Based on a paper presented to the ‘Traumas of Law’ conference, the 12th International Conference of the Law & Literature Association of Australia, held at Griffith University and the Queensland University of Technology, 9–11 July 2004. This article also draws on material originally published by the author on the World Socialist Web Site.
2.
For a comparison of the US and British legislation, see HancockN, Terrorism and the Law in Australia: Supporting Materials (Canberra, Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Library, Research Paper No. 13 2001–2002) 2–8.
3.
Amnesty International's concerns regarding post September 11 detentions in the USA, Amnesty International March 2002.
4.
Editorial, ‘The debate we must have’, Herald Sun, 25 July 2005.
BlumW, Rogue State: A guide to the world's only superpower, (2002) 155.
8.
Ibid, 133–34, 145–46.
9.
ShalomS., Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing US Intervention After the Cold War (1993) 63–88.
10.
The report of the US national commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11 was filled with criticisms of the Bush and Clinton Administrations and the performance of the government agencies responsible for intelligence, national security and emergency response. But the commission attributed all of these failures to incompetence, mismanagement, or ‘failure of imagination’. The fundamental premise of its investigation was that the CIA, the FBI, the US military and the Bush White House all acted in good faith. The report thus excluded, a priori, the most important question raised by the events of 9/11: Did US government agencies deliberately permit – or actively assist – the carrying out of this terrorist atrocity, in order to provide the Bush Administration with the necessary pretext to carry out its program of war in Central Asia and the Middle East and a huge build-up of the forces of state repression at home. See The 9/11 Commission Report (2004).
11.
BacevichA, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), BeamsN, ‘The political economy of American militarism’, World Socialist Web Site, 10 July 2003 <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/nb1-j10.shtml> at 14 October 2005.
See, for example, BlackstoneW, Commentaries3:129–137 and the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (UK).
15.
Rasul v Bush; Al Odah v United States (2004) 542 U.S. (Cases no. 03–343, 03–334)
16.
Quoting JacksonJ, in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 218–219 (1953) (dissenting opinion).
17.
[2004] UKHL 56.
18.
Ibid at [36].
19.
Orwell, above n 6, 3.
20.
Ibid4–5.
21.
Ibid33.
22.
For full details see HeadM, ‘“Counter Terrorism” Laws: A Threat to Political Freedom, Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights’ (2002) 26Melbourne University Law Review666 and HeadM, ‘Another threat to democratic rights: ASIO detentions cloaked in secrecy’ (2004) 29Alternative Law Journal127.
23.
Criminal Code 100.1.
24.
Two Muslim men, Izhar ul-Haque and Jack Thomas, have been committed for trial in Australia for activities related to Lashkar-e-Toiba, a Kashmiri group that was later proscribed.
25.
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 102.8.
26.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) ss 34A to 34Y.
27.
HeadM, ‘Another threat to democratic rights: ASIO detentions cloaked in secrecy’ (2004) 29Alternative Law Journal127.
28.
This record has been documented in several works and official inquiries. See, for example, McKnightD, Australia's Spies and their Secrets (1994), HallR, The Secret State, (1978), CainF, The Origins of Political Surveillance in Australia (1983), CainF, ASIO, an Unofficial History (1994), HockingJ, Beyond Terrorism, The Development of the Australian Security State (1993), Commonwealth of Australia, Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security: Fourth Report (1977) vols 1 and 2.
29.
[1982] 154 CLR 25.
30.
(1984) 156 CLR 532.
31.
HeadM, ‘ASIO, Secrecy and Lack of Accountability’ (2004) 11Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law (December 2004).
32.
National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) ss 24–39.
33.
Orwell, above n 6, 228–229.
34.
Ibid, 219.
35.
For example, WolffE, Top Heavy: A Study of the Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America, (1995), Wolff, Economics of Poverty, Inequality and Discrimination (1997). See also <http://inequality.org/> at 14 October 2005.
