Lecture 12 - Professor Mary Walsh PDF

Preview

Summary

Week 12 Lecture National Security and Terrorism   Intro  Sept 11 and Bali Bombing have made defence and national security a key aspect of government and democracy today.  The First National Security Statement to the Parliament 2008  The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) an...

Description

Week 12 Lecture National Security and Terrorism Intro   

  

Sept 11 and Bali Bombing have made defence and national security a key aspect of government and democracy today. The First National Security Statement to the Parliament 2008 The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and other branches of Australia's intelligence community once kept a very low profile, yet today they actively recruit in newspapers and at universities. In today's Australia there is a constant spectre of terrorism that looms over us and threatens out national security and security more generally (Iraq and Syria). Changes to dual citizenship for convicted terrorists. Key questions is whether we can protect people's rights without risking their security. This is ongoing relevance and a question Australians are going to have to continually confront.

Context  The shift from the threat of communism to the threat of terrorism.  Globalisation and the nation-state.  Difference between political globalisation and economic globalisation.  Parliament 20-23 October 2014 - National security and the Iraq War a key focus of Question Time; these days it is Syria.  Foreign Fighters Bill has been discussed in committees with recommendations for Parliament.  National security and human rights nexus. The First National Security Statement to the Parliament - Rudd  What is National Security? o "Freedom from attack or the threat of attack; the maintenance of our territorial integrity; the maintenance of our political sovereignty; the preservation of our hard won freedoms; and the maintenance of our fundamental capacity to advance economic prosperity for all Australians." Enduring Principles 1. Develop self reliance 2. Ensure a strong alliance with the United States both globally and in the Asia Pacific region. 3. Regional engagement is crucial (strengthen bilateral relationships and engage effectively with the regional institutions.) 4. At the global level Australia is committed to multilateral institutions (particularly the UN) to promote a rules based international order. 5. National Security policy must be advanced through the agency of creative middle power diplomacy. 6. Have a risk based approach for assessing national security across the defence, diplomatic, intelligence and wider national security community. 7. The commonwealth must work in partnership with state and territory governments in an increasingly interconnected environment.

National Security Challenges for the Future  Living at the 'dawn of the Asia Pacific century.'  Likelihood of conflict between major powers low.  Stability in the Asia Pacific will reply on a strong USA presence.  Most crucial relationship, in Easy Asia and globally will be between the USA and China (relationships between USA, China and Japan will effect Australia's security and economy).  Rise of India will be an important factor in regional stability.  South Easy Asia will remain important to Australia because of geographical proximity and processes of continuing political and economic change.  Australian will continue to co-operate closely with New Zealand (ANZAC spirit) in the continuing security challenges of the states of the South-west Pacific. Terrorism  The aftermath of Sept 11, 2001  The rise of anxiety about terrorism and a demand the political executive do something about it.  US President Bush's 'War on Terror' sought to find political terrorists who threatened Australian national security.  The federal political executive (Howard Government) amended the Criminal Code Act (1995) (CCA) & introducing the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act (2005). 

The implications of this were the following: 1. Life imprisonment for 'facilitating' a terrorist act, even if the act doesn't actually happen. 2. Life imprisonment for giving financial support to terrorist organisations, even though you might not have realised it was a terrorist organisation. 3. New control orders that restricted an individuals movements before a one year review. 4. Preventative detention orders that disallow individuals to tell friends and family they are safe but uncontactable.

Case Study - Mohammed Haneef  2 July 2007, Haneef who worked as medical registrar on the Gold Coast was arrested at Brisbane airport while attempted to go to India.  The AFP were working on advise given to them by intelligence agencies in Britain that a SIM card belonging to Haneef was found in the bomb at Glasgow and that he lived with the co-conspirators.  11 days after arrest various search warrants had been issued and Haneef's colleagues interviewed.  Haneef was held without charge in AFP custody under section 23C(a) of the Crimes Act.  On 4 July 2007 he was charged under section 102 of the Act with intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation (SIM card) and being reckless about whether the organisation was a terrorist one.  

When charged, Haneef was released from AFP custody and went into the regular criminal justice system. While we waited for trial he was granted $10,000 bail and underwent a strict monitoring system that included surrendering his passport.



   

Meanwhile, the federal immigration minister Kevin Andrews, revoked Haneef's visa on 'character grounds' after he received undisclosed information about Haneef's association with alleged terrorists. This executive act cancelled out the magistrates decision and Haneef was taken into custody again. This prompted Haneef's lawyers to release a transcript of the AFP interrogation to the media which was found to contain two key flaws. Haneef had vacated the London flat and the SIM card was found in Liverpool. He was released from custody 27 July with no charges.

Impact of Legislative Amendments  Can we provide for people's rights and freedoms and at the same time provide for their security?  What conceptions of security characterise the different responses to restricting people's rights to achieve security?  Argue that those who accept the sacrificing of rights and freedoms to security and those who reject it conceive of security differently. Rights v/s Security  After Sept 11 and Bali Bombings, there was widespread support by Australians of counter-terrorism measures.  The suggestion that we cannot protect individuals rights and provide for their security is implicit in debates about how political executives should respond to the threat of terrorism.  What is the difference between territorial security and human security? 

