Legislation of anti-terror bill is urgent

Whenever North Korea`s propaganda media such as Uriminzokkiri issued statements denouncing South Korea-U.S. joint military exercises, Kim Ki-jong, who attacked U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Mark Lippert at a forum on Thursday, posted similar articles following Pyongyang`s stance on his Facebook page or online bulletin boards. Uriminzokkiri posted multiple articles threatening the U.S. envoy this year. On early Thursday, the North Korean propaganda website ran an article claiming that "the time has passed to talk nicely to a wild dog." It is highly likely that Kim was influenced by such North Korean propaganda media when he attacked the U.S. ambassador.

The violence against Lippert could have been prevented if the organizers of the forum had paid more attention to the attendees. Although an intelligence officer from the Jongno Police Station recognized Kim, who had previously been arrested for throwing two chunks of concrete at a diplomatic envoy in Seoul, the officer simply asked the assailant if he was to attend the forum but did not take any further action. With such a loose security system that failed to prevent a homegrown North Korea follower`s act of terror, Seoul would be helpless in the event of organized terror attacks by groups linked with Pyongyang or jihadists likes the Islamic State (IS).

The National Assembly has continued to attempt to legislate an anti-terrorism bill since the latter half of the Kim Dae-jung administration, when the U.S. and Britain passed the Patriot Act or the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act right after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C., only to fail. The main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy and other opposition parties are still opposed to the bill on concerns over state intelligence agencies` potential abuse of authority. The only anti-terror regulation in South Korea is the guidelines on state anti-terror activities established in 1982. The prime minister and the director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) can operate a standing anti-terror council or committee based on the guidelines. However, the guidelines have limitations in facilitating cooperation among government agencies or execution of duty on a state level because they are not law but a presidential decree. As the guidelines are not legally binding, they cannot require private organizations to install security equipment or facilities and leave many loopholes in preventive measures such as tracking financial transactions.

Pending in the National Assembly is a terror prevention bill, which was proposed by Lee Byung-suk, a lawmaker of the ruling Saenuri Party, following a South Korean teenager`s joining of the IS and the jihadist group`s execution of hostages. The bill calls for heavier punishment on acts or sponsorship of terror than the criminal law. It also provides a legal ground for upgrading a state anti-terror council to an organization under direct supervision by the president and the establishment of a terror response center under the NIS director. Political parties should speed up the legislation of an anti-terror bill while minimizing controversies over potential abuse of authority or human rights infringement by intelligence agencies.