Comparison of Australian, the UK and the US Terrorism Laws - Case Study Example

Introduction Terrorism has become a modern world threat and the mention of that word sends chill to the spine of many people. Terrorism has been there since time immemorial and caused empires to rise and fall consequently allowing people to gain power, (Howie, 2005). Modern terrorism incidences have in effect forced countries to strengthen their respective anti-terrorism legislation and expand their law enforcement powers for the sole purpose of protecting their citizens adequately. This research study intends to take a critical look on the Australian terrorism laws and compares it with those of United States and United Kingdom. It also tries to observe the impact of the Australian current law to the citizens and varies reforms that need to be undertaken to improve the law in order to make more comprehensive and appealing to Australians. Otherwise terrorism is much dreaded and countries in the world need to join hands together to fight the venom through various existing methods and ensure that their citizens and the world at large are protected from its effect. Discussion Terrorism in legal perspective is defined as violence directed to civilians, causing death or serious bodily injury and involves intimidating a population or government or international organization from taking or abstaining from the act. Terrorism presents a threat to the modern society. Modern society is vulnerable to manifold insecurities and this provides a perfect environment for the proliferation of invalidated irrational beliefs. The fanatical beliefs therefore act as standard regarding solidity in increasingly chaotic social worlds. Terrorism can potentially occur when an individual with fanatical beliefs is tempted to use intentionally biological agent, chemical agent or nuclear weapon or device or explosive or other dangerous device other than personal monetary gain to jeopardize directly or indirectly, the safety of individual(s) or causing substantial destruction to property (ies), (Howie,2005). The state of Queensland has been reviewing its legislation in relation to terrorist threat. Queensland just like other Australian states and territories refer power to the Commonwealth which enables the Australian Government to come up with laws that regulate terrorism offences under the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2002. In regard to this, majority of particular offence stipulation are contained in the Commonwealth Act of 1995. Nonetheless, Queensland legislation can prosecute terrorist activity and other related criminal offences. Queensland Police Service is bestowed with the responsibility of investigating and managing threats and incidents of terrorism inclusive of those outlined in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Terrorism (Preventative Detention) Act of 2005. Various agencies in Queensland have specific powers concerning the management of major emergencies which includes the acts of terrorism and consequences. The agencies include the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 and the Disaster Management Act 2003. Australian federal government has significantly played a leading role regarding to the development of laws that combat terrorism. The federal government introduced extensive legislative regime that revolve around counter-terrorism, national security and related cross-jurisdictional offences. The Australian Anti-terrorism Act of 2005 was a legislation enacted to mitigate the activities of potential terrorists in the country. The legislation was effectively confirmed by the Commonwealth Parliament on December 6th 2005. The legislation confers the police with the powers to detain suspects for a period lasting two weeks without imposing charge and it also provide them with the power to electronically track suspects for a period lasting one year, (Michaelson, 2005). The Anti-Terrorism act of 2005 includes a shoot to kill clause. The US laws on terrorism incorporates the following: Export Administration Act: It is the duty of the US Secretary of State to report yearly to the Congress on nations funding or providing territorial assistance for operation of terrorist organizations or which are involved directly in terrorist activities. Nations appearing in terrorist list are subjected to trade sanctions and furthermore become ineligible for various United States of America benefits. Foreign Assistance Act: This Act denies countries on the State Department terrorism list from being given United States aid. Arm Export Control Act: This is a legislation prohibiting the exportation of defense-related materials to nations appearing in the US terrorism list and the Act requires an exportation license regarding to dual-use materials. Middle East Peace Facilitation Act: The Act spells that the link with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and aid to the people of Palestine is subject to conditioning depending on the presidential certification to Congress and that is the Palestinian Liberation Organization has abided by its pledges to the Israel nation. Comprehensive Anti-terrorism Act: This Act intends to reinforce United States law terrorist groups and this entails: i) Prohibiting fundraising in the United Sates for foreign terrorists cartels. ii) Provision of new federal jurisdiction for prosecuting acts of terrorism carried out the United States soil and also conspiracies in the United States with the aim of committing terrorism abroad. iii) Closure of loopholes existing in the immigration laws which enable terrorists to make use of United States territory for organizing and directing terrorist activities. The UK law on terrorism incorporates the following: Terrorism Act 2000: This Act gives provision for various powers that include the powers to stop and search suspected people. This Act criminalizes lawful gatherings and demonstrations as well as other forms of behavior which might be regarded as unlawful but not classified as terrorism act. