Anti Terrorism In Australia

The case of Thomas v Mowbray revolutionised and created a new, broad, perspective of the constitutional defence powers in regards to terrorism. This was the first case to reach the High Court on the validity of anti-terrorism measures that were recently introduced to Australia by the executive. Thomas made several submissions within this case, including that the defence power was limited to defence against threats from foreign states and that the words ‘naval and military’ present in the wording of the section confines the defence power to those activities and cannot underpin broader activities to protect the community. Unfortunately, on the first point there was a 6:1 majority that the law was valid under the power for threats both domestic and foreign. Kirby J dissent held that the Commonwealth had essentially failed to establish the factual basis that was needed to support its reliance on the defence power. Further, Kirby J concluded that the ‘facts underpinning the war on terror did not constitute hostilities for the purposes of the first limb of the defence power.’ The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-terrorism laws that allowed for the courts to impose control orders upon persons of whom they believed to pose a threat due to their connections to listed terrorist organisations, regardless of the possibly that some derogable rights maybe be overridden. The control order imposed on Thomas required him to remain in his residence

Much of the Federal legislation was implemented to comply with international terrorism treaties that Australia was party to (PA, n.d.-a). Examples of this legislation include ‘Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994’, which complied with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of

Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

Policies that make the nation more secure, particularly against foreign threats, do not necessarily undermine its people’s liberty. Protecting individual liberty does not invariably hobble the nation’s defense. Many government officials believe a threat to America’s security is also a threat to Americans’ liberties. Many look to Britain, as they have tightened security laws at many moments without becoming an unfree country. After the threat is removed the polices are too. Many Americans say that due to the increases in western security services, it has made it much harder in recent years for terrorist to launch large attacks. Individuals such as Tony Blair (a former prime minster of Britain) believe that in order to protect people from terrorist attacks, the government can no longer ask nicely to achieve peace. As they refer to drone attacks, that allowed security services to kill a terrorist without first having a trial. This shows that because security was favored over liberty that the government was able to stop a potential terrorist from arming others. Though this might have saved many lives, the actions of the British government have put its own people’s lives at even more risk. Many government officials, such as consecrates believe that liberals are on the wrong side of history as they fail to acknowledge the only wat to protection is to tighten laws. However, these individuals fail to see what liberals see as the people of Britain are now vurnable to the governments tyranny, instead of terrorist. For example, Britain claims that it has accomplished security without rendering civil liberties useless; but after the tragic events of 11 September, 2001, emergency laws were passed which allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals, who were suspected of being terrorists. Under this

“To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force” (George Orwell). Terrorism is designed to wreak havoc unto everyday lives. It is designed to provoke governments into making mistakes. It is orchestrated through brutality and rooted under the belief that the mass murder of ordinary citizens will cause nations to crumble under their very (backbone?) and abandon their most basic commitments. Taking a wondrously broad view of national security, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, Bill C-51, enables, under the strictest sense, a “modern day Gestapo” (Rocco Galati).1 It provides a reckless, dangerous, and ineffective measure

The premise of terrorism has expedited the initiation of integral changes to the legal system, reducing the rule of law and eroding established civil liberties and legal protections. The counter-terrorism measures introduced in Australia confer a power to compel submission to interrogation, a power to detain and interrogate without charge, and a power of preventative detention. In doing so these laws jeopardise the rule of law, expand executive power, diminish existing rights, endanger the separation of powers, and undermine judicial procedures. Further the legislative definition of ‘terrorism’ provides for the

Ever since 9/11 when both World Trade Center buildings were attacked by an Islamic Group, attacks by Islamic Terrorist on U.S. soil have been less of a threat than Domestic Terrorists. Domestic Terrorism has been shown these passed for years but yet again most of these cases have not been classified as acts of Domestic Terrorism they most likely fall into the category. Now the definition of Domestic Terrorism is basically "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator 's own country against their fellow citizens". Now personally I don 't know how our government is working with these popular cases like Charlottesville, Las Vegas, and a new that just happened recently actually two but I 'll just say one, the New York attack that

On 15 to 16 December 2014, 18 people were taken as hostages by an Iranian-born

The Sydney siege and the Melbourne attack on police are examples of a global trend: we face an increasing number of possible terrorists who are hard to observe and often willing to attack using quickly executed, low-tech tactics. The two terrorist attacks in that time; the stabbing of two policemen in Melbourne and the Sydney siege with its two tragic victims, were carried out by individuals who planned and acted alone. Crimes like these are always extremely difficult for police and security agencies to prevent.

Iraq’s Security Forces have been under scrutiny since ISIS began controlling Iraqi cities. The Iraqi Security Forces had 1,000,000 million personnel and had received $100 billion dollars in aid since 2006 (Al-Ali, 2014). However, ISIS is smaller in force and funds. ISIS has an estimated 20,000 troops and makes an estimated $1-4 million everyday (Gollom, 2014). The Iraqi Security Forces should have the ability and force to crush this terrorist cell, but astonishingly are being overrun by this terrorist cell. The Iraqi Security Forces face interior issues that cripple its ability to deal with military threats, and make the state vulnerable to internal and external attacks. Some of the most prominent issues affecting the power of Iraqi Security Forces is the early exiting of United States soldiers, Prime Minister Maliki’s policies, deep sectarian, and massive corruption throughout the military.

Terrorism is when a person/group attacks a certain place. The attack can be in many ways, bombings, biologically and more. The most known terrorist attack happened on September 11, 2001, when Osama Bin Laden orchestrated a hijack of two planes that crashed into the twin tours, this attack is mostly known as “9/11”. One of the goals for the office of counter-terrorism is to strengthen the delivery of help in countries that need assistance to stop terrorism, and make counter-terrorism a big priority in the United Nations.

The United States promotes international freedom, and discourages any organization who is attempting to disrupt freedom. In recent years, terrorism has become one of the United States greatest dilemmas. Terrorism is a horrific crime against society, and the people who carry out these acts are considered people some of the worst criminals of today. Following September 11 the United States made a decision to wage war of terror. The United States “War on Terror” attempts confront these people and their organizations and remove them from power, bring peace to their home nation and hopefully establish international peace. (5) The war on terror is not only fought with guns and soldiers, but in the interrogation room as leaders attempted to learn more about the interworking of these dangerous groups. The men who are captured are dangerous and sometimes well connected leaders with lots of information. The question which logically arises after these men are detained, exactly what is the proper interrogation technique and exactly how far can we go to extract information. Clearly, any information these men have could save the lives of innocent people. Due to their knowledge terrorist cannot be imprisoned without making an attempt to learn what they know. This is where the War on Terror has created a huge moral dilemma, these men are dangerous and sometimes ruthless, but when they are in our hands what exactly is acceptable to save lives. Interrogation can quickly turn to torture as

The most contentious invocation of anti terror laws by Australian authorities did not involve the case being tried in court. Mohmed Haneef an Indian doctor working in Australia, was arrested in July 2007 and detained for 12 days before being charged with intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation. Australian federal police were able to detain Haneef for 14 days ( detained for 12 days) to allow time for questioning the terrorist suspect in pt IC of the CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth). These provisions, originally inserted by the ANTI TERRORISM ACT 2004 (cth), allowing the authorities investigating to apply to a magistrate to suspend or delay questioning time during the investigation of a terrorist offence. This has the effect of extending