Opinion
Sri Lanka failed to study outdated, autocratic US Insurrection Act when reforming PTA
By Daya Gamage
Former Foreign Service National Political Specialist
US Department of State
Minister of Justice Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe at a meeting with the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Julie J. Chung, at his Ministry, on January 08, informed the latter that the Anti-Terrorism Bill had been submitted with necessary amendments. The Ambassador was informed that steps had been taken to discuss it with the representatives of political parties and civil organisations, and during the preparation of the Bill, the anti-terrorism laws of other countries were studied.
Long before Chung assumed duties as the US Ambassador in Colombo, the US Department of State had been advocating changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) under pressure from certain influential organisations aligned with the LTTE. This writer was well aware of those deliberations at the US Embassy, Colombo, and the South Asia Division of the US State Department in Washington in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
The Bill with amendments was tabled in Parliament on January 11. Minister Rajapakshe informed the House that the provisions contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill were less severe and harsh than those in the counter terrorism law in Great Britain.
If the Justice Minister and his officials had studied the US Insurrection Act, while going through such laws in other countries, Sri Lanka would have brought to the attention of State Department officials and the US Ambassador in Colombo the obnoxious features of their insurrection (terrorism) law, and pointed out the need to reform them as a safeguard against abuses by the US President, who is the sole ‘executor’ under the Act.
Minister Rajapakshe may not have taken up the US Insurrection Act’s autocratic features during his meeting with Ambassador Chung for two reasons: (a) the Minister and his staff had scrutinised the US Insurrection Act and found the autocratic powers it has given to the President of the United States with no provision for scrutiny by either the Congress or the judiciary but did not want to discuss them because they did not want to antagonise the US (b) they were not aware that an anti-terrorism legislation existed in the United States.
The purpose of this write-up is to inform the Sri Lanka legislators, who are now scrutinising the amended or revised Anti-Terrorism Bill, that there exists another terrorism law in the United States, and while Washington, and its Ambassador in Colombo advocate the reformation of the PTA ignore the obnoxious features of the US Insurrection Act, which has been used by Presidents to curb civil upheavals, riots and even human rights agitations on the US soil.
Legislators need to question the Minister of Justice if he and his staff scrutinised the US Insurrection Act, and if not, why.
The PTA has been amended several times by successive regimes, and this writer is aware of pressure Washington exerted on Colombo to do so since it was enacted by the Jayewardene government in 1979.
The US Insurrection Act was last amended in the1870s.
The US Insurrection Act authorises the President to deploy the US armed forces to suppress insurrections, quell civil unrest or domestic violence. According to critics of the provisions of the Act the criteria for deployment are set out in vague and archaic terms that provide few meaningful constraints.
It has been left entirely to the President to decide whether these criteria have been met; neither the Congress nor the judiciary is given any role in the process. Past practices have shown that the Insurrection Act provides no limits on what actions military forces may take once deployed.
When the President activates the Insurrection Act, the1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which is the most important restriction on the domestic activities of the United States military; its coverage is limited in practice is disabled. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the participation in civilian law enforcement activities by members of the federal armed forces or federalised National Guard.
Under Section 252 of the Insurrection Act, “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the President may federalise any state’s militia and deploy it, and/or federal armed forces, to suppress the rebellion or enforce the law. This Section authorises the President to deploy the military and does not require a request by the state—or even the state’s consent.
Legal observers have noted that it is unclear in Section 252 what is meant by the term “unlawful combination.” It is similarly unclear what is exactly meant by the term “conspiracy,” and what would constitute “opposition” to “the execution of the laws” or “impending the course of justice under those laws.” If, however, the term “conspiracy” is accorded its modern legal definition, an attempt to prevent the law from being enforced—even an unsuccessful one—would qualify as “opposing the execution of the laws,” this provision would, in theory, allow the President, according to legal interpretation, to deploy the 82nd Airborne against two individuals plotting to intimidate a witness in a federal trial.
Although this type of abuse seems unlikely, it is opined that the same cannot be said for other ways in which these terms could be stretched. For instance, a President seeking to suppress dissent might consider an unpermitted protest against the implementation of a controversial executive order to be an “unlawful combination” that “opposes the execution of the laws of the United States.”
The widespread legal consensus in the United States is that the Insurrection Act represents an extraordinary delegation of authority, granting the President one of the powers that the founders of the US Republic feared most: the ability to turn a standing army against the American people. They insist that it is critical to ensure that any such authority is defined clearly, extends no further than necessary, and includes safeguards against abuse—including mechanisms by which the other branches of government may serve as checks. The US Insurrection Act conforms to none of these principles.
