No-warrant terrorism raids proposed (Australia)

[Masada]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/2653998.htm

Spoiler :

The Federal Government has unveiled plans to toughen its counter-terrorism laws that would allow police to break into a suspect's home without getting approval from a judge.

It also wants to make it easier to stop suspects getting out of jail on bail.

But the Government is planning to put a cap on the amount of time suspects can be held without charge.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the tougher laws would protect Australians.

"The Government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place," he said.

But some argue toughening the laws would have the opposite effect.

Nicola McGarrity from the Terrorism Law Project at the University of New South Wales says the laws could take away the protection of the judiciary.

"It's fundamentally undermining the safeguards that exist," she said.

"It's taking away the protection of having a judicial officer make a warrant."

But new limits will be imposed on other controversial powers.

In the case of Dr Mohammed Haneef, who was detained in 2007, police were allowed to question him without charging him for a total of one day.

The clock stops ticking, however, when the suspect goes to sleep or the police need time to check with agencies overseas.

In the end, Dr Haneef was held for 12 days without charge before a magistrate ordered his release.

So Mr McClelland says the Government is planning to introduce an eight-day limit.

"To enable the law enforcement authorities to have that time and balance it against the rights of individuals - that we would hope our society cherishes - and that is the right not to be detained without charge," he said.

But legal analysts, including Ms McGarrity, argue that eight days is still too much time and that the detainment period should be capped at three days.

"What normally happens with police is they exercise those powers up to the extent of those powers," she said.

The Government also wants to press ahead with controversial plans to make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.

The Attorney-General says he has seen intelligence and phone tap logs that back the need for this law.

Mr McClelland says it is the kind of law that could have been used against people involved in attacks on Indian students if nationality, race or religion was the driving force.

Another proposal in the discussion paper released on Wednesday was to make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The naming of a terrorist organisation would also stay current for three years, instead of one, before expiring, the paper said.

The public has until September 25 to comment on the discussion paper.

But the Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, says he is sceptical about the Government's level of commitment to national security.

"In the last budget, for example, the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism program was scaled back by $1.4 million," he said.

"The AFP's intelligence programs were scaled back by $3.2 million. There was a 7 per cent reduction in the staff of the Australian Crime Commission."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25920112-601,00.html

Spoiler :

POLICE will not be able to hold terrorism suspects after seven days and the definition of a terrorist act will be expanded to include "psychological harm" under proposed changes to Australia's counter-terror laws.

The proposed changes, unveiled today by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, are aimed at moderating the tough suite of laws passed by the Howard government in the wake of September 11 and the Bali bombings.

Police will also be given the power to search premises without a warrant where they believe there is material that threatens public health.

Mr McClelland said the changes toughened the laws in some areas while “moderating” them in others.

But when asked if he thought the previous government had overshot the mark in drafting the counter-terror legislation, Mr McClelland pointedly noted the existing legislation had been introduced “expeditiously”.

“I think it's fair to say that the previous legislation, and this is a very solid point, the previous legislation was introduced expeditiously as the circumstances required as an immediate response to the event of September 11 and the Bali bomb attacks,” Mr McClelland told journalists in Canberra.

“The government was required to act and acted expeditiously. I think it's appropriate, given reflections, given time, that we now need to shift our focus to a frame of reference that is long term so that the public accepts the legislation which in many instances had time limits or sunset clauses, accepts the legislation as being valid, credible and effective, but balanced for the long term and this is the philosophy with which we've approached this task.”

Mr McClelland told parliament a 452-page national security legislation discussion paper proposed a range of reforms to existing legislation.

That follows a series of reviews, including the Clarke inquiry into the wrongful arrest and detention of Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Under the proposed changes there will be a new terrorism hoax offence, punishable by up to 10 years' jail, for anyone seeking to create a false belief that a terrorist act will occur.

As foreshadowed last month, Mr McClelland said it was proposed there be an offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion.

Mr McClelland said a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement would be created to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.

He said the Government had sought to address the concerns and issues raised in reviews of national security and counter-terrorism legislation to achieve the right balance between strong terror laws while preserving democratic rights.

“Each and all of the measures .... are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring these laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation,” he said.

Do provisions like this exist in other countries and how well do they operate?

 

[Defiant47]

I can see both sides of the issue on this one.

 

[Arwon]

But the Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, says he is sceptical about the Government's level of commitment to national security.

"In the last budget, for example, the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism program was scaled back by $1.4 million," he said.

"The AFP's intelligence programs were scaled back by $3.2 million. There was a 7 per cent reduction in the staff of the Australian Crime Commission.

This is bollocks. Has he read the Defence white paper? How can he claim the current government is "reducing spending on national security" with a straight face?

 

[Masada]

It's level of commitment, which is increasingly becoming a figure combining money with actual commitment on the part of government policy.

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes and couldn't say.

 

[illram]

If that is the exact language (you'd think journalists would get the language right for something this important) I would say it sounds waaaay too overbroad. I am actually going to assume there is more to the rule than that because that would obviously allow way more than searching the home for terrorists.

Police and prosecutors will always push the envelope of a rule. The envelope here seems to be pretty fat to begin with. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear "material that threatens public health" is drugs. I.e., under this rule you will see warrantless searches for drugs and whatever else someone thinks is "material threatening public health," unless there is something else in the law or something else about Australian law I am unaware of that limits the scope here.

