last
but not least, the law also curtails press freedom. Journalists or media
outlets can be prosecuted for “promoting
[terrorist] ideas” if they publish information related to terrorist attacks. In July 2015, a journalist working for al-Rai newspaper was investigated for having violated a media gag order by publishing details about
a foiled terrorism plot.

Most
of these “crimes” already existed in the Jordanian Penal Code, only now they
entail harsher sentences with a minimum of five years imprisonment.

One wonders
if other repressive provisions, such as article 149 of the Penal Code – which
criminalises “the contestation of the political system”
and has allowed for the prosecution of political
opponents and a professor
because of a Facebook post – will soon become a terrorist offence too.

The anti-terrorism law allows the repression apparatus, composed
of the country’s intelligence agency and the State
Security Court (SSC), to suppress any dissenting voice by means of systematic
judicial harassment and torture.

Vested with the investigation of “terrorist crimes”, the General
Intelligence Directorate (GID) – whose director is appointed by the
King – operates without any oversight: its headquarters are used like a secret
detention centre where torture – including beatings, stress positions, sleep
deprivation and prolonged solitary confinement – are commonly used against
detainees who are completely cut off from the outside world. Forced confessions
are then used by the SSC prosecutor,
a military officer who sits at the GID premises, to charge the suspect.

The SSC,
under the cover of legality, is a tool of repression at the hands of the
executive: it is composed
of two military and one civilian judges directly appointed by the prime minister. The PM can also refer cases, and the SSC decisions – mostly based on
confessions extracted under torture – cannot be appealed. 

Using
the pretext of “terrorism” to legitimise the crackdown on freedom of expression
is a dangerous path.

Today, Jordan is a strong ally
of several western countries; it is perceived by many as the 'good student' of
the Arab region, so much that the authorities’ clampdown on freedom of expression
goes unnoticed.

In January 2015, less than five days after King Abdullah’s participation in the Paris rally
for freedom of speech, little was said when two activists were arrested
for their involvement in peaceful demonstrations against Charlie Hebdo’s
cartoons. Recently, King Abdullah affirmed that the rule of law had to be upheld by each
state institution “as
a constant approach and key pillar in its work.”

It is now time that these fine
words be translated into action and that the authorities stop labelling all those who dare speak their minds as
“terrorists”.