NEW SUBMISSION OF ANTI TERRORISM LAWS-ACLU

Manzine

Subject: .	NEW SUBMISSION OF ANTI TERRORISM LAWS-ACLU .
Category:	Men & Liberation

Author Geoff Muirden

Geoff Muirden is a Research Officer for the Australian Civil Liberties Union,
e-mail nedrium@netspace.net.au
web site www.go.to/aclu

Fresh submission from ACLU
Secretary, Senate Legal & Constititutional Committee, Suite S1.108,
Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600
legcon.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Sirs/Madams,
It is a matter for concern that in a "democracy", the public is not being
given sufficient time to comment on this legislation.Notice of less than a
fortnight has been given for the public to comment on this bulky
legislation, suggesting that the government is not really interested in
what the public thinks, but simply wants to force the legislation through
regardless of any sense of accountability to the public.

Since there is some overlap in the terms of references of the bills that
the govt would like to shove through Parliament, this submission is being
sent to two committees at once.
This mainly has reference to the bills:
1.ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2002;
2.Border Security Bill 2002;
3.Criminal Code Amendment Espionage Bill 2002;
4.Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2002;
5.Suppression of Terrorist Bombings Bill 2002;
6.Suppresson of Financing Terrorism Bill 2002 and
7. Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 which
can be used to "justify" hacking in a way that should not be tolerated by
a democracy and should not be acceptable.

The Government is proceeding on the assumption that the Sept. 11
,2001outrage was simply the result of an irrational Al-Qaeda attack and
ignores the reasons for the attack- in particular U.S. policies in relation
to the Middle East. It ignores claims by some specialists that Mossad,
and sections of other intelligence agencies may have had forewarning of
the outrage and may have been involved in the attack; and ignores the
question- who benefits?
(Fox News, 11/12/2001)
The Sept. 11 attacks have been used :
a) to "justify" attacks on Afghanistan to seize control of oil reserves in
the Caspian Sea area and build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to
Pakistan;
(b)to "justify" the imposition of anti-terrorist laws that are leading to
a terrorist "garrison state" by imposing restriction on civil liberties to
"protect citizens."
Benjamin Franklin was not fooled by such assurances. He said:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."(Benjamin Franklin, Historical
Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)This admonition applies as much in Australia
as in the United States. This is what we are being advised to accept
nowadays so that we are supposed to learn nothing from history or from the
wisdom of men such as Franklin, who fought to preserve freedom, a freedom
which is now being thrown away.
An erosion of civil liberties is proposed to "save us from terrorism." No
state will ever define what it does as "terrorism" but will whitewash its
actions.
(c) to enhance the powers of the UN to impose a globalist agenda on all
peoples in the world and to destroy national sovereignty.
TERROR LAWS TOO SAVAGE
The ACLU attitude to the raft of legislation being considered by the
Senate Committee was set out in a letter to the "Herald Sun" (29/3/02).
The letter, headed "Terror laws too savage" said:
"The Federal Government has sent six new anti-terrorist bills to the
Senate legal and constitutional committee for public comment.
"The public should know that these Bills include giving the
Attorney-General powers to ban organzations "likely to endanger the
security or integrity of the Commonwealth or another country.
"The Bills, with savage penalties of up to 25 years; imprisonment, create
new terrorist offences, which could include some union actions, civil
disobedience and dissent, and arbitrary arrest.
"It is vital people make submissions opposing the laws and the deadline is
Friday, April 5."

An article from "Your Rights 2002"(27th edition), on the ACLU website says
that Australia is one of the freest countries in the world. This
assessment will have to be significantly modified if the Bills become law
in their present form.

The effect of the Bills, if passed in their present form, will be to
seriously erode traditional liberties, rather than to protect us from what
is an almost non-existent threat of terrorism in Australia.

Legislation directed against whistleblowers was amended by the Parliament
in March this year (see "Your Rights,2002" and ACLU website
www.go.to/aclu ) and the six "anti-terrorist bills" should either be
significantly amended or abandoned. "Your Rights" said that "the
proposal by the Federal Government to impose severe penalties on public
servants who released non security-related information to journalists, and
on journalists who published the information was abandoned in March,2002,
due to widespread public opposition and a clear indication that the ALP,
the Greens and the Democrats would prevent the legislation being passed in
the Senate. The opposition of the ACLU to the proposed changes was
reported in The New York Times and elsewhere. The proposal was in part due
to an over reaction to the bombing of the World Trade Centre on 11
September,2001." Aspects of the "anti terrorist bills" represent a similar
overreaction.
New terrorist laws threaten democratic rights:

   ASIO to get powers of arrest and detention for up to 48 hours;
   The removal of the right to silence when under questioning;
   The creation of terrorist offences and related legislation violating
   the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association;
   removal of privacy rights and increased powers for government to seize
   organization's assets;
   Denial of the right to legal representation.

