DOCSLIB.ORG

Preventative Detention in Peace, War, and the Age of Terrorism in Australia and the United States: a Comparative Constitutional Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preventative Detention in Peace, War, and the Age of Terrorism in Australia and the United States: a Comparative Constitutional Analysis PREVENTATIVE DETENTION IN PEACE, WAR, AND THE AGE OF TERRORISM IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Katherine J. Nesbitt A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of NSW PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dlssertatlon Sheet Surname or Family name: Nesbitt First name: Katherine Other name/s: Jackson Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: LLM School: Faculty: Law Title: Preventative Detention in Peace, War, and the Age of Terrorism in Australia and the United States: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States and Australian governments have asserted that the threat o f terrorism requires the adoption o f preventative detention strategies to authorize the arrest and detention o f terrorists before they carry out their horrific acts. In the United States, the Bush Administration has authorized the preventative, and potentially indefinite, detention o f terrorist suspects as “ enemy combatants” or as “ material witnesses.” In Australia, Parliament passed legislation to amend its criminal code to authorize the imposition o f preventative detention and control orders in cases o f terrorism. This thesis examines and compares these preventative detention strategies employed by the US and Australia in the “ war on terrorism,” and analyses their constitutionality in light o f the US Supreme Court and Australian High Court precedent addressing the legality o f administrative detention in both times o f peace and times o f war. While the US Supreme Court, armed with the Bill o f Rights, has been more assertive in setting limits on the authority to detain individuals without charges, the analysis o f preventative detention in both countries has been confused and conflicting. As a result, the limits on preventative detention are difficult to discern under either US or Australian constitutional law. Nonetheless, in this thesis, I argue the preventative detention measures adopted in both jurisdictions in the war on terrorism are constitutionally invalid. While the Australian measures incorporate more procedural protections and safeguards from abuse than their US counterpart, and therefore are the more favoured approach, neither scheme is consistent with the fundamental principles and values underlying both the US and Australian systems o f criminal justice. Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.1 retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses oniy). Signature Witness Date The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research._________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award: THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS t ( * / 7 5 % 3 Originality Statement I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Signed Date VlfJJMheX ZOO(o COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.1 retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.' SignedSigned PP JP P l . JP H . AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.' Signed Date Table of Contents A bstract.......................................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................v Originality Statement.............................................................................................................................vi Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter One: Alternative Frameworks of Democracy: Key Distinctions between the United States and Australian Systems of Government.................. 6 A. United States: Liberty Protected Through the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights................ 7 1. The Separation of Pow ers...................................................................................................7 2. The Bill of Rights................................................................................................................ 12 B. Australia: Protection of Liberty through Responsible Government..............17 1. Responsible Government and the Absence of a Bill of Rights.........................18 2. The Separation of Pow ers............................................................................................... 21 Chapter Two: Preventative Detention in Times of Peace...................................................26 A. United States: Due Process Constraints on Preventative Detention.............29 B. Australia: The Separation of Judicial Power As a Limit on Preventative Detention....................................................................................................47 1. Executive Detention and Usurpation of Judicial Power.................... 48 2. Judicial Detention and the Kable Doctrine.......................... 64 C. Conclusions...........................................................................................................................71 Chapter Three: Preventative Detention in Times of War................................................... 74 A. United States: Detention of Combatants, Enemy Aliens, and the World W ar II Internment Detentions........................................................................................75 B. Australia: Detention as an Exercise of the War Power........................................94 C. Conclusions............................................................................. .104 - 1 - Chapter Four: Preventative Detention in the Age of Terrorism ...................................106 A. United States: Preventative Detention of Enemy Combatants and Material Witnesses............................................................................................................................ 109 1. Enemy Combatants...........................................................................................................112 a. The AUMF and the November 13 Executive Order............................... 112 b. The Supreme Court's Response to Preventative Detention Under the November 13 Order.........................................................................116 Rasul v Bush..............................................................................................................117 Hamdi v Rumsfeld.....................................................................................................121 Padilla v. United States..........................................................................................129 Hamdan v United States...................... 133 c. The Detention
