Beyond the Law: Update to Amnesty International's April Memorandum to the US Government on the Rights of Detainees Held in US Custody in Guantánamo Bay and Other Locations, Amnesty International, 13 December 2002 <http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAMR511842002> at 3 October 2004.
2.
Ibid. See also ChangN, Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten our Civil Liberties (2002); and Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, ‘Imbalances of Power: How Changes to US Law and Policy Since 9/11 Erode Human Rights and Civil Liberties’ <http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/imbalance/powers.pdf> at 3 October 2004.
3.
ReinhardtJ in Gherebi v Bush, (9th Cir, 2003).
4.
PhillipsLord MR in Abbasi v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 at para 22.
5.
Al Odah v United States (4th Cir, 2003) but jurisdiction was granted in Gherebi v Bush (9th Cir, 2003)
6.
Rasul v Bush; Al Odah v United States 542 US (2004) (Cases no. 03-343, 03-334).
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) 268.31 (denying a fair trial), 268.32 (unlawful deportation or transfer), 268.33 (unlawful confinement). See also 268.99 (unjustifiable delay in repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians).
9.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, AM, 20 February 2004.
10.
Sunday Mail (Brisbane), 22 February 2004.
11.
HeadM, ‘Counter-terrorism laws: A threat to political freedom, civil liberties and constitutional rights’ (2002) 26Melbourne University Law Review, 666.
12.
Hobbes, Leviathan, chs 27–28, quoted in WilliamsG, Criminal Law, The General Part (2nd ed, 1951) 576.
13.
FreemanM, Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence, (6th ed, 1994) 102.
14.
Blackstone, Commentaries, (17th ed, 1830) vol I, 45–46.
15.
Williams, above n 11, 575–581; Hall, ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege’ (1937) 47The Yale Law Journal, 165; PoppleJ, ‘The right to protection from retroactive criminal law’ (1989) 13Criminal Law Journal, 251.
16.
FullerL, The Morality of Law (1969) 54–55.
17.
KershawI, Hitler, 1889–1936 Hubris (1998) 518.
18.
(1915) 20 CLR 425.
19.
(1991) 172 CLR 501.
20.
The judges offered various opinions about whether the charges could have been sustained under international law.
21.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, ‘Hicks, Habib lawyers angered by Latham's retrospective law proposal’, PM, 20 February 2004 <http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1050001.htm> at 3 October 2004.