In the wake of the attacks in the US on 11 September governments
throughout the "west" are planning and have implemented a number of
measures to protect against future terrorist attacks. Some of these
measures are directed specifically against such attacks, but some of the
measures are not and would, if implemented, affect the fundamental rights
of the people living in these countries.
Definition of Terrorism:
Some critics claim that the definition of terrorist act contained in the
Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 and Suppression of
the Financing of Terrorism Bill 2002 is so broad in scope that it could
cover a range of political activity that should not be described as
"terrorist" and should not attract penalties of life imprisonment: the
criminal law such as murder, grevious bodily harm, criminal damage and
conspiracy of aiding or abetting can and should be used to prosecute
"terrorism". The critics claim that the exemption of industrial action will
not cover a range of industrial action such as effective picketing. The
exemption of lawful protest, advocacy and dissent means civil disobedience
and a range of other political activity could be labelled as terrorist.
The Government does not appear to have taken these comments into account.

The State will never decide that what it does is "terrorism", just as the
acts of the US government in bombing foreign countries will not be defined
by it as "terrorism", nor will the actions of the Israeli state in
Palestine be regarded as "terrorism." Writers such as Noam Chomsky and
John Pilger claim that the USA is the main source of terrorism in the
world. An article in The Australian,(4/4/02) pointed out that in the last
5 months of WWII alone US bombing raids killed 900,000 Japanese civilians
even before the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs. More than 700,000 German
civilians were killed by US and UK bombing in WWII. About 500,000
Vietnamese civilians were killed as a result of US policies in Vietnam.
There is a very selective use of the term "terrorism" that will not be
mentioned in legislation but which applies nevertheless.
SELECTIVE USE:
These bills have the potential to be used in a selective manner to target
organizations that are opposed to what the government or its minders want.
It could be used to target groups such as Muslim and Al-Queda groups but
not used to target groups such as Jewish or Zionist groups that support
terrorism in the Middle East, such as what is now going on in Israel with
the killing of Palestinians. Since it is customary to characterise anyone
who criticises Israel and its supporters as being guilty of so-called
"anti-Semitism" (a fact which ignores Arabs are Semites), it should be
noted that there are Jewish groups who oppose what is happening in the
Middle East and these include not only the "refuseniks" in Israel who have
refused to kill Palestinians, but also groups such as"Jews For Justice In
The Middle East", PO Box 14561, Berkeley, CA 94712, USA, who have written
a booklet, "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" available from
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html which criticises Jewish actions in
Israel.
DETENTION POWERS FOR ASIO:
In "Your Rights 2002", available in all newsagents late in April,2002, the
ACLU says that "a proposal to give ASIO the power to detain Australians
without charge or legal representation for 48 hours seemed to be due to a
similar over reaction and this proposal may also be blocked by the Senate.
Under the proposal ASIO would merely have to suspect someone of terrorist
links to be able to detain and question them. The proposed legislation
allows for indefinite detention without the right to silence, and prevents
access to legal assistance.The Government seems to have confused the role
of ASIO with the role of the FBI in the USA. Unlike the FBI, ASIO is not a
law enforcement agency and many ASIO officials are opposed to the
proposal. The Australian Federal police already have the power to detain
suspected terrorists."
An article by Chris Maxwell, QC, the President of Liberty Victoria,headed
"Terror of Howard's Plans for Detention", published in The Australian,
24/12/01, is republished in "Your Rights 2002". The ACLU agrees with the
comments of Mr Maxwell.(See attachment)
Intentions v Deeds
The legislation regards it as legally acceptable that if someone is
intercepted before he carries out an alleged terrorist deed, he will be
charged as if he carried out that deed ,fails to distinguish between deeds
and intentions. To take one example of that statement, in "Security
Legislation Amendment(Terrorism) Bill 2002, in the General Outline, we are
told that "It is not necessary for a terrorist act to actually occur for a
person to be prosecuted for a terrorism offence,"but it does not state that
this failure of a terrorist act to occur means a lesser sentence. One who
murders should receive a higher sentence than one who intends to murder or
one who tries to murder and is prevented from doing so or one who commits
manslaughter. It also assumes that if one is part of an organization
conducting terrorism, it is as if he is liable for all the actions of that
organization, despite the fact he may not know about these alleged
terrorist policies and may not have done it himself. If it is proved, not
merely asserted, that one is part of an organization that sets out to
perform terrorist actions, it should also need to be demonstrated that he
knew of this intention and planned to assist it, not just make him