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005: The Act grants Home Secretary, the powers to enforce control orders on individuals suspected to be involved in terrorism activities. The Terrorism Act 2006: This Act created a number of new offenses that include direct and indirect encouragement as well as other inducement of terrorism. The Act consequently increased the limit of pre-charge detention to 28 days for suspected terrorists. The Terrorism law of Australia is similar to UK Terrorism laws with regard to control order; in fact the Australian control order scheme was based on the UK model. However UK scheme includes two types of control orders unlike Australia, namely: Non-derogating control orders: This type of control order complies with Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) which elaborates individual’s right to liberty. Derogating control order: This control order imposes obligations which are characteristically contrary to Article 5 of the ECHR thus necessitating UK Parliament suspension of compliance with the ECHR. In UK it is the work of Secretary of State to issue control orders which is then approved by a court while in Australia the control orders are issued by court and applied for by the Australia Federal Police. Australian Terrorism law differs from UK Terrorism law in the aspect of human rights. Unlike Australian Terrorism law, UK Terrorism law is based on UK Human Rights Act of 1998 and its commitment to the ECHR. The Australian Terrorism law is moderately similar to that of United States Terrorism law with regard to preventive detention. Both countries’ Terrorism laws allow detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Australian Terrorism law differs from United States Terrorism laws in that unlike Australia, United States Terrorism law permits unjustifiable searches of Terrorism suspects. Again, Australia lacks the constitutional bill of rights like United States. The stakeholders in the terrorism include the political leaders, the public and institutions which have the responsibility of discouraging people from involvement in terrorism. The stakeholders’ view that it is their responsibility to refuse terrorists the avenue for carrying out an attack and this they intend to achieve through: i) Refusing provision of financial support to terrorists. ii) Preventing terrorists’ accessibility to deadly weapons. iii) Stopping States from providing support to terrorists groups by using rule of law and effective criminal justice systems. iv) Defending of human rights with regard to the context of terrorism and counter terrorism. Conflicting arguments are in existence in Australia regarding the terrorism laws with some arguing that they are very necessary because they attempt to strike the right balance amid Australian national security imperatives and concerns for civil/public freedom. Others regard the terrorism laws as the recent instance of ill-advised counterterrorism policy that will have the impact of transforming Australia nation into a police state, (Howie, 2005). Nonetheless the disagreement on crucial issues relating to public policy is the characteristic feature of liberal democracy. The current Australian law has serious impact to the fundamental human rights and freedom, (Michaelson, 2005). The Australia Terrorism law tends to interfere with the freedom of movement. The control orders as spelt in Australia legislation allows terrorist suspect to be under close monitoring and therefore denies an individual freedom to move from one locality to another. The current Australian law again denies the Australians the freedom of expression. The law does not grant people the authority to question various policies proposed by the government and politicians. Furthermore terrorism suspects hardly get fair trial in Australian courts; the suspects are tortured and punished without regard to human rights. The Australia tough law consequently creates more enemies than friends as people get hated just because of their religion affiliation or close relationship with terrorism suspects. The 9/11 terrorism attack on US soil involved a coordinate series of suicide attacks by the world dreaded group known as al-Qaeda. The 9/11 attack happened in 2001 and involved 19 al-Qaeda terrorists who hijacked four commercial airliners. The al-Qaeda terrorists crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center accordingly killing all the passengers on board including those people working in the buildings. Another terrorism attack directed to United States was the 1998 bombing of the U.S Embassies in the East Africa soil. The simultaneous bombing of the United States embassies in the East African cities of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, Kenya caused death of hundreds of people coupled with massive destruction of property. The 1998 bombing of U.S Embassies was linked to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and for the first Osama bin Laden came into American attention hence placing him among the Ten Most wanted people by the U.S Federal Bureau of Investigation. The above two terrorism incidences prompted Australia and other countries to strengthen their respective anti-terrorism legislation and expanded their law enforcement powers in order to adequately protect their citizens. The best alternative legal solution is to entrench into the constitution the Australian Bill of Rights and this in effect will pre-date the anti-terror bills. The current Australian law falls short of protecting even the most fundamental rights of the Australians but with entrenchment of the bill into the constitution will result to full protection of the freedom speech and religion. Generally the Bill of rights will protect the most fundamental rights and freedoms of the Australian citizens, (Michaelson, 2005a). Nonetheless the law is regarded not an effective avenue of addressing terrorism in modern society. Australia needs to come up with other ways rather than use law in combating terrorism as the use of law tends to increase terrorism levels instead of reducing. The tough laws imposed by countries makes the terrorists to retaliate violently hence causing more havoc. It is imperative for the countries to look into the main cause of terrorism instead of dealing with its effect. Conclusion In a nutshell terrorism has been a growing problem to the world. Countries like Australia have been having legislation to curb terrorism in the territory. Australia has terrorism laws that don’t regard fundamental human rights for some of the terrorism suspects are subjected to undue torture and deprivation of their rights. These draconian laws have called for reforms to be initiated to ensure that human rights are observed. Nonetheless modern terrorism incidences have in effect forced countries to strengthen their respective anti-terrorism legislation and expand their law enforcement powers for the sole purpose of protecting their citizens adequately. References HOWIE, L. 2005. The threat of terrorism and social change. Human Rights Defender Special Issue: The Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005. November/December: 22-23. MICHAELSON, C. 2005. Antiterrorism Legislation in Australia: a proportionate response to the terrorist threat? Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 28: 321-329. MICHAELSON, C. 2005a. Security Against Terrorism: individual right or state purpose?, Public Law Review, 16: 178-182. Read More