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Safeguarding Your Organisation Against Terrorism Financing
    Safeguarding your organisation against terrorism financing A guidance for non-profit organisations Safeguarding your organisation against terrorism financing A guidance for non-profit organisations ISBN: 978-1-921241-84-0 © Commonwealth of Australia [2009] This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, 3-5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca Table of Contents SECTION A: Introduction 3 SECTION B: Best Practice Principles 8 SECTION C: Australia’s international obligations 9 SECTION D: Listed individuals and organisations 10 SECTION E: Legal obligations 14 SECTION F: Due diligence 15 SECTION G: Transparency and accountability 17 M F I N A N C I N G S T T E R R O R I S ATION AGAIN S SAFEGUARDING YOUR ORGANI 1 What does this Guidance mean for Non-Profit Organisations (NPOs)? This Guidance is not a legal document. This Guidance is intended to help NPOs understand their obligations under Australian law. Like all Australian legal and natural persons, Australian NPOs must comply with Australian laws. The Australian Government recognises the vital contribution that NPOs make in Australia and overseas. In minimising the risk of misuse of NPOs, the Australian Government is mindful of the need to not disrupt or discourage legitimate NPO activities. This Guidance is intended to support NPOs to continue their important work.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Immigration Detention
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Immigration detention Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 March 2019 HC 913 Published on 21 March 2019 by authority of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Chair Rehman Chishti MP (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Stephen Doughty MP (Labour (Co-op), Cardiff South and Penarth) Chris Green MP (Conservative, Bolton West) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Stuart C. McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Alex Norris MP (Labour (Co-op), Nottingham North) Douglas Ross MP (Conservative, Moray) John Woodcock MP (Independent, Barrow and Furness) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventative Detention and Covert Search Warrants: Review of Parts 2A and 3 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002
    Preventative detention and covert search warrants: Review of Parts 2A and 3 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 Review period 2011 - 2013 September 2014 Preventative detention and covert search warrants: Review of Parts 2A and 3 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 Review period 2011 - 2013 September 2014 NSW Ombudsman NSW Ombudsman Level 24, 580 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Phone 02 9286 1000 Toll free (outside Sydney Metro Area): 1800 451 524 Facsimile: 02 9283 2911 Telephone typewriter: 02 9264 8050 Website: www.ombo.nsw.gov.au Email [email protected] ISBN 978-1-925061-41-3 © Crown Copyright, NSW Ombudsman, September 2014 This work is copyright, however material from this publication may be copied and published by State or Federal Government Agencies without permission of the Ombudsman on the condition that the meaning of the material is not altered and the NSW Ombudsman is acknowledged as the source of the material. Any other persons or bodies wishing to use material must seek permission. Preventative detention and covert search warrants: Review of Parts 2A and 3 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 September 2014 NSW Ombudsman Foreword In 2005 the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 was amended to give police and the NSW Crime Commission special powers to deal with suspected terrorist acts. Under Part 2A, police may apply to the Supreme Court for a preventative detention order to detain a person without charge for up to two weeks, in order to prevent a suspected imminent terrorist act or to preserve evidence of a terrorist act which has occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade of Australian Anti-Terror Laws
    A DECADE OF AUSTRALIAN ANTI-TERROR LAWS GEORGE WILLIAMS* [This article takes stock of the making of anti-terror laws in Australia since 11 September 2001. First, it catalogues and describes Australia’s record of enacting anti-terror laws since that time. Second, with the benefit of perspective that a decade brings, it draws conclusions and identifies lessons about this body of law for the Australian legal system and the ongoing task of protecting the community from terrorism.] CONTENTS I Introduction ..........................................................................................................1137 II Australia’s Anti-Terror Laws ................................................................................1139 A Number of Federal Anti-Terror Laws ......................................................1140 1 Defining an Anti-Terror Law ......................................................1141 2 How Many Anti-Terror Laws? ....................................................1144 B Scope of Federal Anti-Terror Laws .........................................................1146 1 The Definition of a ‘Terrorist Act’ ..............................................1146 2 Offence of Committing a ‘Terrorist Act’ and Preparatory Offences ......................................................................................1146 3 Proscription Regime ....................................................................1147 4 Financing Offences and Regulation ............................................1147 (a) Offences ..........................................................................1147