As far as these things existing in other countries, here police can enter a home without a warrant under very limited circumstances. These are generally called "exigent circumstances" and involve chasing a fleeing dangerous felon who goes into a home, entering a home to preserve evidence from imminent destruction, and conducting a "protective sweep" of a home if a dangerous suspect is apprehended inside a home and officers believe others maybe hiding, in which case the officers are limited to looking in places where a person could reasonably be hiding. Officers are given leeway in these scenarios and often stretch them to the extreme limit, obviously, which is my concern with the above mentioned new laws.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What Australian terrorism?

It sounds like someone is trying to take away most of your rights on the basis of irrational fear and hatred. Welcome to the club.

 

[storical]

This is bollocks. Has he read the Defence white paper? How can he claim the current government is "reducing spending on national security" with a straight face?

Just to make you mad

 

[Camikaze]

Eight days? Oh, how generous.
Terrorism laws have already gone far enough without the government wanting to undermine the concept of justice and legal process even further. There is really no need for this type of thing, and even assuming that there was, it would still be an unfair subjugation of basic rights for little, if any, gain. I would've thought that after the Haneef case the government would know better than to institute draconian policies such as this.

Another proposal in the discussion paper released on Wednesday was to make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Good thing the Chaser finished already.

This is bollocks. Has he read the Defence white paper? How can he claim the current government is "reducing spending on national security" with a straight face?

And more to the point, wouldn't it be a good thing if they actually did?

What Australian terrorism?

It sounds like someone is trying to take away most of your rights on the basis of irrational fear and hatred. Welcome to the club.

I bet the government was just waiting for something like this to reveal the next stage of terrorism overkill.

 

[Tee Kay]

What Australian terrorism?

It sounds like someone is trying to take away most of your rights on the basis of irrational fear and hatred. Welcome to the club.

As defined by Wikipedia, terrorism is:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

I wonder if this includes fearmongering to peddle questionable policies as well.

 

[aelf]

Not the worst that they can do, considering these people carry some nifty guns when necessary and most of you probably don't. Thank them for the reduction to an 8-day cap.

 

[FriendlyFire]

What Australian terrorism?

It sounds like someone is trying to take away most of your rights on the basis of irrational fear and hatred. Welcome to the club.

PLUS SIDE
1. ex Army noncon caught and two terrorist suspect (selling nine one shot Bazooka weapons FFS)
2. Four terrorist suspect caught planning attacks on Barracks

MINUS SIDE
1. Embrassing arrest of Indian Doctor on terrorism support charges which turn out to be laughable
2. Previous government had a reputation of manipulation (children overboard for example)

These laws are still new and havent exactly been used in any wide scale way like US warrentless wiretapping, no fly list and Homeland security. So far they have been used sparingly. Note there have been a few minor terrorism related police stories like finding bomb making material in a house but no use of the new powers.

Iam OK as long as the new terrorism laws continue to be used sparsely (sp?)
.

 

[Camikaze]

One time does not mean every time. Without degenerating into a debate over anarchism (again), I'll just quietly point out the arrest of first-degree murderers and leave it at that.

 

[Arwon]

The state is so funny. Every time it claims to be an useful indespensible organisation to protect its clients and solving their problems, it is in fact also the cause of the problems.

No terrorist would EVER bother attacking a non-aggressive state. The real terrorist, the initiator of violence, is the big brother.

Yes, that's certainly a sensible contribution.

 

[azzaman333]

The nanny state strikes again?

 

[useless]

The state is so funny. Every time it claims to be an useful indespensible organisation to protect its clients and solving their problems, it is in fact also the cause of the problems.

No terrorist would EVER bother attacking a non-aggressive state. The real terrorist, the initiator of violence, is the big brother.

So explain why the 3 men whom where recently arrested in Australia, were going to attack and commit a terrorist act there?

 

[Arwon]

Is it actually a terrorist attack when the target was going to be a military base?

I mean it's not like they'd have had any success, the SAS don't mess around, but still...

 

[Masada]

What Australian terrorism?

We've had a few, some guilty, most not. The legislation is in response to this which even to my jaded eyes looked, smelled and felt like a genuine terrorist attack.

And more to the point, wouldn't it be a good thing if they actually did?

I'll refer you back to my post for the intricacies of 'national security' in the public sector vernacular.

Not the worst that they can do, considering these people carry some nifty guns when necessary and most of you probably don't. Thank them for the reduction to an 8-day cap.

When Australia's an authoritarian dictatorship then you can throw that in my face. Until such time try to reside in a reality which syncs with the notion that all states act in their own rational self interest even if they have to take a dump all over the niceties of democracy, the rule of law and an independent judiciary.

As defined by Wikipedia, terrorism is:

Conveniently you missed the next part of the Wikipedia entry:

At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.

The nanny state strikes again?

Added substance to debate?

Is it actually a terrorist attack when the target was going to be a military base?

I assume that civilians taking up arms while neglecting to wear uniforms or any other identifying marker automatically forfeit their Geneva Convention rights still?

I mean it's not like they'd have had any success, the SAS don't mess around, but still...

Its the time between getting to the armor[ies] to access ammunition and weapons that's the killer... the media might also have complained.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I bet the government was just waiting for something like this to reveal the next stage of terrorism overkill.

Ha. That smacks of the spate of supposed US "terrorist attacks" by small groups, which actually turned out to be the ideas of paid police informants who eventually prodded them into planning absurd acts.

And it took 400 people to detain 4 unarmed individuals?!?

 

[Arwon]

No sense going in half-cocked. Also 400 probably means logistical support too.