The US Insurrection Act fails to explain (1) what means of civilian law enforcement are included in or excluded from “the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” (2) what constitutes an “obstruction,” “combination,” or “assemblage”—terms that are not defined in the statute, (3) what factors would render one of these occurrences “unlawful,” or (4) what level of interference or disruption would rise to the level of making it “impracticable” to enforce the laws.
Minister Rajapakshe should have brought to the attention of Ambassador Julie Chung Section 253 of the Insurrection Act, which allows the US President to use “the militia or the armed forces, or both,” or “any other means,” to take “such measures as he considers necessary” to suppress within a state, “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy”.
It, according a legal luminary, “so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection”; or it “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” As with Section 252, the President may invoke Section 253 without the consent of the affected state.
The above obnoxious clauses of the US Insurrection Act need to be discussed along with the PTA by Sri Lankan lawmakers to have a comprehensive understanding of how and why the ‘foreign advocates’ turn a blind eye to such provisions.
Section 253 of the Insurrection Act has nothing to suggest that the President must justify his determination, or be able to justify it, before any other body. For all practical purposes, courts have been left out of the process. The Congress similarly has no role in the current statute.
Section 253 goes further still. It allows the President to use military forces or “any other means” to “take such measures as he considers necessary” to enforce the law. The law quite literally places no limits on what actions the president can take under this provision.
Section 253 authorises the deployment of the military to suppress domestic violence, with or without states’ consent, if it interferes with the execution of federal law or any right or protection guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if domestic violence does not interfere with federal law or constitutional rights, it may rise to a level that requires military intervention.
The Insurrection Act contains numerous flaws. Its language is vague and archaic, creating confusion about what the law provides for. It gives the President sole discretion to interpret those terms and deploy the US armed forces as a domestic police force. It envisions no oversight role for the Congress or the courts and runs counter to the American tradition against military interference in the affairs of civilian government.
Taking up the US Insurrection Act during a discussion on the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not amount to antagonising the US.
(The writer was one of the associates during the 1980s and 1990s when the revision of the PTA was discussed many a time as an employee of the US Department of State)
Three matters concerning universities. The eminent botanist Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda asked (17/12) why there were Bachelor of Arts degrees and no Spinsters …. degrees. When universities were first founded in medieval times, the intelligentsia was almost entirely churchmen: priests, friars and monks. There were no women in the clergy. Churchmen held power in studium generale which about the 15th century came to be called universities.
Universities governed themselves, a common feature of many organisations in medieval Europe, where authority was fragmented. (The seeds of present claims for autonomy in universities, bolstered by new and other powerful factors, lay there.) Although graduates from the Arts Faculty comprised the overwhelming majority in universities, and the arts faculty was fons et origo ceteris (source and origin of all others), graduates of the Faculty of Theology controlled universities. For centuries to come this practice continued. The church and, more recently, laymen who governed universities, did not permit the admission of women to universities. In Dr. Pethiyagoda’s university in the UK, women were formally admitted to degrees only in 1948! In Oxford, women had been admitted in 1920-21. That explains why there are no “Spinster graduates”, even though, in some universities, women comprise the majority that graduates. However, change has been rapid since then. The present vice-chancellor of Cambridge University is a woman. The Master of Trinity Hall, one of the smaller but older colleges in that university, is a woman who was an academic in the US, previously.
Then it was asked whether LSE could offer a degree (in The Island, on the same day). LSE cannot, because it is not a university but only a School at the University of London, like the Imperial College of Science and Technology, King’s College or SOAS. Similarly, one cannot get a degree from the Harvard Business School. The model of the University of London was copied in India, when the British established universities there in 1857, the year of the mutiny. (Ramachandran Guha once remarked that two mutinies began in 1857; the other being the establishment of universities whose alumni were a force in pushing the British out of India.) As a result, Delhi University or Calcutta University has large numbers of colleges, where standards of teaching vary widely. The University of Bangalore is reputed to have hundreds of affiliated colleges.
