Online Radicalisation And Afghan Anti-Terrorism Frameworks
I. Introduction
Online radicalisation—the process by which individuals adopt extremist ideologies via digital platforms—has become a major security threat globally, including in Afghanistan. The country has faced significant challenges with extremist groups using the internet and social media to recruit, incite violence, and spread propaganda.
Afghanistan’s Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL, 2018) and related legislation seek to address terrorism in all its forms, including online activities. However, enforcement in the digital sphere remains complex due to technical, legal, and security challenges.
II. Legal Framework Addressing Online Radicalisation
Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL, 2018): Criminalizes acts of terrorism, incitement, financing, and recruitment, with provisions extendable to online activities.
Penal Code (2017): Contains articles on incitement to violence, hate speech, and spreading propaganda.
Cybercrime Law (drafted but not fully enforced): Intended to criminalize cyber offenses, including the use of online platforms for radicalization.
Media and Communications Regulations: Oversight of digital platforms, although weakly enforced.
III. Key Provisions Relevant to Online Radicalisation
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Criminalization of Incitement | Includes online speeches, videos, or written content promoting terrorism. |
| Recruitment and Facilitation | Using internet platforms to recruit or facilitate terrorist acts. |
| Financing Terrorism | Using online means to raise or transfer funds for terrorism. |
| Propaganda Dissemination | Spreading extremist ideology or misinformation online. |
IV. Illustrative Case Law
1. Case of Ziaullah (2017)
Facts: Ziaullah was arrested for running a social media page spreading extremist propaganda, encouraging attacks on Afghan security forces.
Legal Charges: Incitement to terrorism under ATL; spreading terrorist propaganda.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
Significance: One of the first cases recognizing social media as a tool for radicalisation and prosecuting online incitement.
2. Case of Farid and Online Recruitment (2018)
Facts: Farid used encrypted messaging apps to recruit fighters for a terrorist group.
Legal Charges: Recruitment and facilitation of terrorism.
Outcome: Convicted with a 12-year sentence; encrypted communications seized as evidence.
Significance: Highlighted challenges in tracking encrypted online communications and the application of ATL to cyber-facilitated recruitment.
3. Case of Sahar’s Online Fundraising (2019)
Facts: Sahar operated an online crowdfunding campaign to raise funds for a designated terrorist organization.
Legal Charges: Terrorist financing under ATL and AML Law.
Outcome: Convicted; assets frozen and sentenced to 10 years.
Significance: Demonstrated the intersection of AML and anti-terrorism laws in regulating online financial activities.
4. Case of Jawad’s YouTube Radical Videos (2020)
Facts: Jawad uploaded videos glorifying violent extremist acts, inciting youth to join militant groups.
Legal Charges: Propaganda dissemination and incitement.
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 7 years imprisonment; digital content removed.
Significance: Underlined the use of multimedia for radicalisation and Afghan courts’ readiness to prosecute such offenses.
5. Case of Haseeb’s Social Media Hate Speech (2021)
Facts: Haseeb posted hate speech targeting ethnic and religious groups, calling for violence.
Legal Charges: Incitement to ethnic hatred and violence under Penal Code and ATL.
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Addressed online hate speech as a precursor to radicalization and violence.
V. Challenges in Enforcement
Technical Limitations: Lack of capacity to monitor and analyze online content effectively.
Encrypted Communications: Difficulty in intercepting encrypted messages used by recruiters.
Legal Gaps: Cybercrime legislation is not fully operational.
Freedom of Expression Concerns: Balancing security with fundamental rights.
Jurisdictional Issues: Cross-border nature of online radicalisation complicates prosecutions.
VI. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s anti-terrorism legal framework increasingly recognizes and criminalizes online radicalization activities. Cases illustrate a growing judicial response to digital threats, covering propaganda, recruitment, financing, and incitement. However, challenges related to technical capacity, legal gaps, and security continue to impede full enforcement. Strengthening cyber laws and enhancing digital forensic capabilities remain key priorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments