Counter Terrorism In Australia Essay

The opportunity to contribute to society are many and varied and include positions within defence or local community protection. This provides the opportunity to work in a field which promotes and supports the community and the Nation’s interests. In regard to working within ASIO, the focus is on analysing and reporting prospective threats, resulting in the production of protective security measures, to ensure the safety of Australia’s communities, people and assets. In the words of Pietsch and McAlister “Australia has been relatively immune from acts of terrorism” (Juliet Pietsch & Ian McAllister, 2012). “I want Australians to be aware that a terrorist incident on our soil remains likely but also that Australians should be reassured our security agencies are working diligently and expertly to prevent that happening” (Malcolm Turnball, 2015). Terrorism is an increasingly greater threat in the 21st century, and it is clear from these statements that ASIO has an important role to play in ensuring the security of Australian

In 1978, on Monday the 13th of February, Australia faced what is believed to be its first experience of terrorism, when a bomb hidden in a bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel exploded, killing two council workers and a policeman (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). At the time, the hotel was hosting eleven heads of government who were in Sydney for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). The Australian government reacted by mobilising the military, which came to be referred to as ‘Siege of Bowral’, that highlighted issues with the legislation that dealt with terrorism and how unprepared Australia was at responding to a terrorist event (Hancock, 2002). Over the following years, a range of legislation was enacted to handle matters associated with terrorism, laws such as allowing for defence to aid to the civil power, aviation and shipping safety, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, surveillance and intelligence services (Hancock, 2002).

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

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

In December 2005 ‘Control Orders’ became part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorism threats (The Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p 57). Issued by a court, at the request of the AFP, an individual could be prohibited or restricted in movement, for the express purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act. Such restrictions may comprise of curfews, electronic monitoring devices, restrictions of telecommunications, specified reporting to police and other measures. Jack Thomas (August 2006) and David Hicks (December 2007) are the only two individuals who have been issued control orders in Australia by law enforcement. (Jaggers, B. April 2008). para 1).

The 9/11 terror attacks is one of the historical and fatal events that changed the United States of America forever, especially in relation to terrorists and terrorism. While these concepts were on the minds of very few people in America's population before the attacks, the 9/11 incident made terrorism to become one of the major concerns for the whole nation. This is despite of the fact that they were carried out in New York City, Washington, and parts of Pennsylvania. Since it was a major concern, the terror attacks dominated all kinds of media and contributed to increased security measures for average Americans. Moreover, terrorism currently provides a major threat to global security that any time in American and global history (Dyson, 2001, p.3). As a result, it has become a fundamental aspect for law enforcement agencies and their initiatives, particularly with the rapid technological advancements.

The global political climate and media representation of Islam was subsequently shaped to generate fear amongst the wider Australian population (Kabir, 2007). The deliberate demonisation of all Muslims as terrorists gave individuals a free card to express discrimination ( Ack, 2016). Hanson exacerbated the fear that all Muslims are potential threats to Australian society with the firm statement that- “we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims, who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own”. This statement infers that Muslims are not fit to adjust into to the Judeo- Chrisitan society of Australia. Dooming them to either integrate or leave. When evaluating such blatant views, that are unworthy to be voiced in a parliament of a country that believes in the “freedom of religion”, one must consider the precedent set by former Australian politicians or Australia’s political system in general. Racism has always been a tradition of Australia’s governmental structure, for it is a successful way “for the ruling class to divert attention from their own crimes and the failings of the system they run” (Ack,

The purpose of the text by John Howard is to inform Australian citizens of the current situation of the possible terrorist threat that may face Australia and requests that all people report suspicious behaviour of those around one another to the National security hotline in which, all reported behaviour will be investigated to protect Australia. Uniting the community as one, to help protect Australia. The letter containing information of the counter-terrorism also includes reassuring information about Australia’s ‘strong counter-terrorist capability’ and emergency preparedness, to avoid panic from the public. The purpose of the text is to acknowledge Australia’s vulnerability to international terrorism following

National terrorism has been the focus of attention since September 11. But now domestic terrorism is becoming increasingly common among hate groups across the nation. Domestic terrorism can be defined as visible crime, or “street crime.” These acts would consist of violent crimes, (acts against people in which injury or death results) property crimes (acts that threaten property held by individuals or the state) and public order crimes. (acts that threaten the general well-being of society and challenger accepted moral principles) It can also however be described as political crime, (criminal acts by or against the government for ideological purposes) which would include the 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

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

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism..   The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon.  In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors.  Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.

In 2005 the terrorist attack in London (7/7) killed 56 people and 700 were injured. This was the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in London in history. It is clear that law enforcement agencies powers have increases with the statutes that have been implemented. The Terrorist Act 200 created a power to carry out blanket stop and searches. The Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced new powers for the Treasury to freeze terrorist funds

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding

The government can implement many new methods to increase security, or better yet give off the image of better security which is what they have predominantly done, yet ultimately there will always be a way to bypass or come up with a new way to infiltrate that measure. The government so far has done a variety of things ranging from the closing of the Dulles airport (permanently), working with the FAA on new security measures, having pilots carry handguns, and a not so specific, profiling.