Law Liberty And The Pursuit Of Terrorism

It is commonly believed that a state facing a terrorist threat responds with severe legislation that compromises civil liberties in favour of national security. Roger Douglas compares responses to terrorism by five liberal democracies" the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand" over the past 15 years. He examines each nation's development and implementation of counterterrorism law, specifically in the areas of information gathering, the definition of terrorist offenses, due process for the accused, detention, and torture and other forms of coercive questioning. Douglas finds that terrorist attacks elicit pressures for quick responses, which often allow national governments to accrue additional powers. But emergencies are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for such laws, which may persist even after fears have eased. He argues that responses are influenced by institutional interests and prior beliefs and are complicated when the exigencies of office and beliefs point in different directions. He also argues that citizens are wary of government's impingement on civil liberties and that courts exercise their capacity to restrain the legislative and executive branches. Douglas concludes that the worst anti-terror excesses have taken place outside of, rather than within, the law and that the legacy of 9/11 includes both laws that expand government powers and judicial decisions that limit those very powers. This title was made Open Access by libraries from around the world through Knowledge Unlatched.

In democratic states, the courts can help safeguard civil liberties against excessive legislative and executive efforts to combat terrorism

How can we ensure national security against people unafraid to kill themselves along with their victims - people who, self-evidently, will not be deterred by traditional laws which punish offenders after their crimes are committed. This is the challenge for liberal democracies such as Australia. New laws specifically designed to forestall terrorist activity have been a key response. Law and Liberty in the War on Terror describes these laws and debates both their effectiveness and impact on civil liberties. International and domestic commentators from the fields of government, law and political science address questions such as: How does the law define 'terrorism'? Can the criminal justice system accommodate preparatory terrorism offences? Is torture ever acceptable as an interrogative method? What is the role of the judiciary in times of emergency? How do Australia's anti-terrorism laws compare with those of the United Kingdom and New Zealand? How are Australian communities and politics affected by responses to terrorism?"[I] n this book, proponents of the new anti-terrorism laws seek to justify their provisions and opponents argue that the laws go too far. These chapters also show the extent of the changes that have been made to our legal and administrative structures. ... The chapters in this book cannot be dismissed as mere academic analyses. They have to do with the lives and aspirations of all Australians. They ask whether Australia is, and whether it will be, a united, secure, free and confident nation." - Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE, former Chief Justice of Australia

Particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the threat of terrorism, however, defined, has been invoked as a common ‘justification’ in the pursuit of remodelling policies, laws, and institutions, both at the international and in the domestic politico-legal showground. The broader central theme that this book explores is the normative vibe under which the present-day counterterrorism discourse is construed and sculpted in the legislative and institutional structures of an authoritarian state where the political power and government institutions are functioning under a single-party-monopolised system. Presenting the Ethiopian legislative and institutional frameworks as a case study, the book critically reflects on the extent that the international legal and/or institutional counterterrorism response is sensitised in a manner lessening the risk of conflating authoritarian regime’s unbearable reactions to citizens’ legitimate demands and resistances against its repression vis-àvis that of its response to the common threat of international terrorism. In particular, the book ponders whether or not the range of the substantive and procedural aspects of the Ethiopian antiterrorism legislative and institutional frameworks are wrought to fit into the main objectives and standards that emanate from the pertinent international laws relating to terrorism and the international human rights law as well as the domestic constitutional law maxims.

Particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the threat of terrorism, however, defined, has been invoked as a common 'justification' in the pursuit of remodelling policies, laws, and institutions, both at the international and in the domestic politico-legal showground. The broader central theme that this book explores is the normative vibe under which the present-day counterterrorism discourse is construed and sculpted in the legislative and institutional structures of an authoritarian state where the political power and government institutions are functioning under a single-party-monopolised system. Presenting the Ethiopian legislative and institutional frameworks as a case study, the book critically reflects on the extent that the international legal and/or institutional counterterrorism response is sensitised in a manner lessening the risk of conflating authoritarian regime's unbearable reactions to citizens' legitimate demands and resistances against its repression vis-àvis that of its response to the common threat of international terrorism. In particular, the book ponders whether or not the range of the substantive and procedural aspects of the Ethiopian antiterrorism legislative and institutional frameworks are wrought to fit into the main objectives and standards that emanate from the pertinent international laws relating to terrorism and the international human rights law as well as the domestic constitutional law maxims.

In recent years, there has been much controversy about the proper forum in which to prosecute and punish suspected terrorists. Some have endorsed aggressive use of military commissions; others have proposed an entirely new "national security court." However, as the nation strives for a vigorous and effective response to terrorism, we should not lose sight of the important tools that are already at our disposal, nor should we forget the costs and risks of seeking to break new ground by departing from established institutions and practices. As this White Paper shows, the existing criminal justice system has proved successful at handling a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions over the past fifteen years-without sacrificing national security interests, rigorous standards of fairness and due process, or just punishment for those guilty of terrorism-related crimes.

Guidance for maintaining national security without abandoning the rule of law and our democratic values. In an age of global terrorism, can the pursuit of security be reconciled with liberal democratic values and legal principles? During its “global war on terrorism,” the Bush administration argued that the United States was in a new kind of conflict, one in which peacetime domestic law was irrelevant and international law inapplicable. From 2001 to 2009, the United States thus waged war on terrorism in a “no-law zone.” In Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists, Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann reject the argument that traditional American values embodied in domestic and international law can be ignored in any sustainable effort to keep the United States safe from terrorism. They demonstrate that the costs are great and the benefits slight from separating security and the rule of law. They call for reasoned judgment instead of a wholesale abandonment of American values. They also argue that being open to negotiations and seeking to win the moral support of the communities from which the terrorists emerge are noncoercive strategies that must be included in any future efforts to reduce terrorism.

A unique survey and assessment of counterterrorism strategies across the globe by prominent experts