Professor Jan-Melissa Schramm became Vice- Master of trinity hall on 1 april 2023 after filling the role of acting Vice-Master during Lent term 2023. She is Professor of Literature and Law in the english Faculty, Director of Studies in english at trinity hall, and was Deputy Director at CRaSSh between 2017 and 2020. (From Trinity Hall official website)
P. A. Samaraweera, philosophiae doctor, (20/12/24) insists on calling a university degree a title: ‘…(PD) is incorrect in his analysis of a Ph.D. as a title’. Well, of course, Alice (in Wonderland) retorted, ‘I mean what I say’ and Dr. Samaraweeera may assert that same privilege. But korala, muhandiram, maha mudali, professor, archdeacon and judge are titles, not university degrees. B.A., D.Phil., and D.Litt. are degrees and not titles. His appellation ‘Dr.’ is not a title, whereas he may hold the title ’professor’. I went back to history to explain what it is, not what the future should be. He might find it difficult to explain why he, a chemist (say) holds a degree ‘doctor of philosophy’, having never, even in school, studied philosophy. The explanation is in the history of universities. Well into the 21st century, President Emmanuel Macron, a few months ago, opened the University of Paris-Saclay and it will have deans, provosts, and other office holders whose titles derive from the University of Paris which started about 1210 CE. Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of Oxford, in the 14th century, had he miraculously been transported to the occasion, may have found the entire setup familiar as he was ‘a French poet, an agriculturist, a lawyer, a physician, and a preacher; ….’ ( Rashdall, Vol.III p.241). He may even have understood the proceedings. Modern universities follow procedures adopted in old Europe: wear your cappa (degree gown and cap) and compare those vestments with what a Catholic priest, a bishop or the pope wears. Need I say more?
Philosophiae Doctor
“The goal of education is not to increase the amount of knowledge but to create the possibilities for a child to invent and discover”
– Jean Piaget
“[They] are confined for four or five years in small cages, being kept in the dark and not allowed to set foot on the ground”. One might wonder whether the foregoing sentence is one which is meant to serve as a metaphorical description of the joyless life of most of our primary-level students, who are regimented for two to three years to face the Year 5 Scholarship exam. Well, no.
It doesn’t have the remotest connection to modern-day exams or an education system unwittingly designed to drain childhood of its inherent pleasures. It refers to a custom, a ‘persecution’ ingrained in primeval cultures, the remnants of which may still be found in many societies including ours. The quote is from a well-known book on anthropology, “The Golden Bough: A study in magic and religion” written by Sir James Frazer. The sentence describes a widespread taboo in primitive societies, which resulted in the “seclusion of girls at puberty”. However, it is a pity that today, one is likely to see in it, at least a faint reference to the otherwise happiest period of our youngest citizens, who are pressured to prepare for an exam, which is superimposed, for reasons unrelated to the goals of education, per se. Rather, it is designed to make tens of thousands of underprivileged children work harder than they reasonably can, because the successive governments have not been able to provide the required infrastructure facilities to their schools to enable them to continue studies till they enter the tertiary level. In other words, the well-known exam is an instance of making our children sacrifice their childhood till the rulers, if they ever will, set right the larger economic wrongs.
Whereas, in ancient times, young girls were made to carry the burden of superstition and patriarchy, today young children of all sexes are forced to pay the price for political and economic bungling. Ultimately, a problem resulting from lack of opportunities for many, is upgraded and embellished as ‘providing opportunities’ for the few ‘smart’. And, its grand title is Year 5 Scholarship Exam. What we conveniently forget is that this ‘exam’ is a wrong medicine produced to compensate for political quackery, which justifies the continuation of substandard education for the ‘condemned’ majority. It seems that the onward march of human progress, while doing away with cultural wrongs, is shy of getting rid of economic wrongs. A local saying seems apt here – one may say that the Year 5 scholarship exam has been serving as a metaphor for an annually produced loincloth expected to cure politically induced child-diarrhea.
The reported leaking of three questions from the Grade 5 scholarship exam held this year and the reports of such incidents in the past show its undesirable influence on the children, parents and other vested interests. At least, it has raised an unhealthy spirit of competition considerably removing the sense of joy which should be an essential part of these children’s learning experience. This is particularly relevant because the exam has drawn both students and their parents into a prolonged spell of obsession, which has severely undermined the importance of leisure and fun that should be part and parcel of a wholesome childhood. The prolonged fixation on the exam results tied to their ‘future success’ robs these fledgling scholars of the joys of ‘free learning’, which should otherwise give them that vital sense of adventure and excitement in gaining new knowledge. Bertrand Russell’s quote, “There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge”, which refers to the unplanned learning pursuits that may enhance the quality of life of adults, may not be totally irrelevant in any discussion on child education.