automatically liable.In short, the State should bear the burden of proof,
and be required to prove the alleged offence has been committed.
Hacking "Justified"
The Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 tries
to "justify" hacking email, SMS messaging, and voicemail , with the
catchall phrase "security" being used. One danger is that this power of
hacking could be used to snoop on peoples' use of the Internet and "censor"
what they access. Its use in relation to pornography and arson is
mentioned, but not the stretching of hacking to accommodate spying on use
of Internet services by law abiding citizens.See article in "Your Rights
2002" and on ACLU website.
Accountability
Whereas the demand for "accountability" on the part of citizens, including
the demand that they prove that they are innocent and not just guilty as
charged, there is little emphasis on the way in which ASIO, as a secret
organization, could abuse its powers and be accountable to the citizens.
It already has excessive powers, but its powers should be reined
in.Instead, they are to be widened, with little public scrutiny. (SeeACLU
website for previous ACLU submissions on ASIO)
Globalisation:
The Bills should be consdered with Australia's traditional respect for
civil liberties and should not slavishly follow UN conventions.
"Criminal Code Amendment(Suppression of Terrorist Bombings) Bill 2002"
mentions that it derives from the UN "International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings" ; and "Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism Bill 2002" mentions that it derives from the UN Security Council
Resolution 1373 and the (UN)International Convention for the Suppression of
the Financing of Terrorism. It mentions that "Australia has signed the
Convention and the Government intends to ratify the Convention in the near
future, subject to the usual "consultation processes." Some of us wonder
the extent to which the public voice will have any impact on "consultation
processes."It will doubtless be "more honoured in the breach than in the
observance".
Proceeds of Crime Bill
The Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 will give effect to the Article 8 of the
(UN)Convention, which requires State parties to take appropriate measures
to provide for the forfeiture of property that is the proceeds of
terrorist activity or that it has been used, or is intended to be used, in
terrorist activity."
The Proceeds of Crime Bill is based on forfeiture principles that have been
used in a draconian fashion overseas to seize peoples' properties and deny
them proper legal representation.
(See ACLU website for general comments on confiscation of assets- chapter
19 "Your Rights 2002"-attachment to this submission)
Banning of Organisations
New legislation will be introduced based on the UK Terrorism Act 2000. This
act allows the government to ban organizations and makes it an offence to
be a member, attend a meeting, provide any support, and indeed even wear a
T-shirt with the organization's symbol. As one critic has said, support
for Nelson Mandela's ANC would have been banned if these laws had been in
place during the time of the anti-apartheid movement. In Australia,
support for the East Timorese's independence movement could have been
banned.
If Australia adopts the European model, the scope could be even wider. The
European Parliament is currently discussing new laws which would define
terrorism as any offences which "aim to seriously prejudice the political,
economic or social structures of a country". Such a definition might
include anyone arrested at protests about the environment, corporate
globalisation, native title, or asylum seekers or union members taking
industrial action.
Trade Union groups claim that the criteria for banning such as "likely to
endanger the security or integrity of the Commonwealth or another country"
are so broad that this law could be used to outlaw political opponents of
government policies in Australia and internationally. The offences of
"membership" or "assisting" would mean people even marginally connected to
the organization could face up to 25 years imprisonment. The trade union
groups do not accept that review of the Attorney-General's decision under
the ADJR Act will provide any safeguards as the law is so broad in scope
any banning however unjust would probably be lawful,and claim that like
the Menzies' Communist Party Dissolution Act,this section of the Act may
be unconstitutional.
PRELIMINARY
This should be treated only as a preliminary submission. More time should
be allowed for debate and submissions when so many of our civil liberties
are under threat- paradoxically under the guise of protecting our civil
liberties. We should not be stampeded into adopting "copycat" laws, which
are probably largely unnecessary, at least in Australia, and may be hard
to repeal in the absence of any sunset clauses when any perceived danger
has passed.
Geoff. Muirden, Research Officer, Australian Civil Liberties Union ,
nedrium@netspace.net.au
Attachments
(Hard copy of attachments to be forwarded by (snail)mail:
1. Confiscation of Assets (ACLU website);
2. Extract from "Your Rights 2002" 27th edition, on 48 hour detention by
ASIO;
3.Copy of front and back cover of "Your Rights 2002";
4. Overview of Freedom of speech and big brother chapter ("Your Rights
2002");
5. ACLU annual report for 2001;
6. Australia-a free country (ACLU website)
7. Previous ACLU submissions on ASIO;
8."Big Brother" articles published in "Your Rights 2002." "You are being
watched"