Security comes first

The Australian ^ | 5th November 2005

[naturalman1975]

Laws against terror are a foundation for our future

WITH bipartisan state and federal support for proposed legislation to combat terrorism, it is time the self-appointed liberty lobby proclaimed its priorities. It is not good enough to announce that the laws will impinge the rights of a few individuals, as if this alone cripples the case for them. It is not good enough to pontificate about precedent and abhor any law that enhances the ability of the police and security services to protect us against terror attack. That is because these laws are not the work of an authoritarian regime determined to silence its critics and perpetuate its own power. There is nothing in existing or proposed legislation that forbids anybody from calling the Prime Minister as many names as they can imagine and doing everything they can to ensure he is voted out at the next election. Rather than a grab for power, the planned laws are the work of a government trying to meet its fundamental responsibility to the people it is charged with protecting: all Australians. Without security in our persons and property, we have no hope of exercising all our rights as citizens. And without a national commitment to security for all Australians, the promise of economic opportunity and the prosperity it can provide is worthless. The fundamental issue in the debate on the terror laws is whether the civil liberties of a tiny handful of people who will kill us if they can are more important than Australians' right to live in peace and freedom.

To put the question plainly does not demean those who believe ordinary people should face the risk of death to protect abstract ideals of liberty. But it does dictate that the social engineers of the human rights industry, their allies at the bench and the bar and among fringe politicians, consider the question in context. No one can deny we face a terror threat. Almost 100 Australians died in the two Bali bombings and Islamic terrorists in Asia have tried to kill more of us in Jakarta, Singapore and Manila. That there have been, and undoubtedly are, aspiring terrorists on our shores is beyond debate. But still supporters of the legal status quo say this does not merit new laws. More people will die from illness or accident than in any conventional terror attack and we must not lose our sense of proportion, they argue. But terror attacks are not part of the rhythm of life, they are not plain bad luck -- they are acts of thuggery designed to slaughter innocent people. And they are based on an ineffable hatred of our democracy and the rule of law. Denying police and intelligence services authority under the law to stop terrorists before they attack is to demonstrate to our enemies that we would prefer to appease them than defy them.

The opponents of the proposed laws should also get a grip in criticising their severity. Terror suspects can be required to wear a tracking device, even placed under house arrest for a year, but interim orders will be scrutinised by a judge. While people can be held without charge for 14 days, judges will be able to review the reasons. And police will be able to use force against suspects who are threatening the lives of others as they try to avoid detention, but this power already exists. Nor are the proposed laws as severe as anti-terror measures in other democracies where there is no doubting the danger of attack. In France, terror suspects can be held for up to four years without trial, if charged with an offence carrying a sentence of 10 years or more. The US Patriot Act gives the federal government sweeping surveillance powers, and allows it to detain foreigners indefinitely. And British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to increase the power to detain terror suspects from 14 days to three months. Nor are the proposed Australian laws the result of an imperious federal government on a frolic of its own. The text that will go before parliament is the 85th version of the legislation. The premiers, whose support is essential, only signed off after significant changes. Government backbenchers have also secured revisions. And most important, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley agrees.

It is easy to argue against these laws, to say John Howard is using the terror threat to assert his authority. Certainly the Government did not help its case this week by theatrically announcing a terror threat required recalling the Senate to amend existing legislation, on the very day the controversial workplace reform legislation was being debated in parliament. But this was a stumble on the march to implement essential new laws. For Australia to rely for our defence against terror on legislation drafted before Islamic fundamentalists declared war would place the security of us all at risk.

[marron]

Its really rather simple. Are you at war, or are you not at war?

Since your enemies are at war with you, the sooner you recognize it, and

[marron]

too quick on the button...

Its really rather simple. Are you at war, or are you not at war?

Since your enemies are at war with you, the sooner you recognize it, and make the necessary legal adjustments, the better. War is by its very nature "extra-legal". War is that state of affairs that exists when normal law is inadequate to contain a conflict.

If laws, and courts, and cops, and lawyers in suits and ties are sufficient to resolve the threat, you aren't at war yet. If you are still trying to serve subpoenas on the man who is trying to blow up your city, though, you haven't yet realized the nature of your conflict.

The jihadist doesn't want to persuade a judge in a court that he is right, he wants to bury you in the ground. You aren't going to serve papers on him, you are going to send some stout men to kill him, and anyone standing near him.

You aren't going to get a warrant before you kick in his door, you aren't going to get a warrant before you drop a B-52 load on him and anyone near him. And you aren't going to apologize afterward. Thats why you need to do what we rarely do, which is to publicly declare war, and then go and get him.

The declaration of war is not for the purpose of putting your enemies on notice, since your enemies already know they are at war. The declaration is to establish legally that, until further notice, you are going to do whatever it takes. When war ends, rule of law resumes; or better said, when normal rule of law resumes, by definition war is ended.