As history and anthropology bear evidence, children have always been defenceless against many of those well-meaning programmes imposed on them by adults. It is a pity that today the parental ambitions triggered by social forces, have invaded and highjacked the childhood of our clueless kids. Particularly vulnerable are those underprivileged children who form the majority. Whereas the children of privileged families enjoy the freedom of engaging in many leisure pursuits while receiving their primary level education without undue stress, a large number of children belonging to the lower strata of society are grievously saddled with the scholarship exam to the exclusion of all fun and recreation.
As Ms. Ruth Surenthiraraj highlights in her article titled, “A case for the non-essential” (Kuppi Talk) published in The Island of December 10, “…entertainment, leisure, or the space to create is often perceived as being directly and positively correlated to being able to afford either the time or the resources to enjoy it”. This is a valid critique of a smug social attitude, which tends to give credence to the warped idea that the underprivileged in society may ‘prudently’ forget about entertainment. Reducing childhood to a strenuous struggle for future success is sad. And, any programme relating to education or otherwise, which, directly or indirectly, helps consolidate the idea that deprived children may ‘wisely’ shun any entertainment ‘for their own good’ can be nothing short of catastrophic.
Susantha Hewa
Rekindling Faith, Peace, and Love Below…!
(Practical Tips for Christmas Bliss)
by Rev. Fr. (Dr.) Eymard Fernando
Bishop’s House, Kurunegala.
In an increasingly and incredibly materialised and commercialised world today, the core meaning of Christmas often seems distorted, being overshadowed by consumerism, bustling sales, and extravagant festivities. Yet, at its heart, Christmas is a season meant for reflection, change, love, and unity – a time when people gather to celebrate gratitude and generosity centred around the Divine Baby. As we explore the roots of Christmas and what it can mean for us in today’s world, we uncover themes of faith, hope, peace, and kindness that transcend religious boundaries, reminding us of the true purpose and value of God becoming man.
Therefore, let us delve a little into the origins and deeper significance of Christmas, exploring ways to return to these roots through themes of generosity, togetherness, and humility. By rediscovering these essential values, we can certainly celebrate Christmas as a season that brings light and life to our world.
A Season of Faith and Reflection
Christmas has its origins in the Birth of Jesus Christ, a moment celebrated by Christians as the arrival of hope and salvation. However, even beyond its religious significance, Christmas season has become a time when many reflect on themes of love, hope, and renewal. The story of the Nativity conveys universal values: humility, peace, and the power of hope.
The Birth of Jesus in a humble manger represents a profound lesson about simplicity and compassion. As theologian Henri Nouwen noted, “Jesus was born in the least expected place to the least expected people in the least expected way.” This simplicity, intertwined with humility, challenges the commercialised image of Christmas today. Instead of focusing on luxury and excess, the roots of Christmas invite us to value the simple, meaningful aspects of life: faith, family, and fraternity.
In today’s world, we can return to these roots by setting aside time for personal reflection during Christmas. Practising gratitude, being mindful of those less fortunate, and reaching out to loved ones are all different ways we can honour the spiritual foundation of Christmas. Thus, we all can benefit from a moment of stillness and introspection during this busy time of the year.
The Spirit of Generosity and Compassion
Christmas has always been a season of sharing, inspired by the gifts of the Magi to the Christ- Child and later, Saint Nicholas’ acts of charity as santa claus. However, the tradition of sharing has gradually shifted from simple acts of kindness to an intense focus on material gifts. According to American sociologist Juliet Schor, “We give to show love, but in a culture that equates love with spending, our giving has been commercialized.”
However, in recent years, a shift towards alternative, meaningful sharing has gained momentum in the form of a worthy ‘retromarch’. Many individuals and families now choose to give to charity in a loved one’s name or to offer experiences rather than material goods. This form of sharing very much aligns with the true spirit of Christmas, embodying generosity without extravagance.
Likewise, local initiatives, such as community food drives and clothing and toy collections, have become popular ways to give back. Participating in these efforts allows people to connect with others in their communities, creating a shared sense of purpose and compassion. As Mother Teresa famously said, “It’s not how much we give, but how much love we put into giving.” By focusing mainly on the intention behind our gifts, we can bring the spirit of Christmas alive in our own hearts and communities. However, the magic of Christmas is not very much in presents and parties, but in His Presence!
Family and Togetherness: A Time for Connection
The Christmas season is often one of the few times in the year when families come together, setting aside time to reconnect, reflect, and celebrate. This emphasis on togetherness is deeply rooted in the season’s traditions, dating back to ancient winter solstice festivals where communities gathered to share warmth and light during the darkest days of the year.
In modern times, when families may be dispersed across cities or even continents, Christmas remains a crucial opportunity to reconnect. This communal emphasis shows how Christmas, regardless of religious affiliations, has become a unifying tradition centred on family.
Simple traditions – like sharing a meal, decorating a Christmas tree, or singing carols together – allow families to pause, connect, and create memories. These rituals not only strengthen family bonds but also convey the essence of Christmas for younger generations. As American author Richard Paul Evans, best known for his inspirational and heartfelt novels says, “The smells, tastes, and sounds of Christmas are the roots that nurture a family tree.” By focusing on togetherness, Christmas serves as a reminder of the love and connection that sustain us all throughout the New Year.
Peace on Earth: Seeking Unity in This Divided World
One of the most significant messages of Christmas is the call for ‘Peace on Earth’. Yet, today’s world is marked by political, social, cultural, economic and various other divisions, making the pursuit of peace and unity more relevant than ever before. From the hymn ‘Silent Night’ to the angels’ proclamation of peace, Christmas has long symbolized hope in times of conflict.
A poignant historical example of Christmas promoting peace is the Christmas Truce of 1914, during World War I. British and German soldiers, entrenched on the Western Front, laid down their arms on Christmas Eve to exchange greetings, sing carols, and share small gifts. This unexpected truce, though brief, reminded soldiers of their shared humanity amidst the horrors of war. It symbolised the power of Christmas to transcend differences and bring people together, even during a time of darkness and death.
Today, peace-oriented traditions continue to play an important role during Christmas season. Interfaith gatherings, community meals, and charitable events all serve as spaces for people from different backgrounds to connect and understand one another. In a world often divided by ideological and political differences, Christmas can become a season with a reason for open dialogue, compassion, and understanding. Embracing Christmas’ call for peace and unity allows us to honour its roots in ways that resonate with our global context.
Practising Simplicity and Mindfulness
While Christmas has grown as a metaphor for lavish celebrations and enchanting tamashas, the season’s roots actually encourage simplicity and mindfulness. The traditional story of Jesus’ Birth in a manger speaks to a humble beginning, one that invites us to cherish what truly matters in life. Embracing that simplicity allows us shift our focus from material abundance to the richness of shared experiences.
In recent years, minimalism and mindfulness have gained popularity as antidotes to the consumer-driven spendthrift lifestyle with a ‘shop till you drop’ psychosis. Many people now opt for simpler, handmade gifts or choose to forgo elaborate decorations in favour of natural elements. These preferred choices reflect a desire to connect more authentically with the true meaning of Christmas. Instead of flashy lights or mountains of gifts, families can create meaningful memories through acts of kindness or spending quality time together strengthening family ties. One modern example for this is the ‘Reverse Advent Calendar’ tradition. Instead of receiving a treat each day, participants place an item – such as dry rations or clothing – in a box to donate to those in need. This practice helps to instil gratitude and generosity, shifting the focus from consumption to community service. By embracing a simpler and more mindful and meaningful approach, we honour the humble roots of Christmas and foster a deeper sense of appreciation for life’s countless blessings.
A Journey of Rediscovering…
Returning to the roots of Christmas is a journey of rediscovering faith, kindness, and togetherness in a world that often moves at a very rapid pace. The true spirit of Christmas calls us to reflect on values that transcend time and culture: humility, compassion, peace, unity, and love. In embracing these themes, we transform Christmas from a season of materialism into one pregnant with meaning.
As we celebrate Christmas this year, let us remember that this event is not about what we have, but about who we are with and how we make others feel. It is a season of opening our hearts and minds to others, of putting love into action, and of finding moments of peace and tranquility in the midst of cacophony, disorder and chaos. By going back to the roots of Christmas, let us therefore invite joy, hope, and kindness into our lives, allowing Christmas grow and glow with renewed purpose and profound meaning resulting in a new birth in our own lives!
Winless in three years, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan set for rare Boxing Day Test
Fair weather except for a few showers in Northern and Eastern provinces
Most bribery cases fall through owing to CIABOC’s lapses
-
Sports6 days agoSri Lanka to mend fences with veterans
-
Sports4 days agoPathirana set to sling his way into Kiwi hearts
-
Opinion6 days agoIs AKD following LKY?
-
News2 days agoOffice of CDS likely to be scrapped; top defence changes on the cards
-
News5 days agoSL issues USD 10.4 bn macro-linked bonds
-
Opinion6 days ago‘A degree is not a title’ – a response
-
Editorial5 days agoRanil’s advice
-
Editorial6 days agoLest watchdogs should become lapdogs