Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Getting Real: Reforming international law governing the detention of terrorist suspects

By Alan Anderson - posted Wednesday, 6 July 2005


The US Supreme Court has made a start on formulating such a scheme in domestic law, holding that detainees must have some opportunity to challenge their designation as an “unlawful combatant” before a neutral decision-maker, but accepting that significant curtailment of the rules of evidence may be necessitated by national security considerations. Yet the court upheld the legitimacy of indefinite detention if the “unlawful combatant” designation is affirmed.

A more liberal regime is surely appropriate if we are to achieve a legitimate balance between security interests and individual liberties.

Historically, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 gave authorities approximately three to six months to indict a detainee for a felony or high treason. Such a time frame might well be an appropriate deadline for indicting non-citizen terrorist suspects.

Advertisement

Suspects would be granted access to court-appointed counsel, who would be subject to appropriate security checks. While suspects would not necessarily be entitled to see all the evidence against them, government assertions of confidentiality would be assessed by the judge, with hearings relating to sensitive material taking place in the absence of the accused, but in the presence of counsel. Where necessary, hearsay evidence would be accepted from soldiers and intelligence agents on deployment.

Such a system would not, of course, satisfy legal purists. Those purists should appreciate that the rules they would like to impose, and for which they disingenuously assert support in existing international law, will never be accepted by governments or the public. Even favourable judicial rulings will merely lead to legislative reform. The stakes are simply too high.

Until international law changes to conform to the post-September 11 threat environment, it will remain an academic pursuit: a fine subject for debate in the faculty room, but irrelevant to the conduct of the global war on terror.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

First published in the July 2005 edition of the IPA Review.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Alan Anderson was a senior adviser to Treasurer Peter Costello and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. He has previously worked as a lawyer with Allens Arthur Robinson and a computer systems engineer with CSC Australia. He currently works as a management consultant in Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Alan Anderson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy