Understanding Anti-Terrorism Policy: Values, Rationales and Principles (original) (raw)
Related papers
Australia and the 'War against Terrorism': Terrorism, National Security and Human Rights
2007
This paper considers whether in the 'war against terrorism' national security is eroded or strengthened by weakening or removing the human rights of the individuals who constitute the polity. It starts with the view that national security is, at its most fundamental, founded upon the security and liberty of the person from criminal and violent acts, including terrorist attacks. Such attacks, and the individuals and groups who perpetrate them, constitute a grave threat to the peace and security of nations the world over and thus endanger the security and liberty of the individuals who make up their populations. Governments are therefore compelled to use the machinery of the state to protect the nation and the individual from these attacks. However, the paper is based on another, equally important, assumption. This is that the defence of national security requires individuals to be protected from the arbitrary exercise of state power even in situations where the state claims to be acting to protect national security and individual security against grave threats such as terrorist acts. The rule of law not only protects individuals from such an exercise of state power by protecting their human rights, in so doing it also protects the peace and security of the nation from excessive and unchecked state power. But what happens when the rule of law is overturned by governments declaring that they are protecting national security from the terrorist threat? Who or what is then able to protect the individual and the nation from the state? This paper will take up these important questions by considering the implications of the anti-terrorism legislation that has been introduced in Australia since September 2001. It will also consider whether Australia's national security has been enhanced or damaged by this legislation.
Australian and the 'War against Terrorism': Terrorism, National Security and Human Rights
2007
This paper considers whether in the 'war against terrorism' national security is eroded or strengthened by weakening or removing the human rights of the individuals who constitute the polity. It starts with the view that national security is, at its most fundamental, founded upon the security and liberty of the person from criminal and violent acts, including terrorist attacks. Such attacks, and the individuals and groups who perpetrate them, constitute a grave threat to the peace and security of nations the world over and thus endanger the security and liberty of the individuals who make up their populations. Governments are therefore compelled to use the machinery of the state to protect the nation and the individual from these attacks. However, the paper is based on another, equally important, assumption. This is that the defence of national security requires individuals to be protected from the arbitrary exercise of state power even in situations where the state claims to be acting to protect national security and individual security against grave threats such as terrorist acts. The rule of law not only protects individuals from such an exercise of state power by protecting their human rights, in so doing it also protects the peace and security of the nation from excessive and unchecked state power. But what happens when the rule of law is overturned by governments declaring that they are protecting national security from the terrorist threat? Who or what is then able to protect the individual and the nation from the state? This paper will take up these important questions by considering the implications of the anti-terrorism legislation that has been introduced in Australia since September 2001. It will also consider whether Australia's national security has been enhanced or damaged by this legislation.
Proscription is principally deployed as a means to (i) signal government’s disapproval of the ideas of an organisation deemed to be involved in terrorism, and (ii) empower policing and security agencies to dismantle the organisation’s capacity to further those ideas by confiscating resources, financial or otherwise, and prohibiting membership of the association. Yet, while there is a long history of the use of proscription powers in Australia and elsewhere, the legal and policy rationale for banning terrorist organisations has not kept pace with the evolving dimensions of international migration, domestic extremism, and political violence. In this submission, we put forward an alternative framework of proscription that seeks to mitigate some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the transparency, appropriateness and ‘heavy-handedness’ of current proscription powers. It is our view that proscription should be just one of a raft of instruments to tackle extremist violence associated with organisations. It is well-understood that extremism is an area of some subjectivity, particularly with regard to legal definitions of terrorism and organisation and the practical implications for proscription that follow. The framework put forward here seeks to provide government with a range of instruments that enhance the ability of government to (i) clarify whether an organisation is, in fact, oriented towards undertaking or supporting extremist violence; (ii) determine what sanction, if any, is appropriate; (iii) diminish the capacity of organisations to use or support the use of violence.
The new terrorists: the normalisation and spread of anti-terrorism laws in Australia
Since September 11, Australia's federal Parliament has enacted a range of exceptional measures aimed at preventing terrorism. These measures include control orders, which were not designed or intended for use outside of the terrorism context. What has followed, however, has been the migration of this measure to new contexts in the states and territories, especially in regard to what some have termed the 'war on bikies'. This has occurred to the point that this measure, once considered extreme, has become accepted as a normal aspect of the criminal justice system, and has in turn given rise to even more stringent legal measures. This article explores the dynamic by which once-exceptional measures become normalised and then extended to new extremes. It explores these issues in the context of the role that constitutional values have played in this process.
Balancing Security and Liberty: Critical Perspectives on Terrorism Law Reform
ANU Press eBooks, 2008
Introduction: The Balancing Model Much of the debate post-September 11 (9/11) about expansion of state power to combat terrorism has been framed as striking a balance between security and liberty. 1 The 'balancing approach', whereby security is reconciled with respect for fundamental liberal rights and values, has been very influential in counter-terrorism law reform in Australia. 2 As the former federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock pointed out: We don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world of trade-offs. And now we live in a world where we must accept the costs associated with protecting ourselves from terrorism … There will always be a trade-off between national security and individual rights. The task of government is to recognise these trade-offs and preserve our security without compromising basic rights and liberties. 3
2010
This article explores the impact of counter-terrorism legislation and policy in Australia. In particular it explores how legislation facilitated prosecution and conviction of persons involved in home-grown terrorism, including analysis of investigation and prosecution policy surrounding the ul-Haque and Haneef cases. Particular attention is given to the terrorism trials involving Benbrika & Ors and Elomar & Ors. What makes these trials intriguing is the fact that most of those convicted could be more easily described as more vulnerable than menacing. Sentencing of those convicted was cognate with no policies for rehabilitation. The small number of convictions under the legislation when considered against the increased funding of counter-terrorism, loss of traditional rights and privileges and Australia's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq raises issues about adequate policy setting in this area.
Australia and the \u27War against Terrorism\u27: terrorism, national security and human rights
2008
This article considers whether in the „war against terrorism‟ national security is eroded or strengthened by weakening or removing the human rights of the individuals who constitute the polity. It starts with the view that national security is, at its most fundamental, founded upon the security and liberty of the person from criminal and violent acts, including terrorist attacks. Such attacks, and the individuals and groups who perpetrate them, constitute a grave threat to the peace and security of nations the world over and thus endanger the security and liberty of the individuals who make up their populations. Governments are therefore compelled to use the machinery of the state to protect the nation and the individual from these attacks. However, the paper is based on another, equally important, assumption. This is that the defence of national security requires individuals to be protected from the arbitrary exercise of state power even in situations where the state claims to be a...
2021
The threat of so-called 'Islamic-inspired' terrorism has compelled governments to introduce measures to ostensibly protect their citizens over the last two decades. Of particular concern are domestic acts of terror, which led the Australian Government to implement a preventative criminalisation model. Concerns have been raised that Australian Muslims are unfairly targeted, as they are a 'suspect community', which increasingly leads to their alienation. The paper will use otherness theory to explain how Muslims have become a stigmatised minority, subject to increased state surveillance and public discourse that constructs them as a potential terrorist threat. It will do so by first examining whether Australian Muslims feel stigmatised in the face of intrusive police and security organisation practice under CTLs; use studies carried out across Australia and the UK to demonstrate that CTLs have had a profound impact on the identity and national sense of belonging of the Muslim community and reveal that CTLs are counterproductive if they make a particular community feel that they are under constant suspicion. The results will illustrate that many Muslims are unwilling to collaborate with authorities in relation to counter-terrorism because of this stigmatisation.