Four reasons why we cannot protect individual rights as well as provide for individual security. 1. The right of freedom of association is considered a way of providing opportunities for conspiracy and collaboration needed by terrorists. 2. Protecting the right to privacy prevents authorities from intercepting phone calls and emails and facilitates communication between terrorists. 3. Having freedom of the press is thought to undermine the secrecy of political executives responses to terrorists and can give unwanted publicity to terrorists organisations. 4. The 'rule of law' and/or 'due process' undermines a government's ability to obtain information about real or potential threats.

 

Should suspected terrorists be treated differently to other criminal suspects? Suggest that generally Australians are willing to give up their rights due to a sense of vulnerability. Suggest that restricted the right to association can further terrorists aims of disrupting Australian society. Acknowledge that surveillance is important to counter-terrorism but emphasise the threat to civil and individual liberties it represents. Reject the claim that a free press threatens security.

  

Different understandings of security  It is difficult to assess whether protecting peoples rights and providing for their security are incompatible.



The idea that we cannot protect peoples rights and protect their security also raises questions about what we mean by security.

Territorial security  Refers to the capacity of political executives to maintain almost complete control over society, as traditional understandings of nation states are of territories controlled by political executives.  Terrorists seek to undermine this control and create disorder in the societies they attack.  When conceived of as territorial security, counter-terrorist measures are assumed to be fundamental.  The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 and amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (CCA) and consequences of a territorial understanding of security. Human security  Refers to the way people experience the society they live in with a focus upon the way people feel.  The concern is with threats that individuals experience.  These include the economy, the resources available to individuals, the environment, both built and natural and the population.  Insecurity is experienced as environment degradation, increasing population growth, increasing poverty and military conflict in region.  Key focus is the interconnectedness of human existence and the meaninglessness of territorial boundaries (pollution, refugees).  United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights respects human rights.     

Also needs institutions that promote civil society of which key features include elections, independent judiciaries, a respected police force and stable economy. There has been opposition to counter terrorism measures in Australia (Law Council of Australia). Individuals may feel insecure, even when they are being protected from terrorists, if they fear those with political power. The ability to arrest, interrogate and imprison citizens is a source of insecurity by citizens. There is a sense that members of political executives constitute a great threat to security than terrorists.

Territorial vs Human security  Whilst both conceptions of security are authentic, territorial security makes it possible for people to sacrifice their rights for security whilst the human security conception does not accept this position.  The territorial conception of security focuses on the potential instability and disruption of terrorism and members of political executives doing whatever it takes to maintain order.  Maintain order within a given territory is more important than protecting rights. Rule of law and democratic values  Is treating terrorists outside the rule of law compatible with liberal democratic values? o Yes

 

 o 





Because American was at war and being at war meant that it was legitimate to suspend the rights of enemy combatants in this war. Because the Bush administration believed that the American people would never forgive him or his administration if America was attacked again and had to do everything possible to prevent another attack. Because if terrorists went through normal legal processes, the rules of evidence would prevent their convictions. No Because the very values we uphold in the Western world are severely compromises raising the question of what we are fighting the "war on terror" to protect. Because rough interrogation methods used by the Us military have undermined American's moral authority as an advocate of human rights and basic human decency. Because terrorists are people and should be treated like everybody else.

Case Study: David Hicks  Should the Howard Government have done more to secure David Hicks earlier release? o Yes  Because David Hicks was an Australian citizen.  Because David Hicks was not initially charged with anything and had watched as five Englishmen and the other Australian, Mamdouh Habib, left Guantanamo Bay for home.  Because the failure of members of the Howard Cabinet to intervene when an Australian citizen was incarcerated for an indefinite period shamed Australia in the international community, particularly when this failure is compared with the efforts of UK representatives had led to the release of British detainees (another staunch ally of the USA). o No  Howard was in Washington at the time of the September 11 attacks and this led him to feel hostility towards terrorists like Hicks.  Australia was a staunch ally of the USA and Howard sought to develop a strong relationship with George W. Bush in Australia's national interest.  It wasn't really the Howard government's fault. Major Mori, David Hicks military defence lawyer insisted on challenging the legality of the American military system instead of offering a plea-bargain. If he was pleabargained, Hick may have been released 3 years earlier. In the Company of Cowards - Major Mori  Published (2014) and examines Bush, Howard and injustice at Guantanamo.  Alarmed at the way US and Australian governments were handling the Hicks case.  The distinction between 'unlawful combatants' and 'prisoners of war.'  Asks the question of why Howard government refused to intervene for Hicks?  Rally support of Australian people to expose unfair treatment.  Challenges the way we see our governments and the War of Terror. The Politics of Human Rights  Despite the fact that Australia is a liberal democracy that is a supposedly founded upon a centrality of individual rights, Australia lack a strong rights culture.



   

The Politics of Human Rights (2009) by Chappell, Chesterman and Hill argue that whilst fairness and equality are key components of Australia's national mindset, these same characteristics equate to form of cultural complacency. The protection of human rights from a political science perspectives (as opposed to a purely legal perspectives). Key question - should Australia adopt a Bill of Rights in the age of terror? Anti-terrorism activities and unchecked power of Government. Changes to Australian citizenship 2015-2016 - dual citizenship terrorists have their Australian citizenship cancelled.

Conclusion  Shift from communism to terrorism.  The First National Security Statement to Parliament - former PM Rudd 2008.  Impact of Legislative changes (Parliament in October 2014).  Rights vs security.  Territorial security and human security.  Rule of law and democratic values.  Recent changes to dual citizenship for convicted terrorists....