    [Show full text]
  • Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States
    HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM and the INTELLIGENCE POLICY CENTER THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Homeland Security Program RAND Intelligence Policy Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventive Detention Draft 1
    Volume 14, No. 1 2010 TOURO INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 128 EXTREME MEASURES: DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED PREVENTIVE DETENTION TO COMBAT DOMESTIC TERRORISM? By Diane Webber Preventive detention: “an extreme measure which places the individual wholly under the control of the state, not as a punishment for a proven transgression of the law but rather as a precautionary measure based on a presumption of actual or future criminal conduct…” 1 ABSTRACT This paper deals with preventive detention in the United States, i.e. the detaining of a suspect to prevent a future domestic terrorist offense. Two recent events are examined: the Fort Hood shootings; and a preventive arrest in France, to consider problems in combating terrorist crimes on U.S. soil. The paper demonstrates that U.S. law as it now stands, with some limited exceptions, does not permit detention to forestall an anticipated domestic terrorist crime. After reviewing and evaluating the way in which France, Israel and the United Kingdom use forms of preventive detention to thwart possible terrorist acts, the paper proposes three possible ways to fill this gap in U.S. law, and give the United States the same tools to fight terrorism as the other countries discussed in the paper, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Diane Webber, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, LL.B. University College London, LL.M. Georgetown University, Candidate for SJD Georgetown University expected completion in 2014. I would like to thank Professor David P. Stewart for all his help and guidance, and my family John Webber, Daniel Webber and Katie Hyman for their unwavering support and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Punishment Before Justice: Indefinite Detention in the US
    Physicians for Human Rights Punishment Before Justice: Indefinite Detention in the US June 2011 physiciansforhumanrights.org ABOUT PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS inside frontPhysicians for Human Rights (PHR) is an independent, non-profit orga- cover nization that uses medical and scientific expertise to investigate human rights violations and advocate for justice, accountability, and the health and dignity of all people. We are supported by the expertise and passion of health professionals and concerned citizens alike. Since 1986, PHR has conducted investigations in more than 40 countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, the United States, the former Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe: 1988 — First to document Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Kurds 1996 — Exhumed mass graves in the Balkans 1996 — Produced critical forensic evidence of genocide in Rwanda 1997 — Shared the Nobel Peace Prize for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines 2003 — Warned of health and human rights catastrophe prior to the invasion of Iraq 2004 — Documented and analyzed the genocide in Darfur 2005 — Detailed the story of tortured detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay 2010 — Presented the first evidence showing that CIA medical personnel engaged in human experimentation on prisoners in violation of the Nuremberg Code and other provisions ... 2 Arrow Street | Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 1 617 301 4200 1156 15th Street, NW | Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 USA 1 202 728 5335 physiciansforhumanrights.org ©2011, Physicians for Human Rights. All rights reserved. Front cover photo: JOSEPH EID/AFP/Getty Images ISBN:1-879707-62-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2011927978 Bahrain: Medical Neutrality Acknowledgments The lead author for this report is Cara M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mass Internment of Uyghurs: “We Want to Be Respected As Humans
    The Mass Internment of Uyghurs: “We want to be respected as humans. Is it too much to ask?” TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................5 The Re-education Campaign Emerges from “De-extremification”……………………………….6 The Scale and Nature of the Current Internment Camp System…………………………………10 Reactions to the Internment Camps…………………………………………………...................17 VOICES OF THE CAMPS ...........................................................................................................19 “Every night I heard crying” .........................................................................................................19 “I am here to break the silence”.....................................................................................................20 “He bashed his head against a wall to try to kill himself”.............................................................23 LEGAL INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................................38 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................41 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Submission by the Australian Federal Police Parliamentary Joint
    Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Review of the Australian Citizenship renunciation by conduct and cessation provisions August 2019 Submission by the Australian Federal Police UNCLASSIFIED Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 3 Threat Environment ............................................................................................................... 3 Benefit to Law Enforcment ...................................................................................................... 4 Effectiveness in Combatting Terrorism................................................................................... 4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 6 2 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Introduction The AFP welcomes the request by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to make a submission to the Committee as part of its review of the Australian citizenship renunciation by conduct and cessation provisions. The Committee has requested the AFP comment in particular on the extent to which the citizenship loss provisions have been effective
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP on ARBITRARY DETENTION In
    PETITION TO: UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION In the matter of Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Palestinian v. Government of the United States of America Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Government of the Republic of Poland Government of the Kingdom of Morocco Government of the Republic of Lithuania Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Government of the United Kingdom Submitted by [signature] Helen Duffy international representative of the applicant Human Rights in Practice [address] [phone], [email protected] Submitted: 30.04.2021 Abu Zubaydah v. the United States and 6 others Individual Complaint and Request for Urgent Action under the procedures of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Name: Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Sex: Male Age: (31 at the time of detention; 50 today) Nationality/Nationalities: Palestinian Address of usual residence: Internment Facility at the US Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba States against which this complaint is lodged: United States, Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Thailand and the United Kingdom. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CLAIM ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 RELIEF SOUGHT AND URGENT ACTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uyghur Experiences of Detention in Post-2015 Xinjiang 1
    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................9 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................10 MAIN FINDINGS Surveillance and arrests in the XUAR ................................................................................13 Surveillance .......................................................................................................................13 Arrests ...............................................................................................................................15 Detention in the XUAR ........................................................................................................18 The detention environment in the XUAR ............................................................................18 Pre-trial detention facilities versus re-education camps ......................................................20 Treatment in detention facilities ..........................................................................................22 Detention as a site of political indoctrination and cultural cleansing....................................25 Violence in detention facilities ............................................................................................26 Possibilities for information
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Practice, Directions, Regulations, Code of Local Procedures Practice, Local Procedures
    Approved Medical Practitioners Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act, 2003 Training Manual Approved Medical Practitioners Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act, 2003 Training Manual Scottish Executive, Edinburgh 2005 © Crown copyright 2005 ISBN: 0-7559-4485-2 Scottish Executive St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG Produced for the Scottish Executive by Astron B39301 4/05 Published by the Scottish Executive, April, 2005 Further copies are available from Blackwell’s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Overview & principles 3 Principles 3 Mental disorder 4 Medical treatment 5 3. Short-term detention certificate (STDC) – (section 44) 7 Criteria for issuing an STDC 7 Granting an STDC 7 Revoking and extending an STDC 7 Right of appeal about an STDC 8 4. Compulsory treatment order (CTO) 11 Criteria for issuing a CTO 11 ‘Measures’ authorised through CTOs 11 Mental health reports to support a CTO application 12 CTOs in operation – (section 64) 12 Interim CTO 13 Reviewing the CTO 13 Rights of Appeal 15 Non-compliance with a CTO 15 5. Emergency detention certificate – (section 36) 21 Criteria for granting an EDC 21 Terms of the EDC 21 What is a medical examination? 21 6. Suspension of compulsory measures 25 Suspension of an EDC 25 Suspension of an STDC (Section 53) 25 Revoking suspension of a detention certificate (Section 54) 25 Suspension of CTOs and interim CTOs (Sections 127 and 128) 25 Revoking suspension of a CTO and interim CTO (Section 129) 26 7.
    [Show full text]