ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Rights vs security
Convicting those arrested for alleged terrorist offences has been a somewhat hit-and-miss business with more misses than hits. Cases are not infrequently thrown out by courts either for lack of evidence or poor evidence gathering by the police. Those accused of terrorism, the cases against them having failed, have been known to re-emerge to carry on their activities. After years of procrastination the government has finally moved to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation and the federal cabinet has approved the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2012. Essentially this tidies up the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, and seeks to strengthen provisions in terms of the freezing of assets including bank accounts and property which may be used in the furtherance of terrorism and allow due process of law to come into play with rather more muscle than hitherto.
In the same session the Federal Cabinet also considered a piece of legislation that has the potential not only to be far reaching, but also to significantly impact on the type of evidence presented before anti-terrorism and other courts. The Investigation for Fair Trial Bill 2012 provides for investigators and presumably not only those investigating allegations of terrorism but a spectrum of other crimes as well with the remit to gather evidence by means of modern devices and techniques. Decoded, this is going to mean the tapping of landlines, the interception of calls made using mobile handsets and communications made between those alleged to be involved in crime that use the internet, which is nowadays a favoured means of communication by criminals and terrorists alike. The Bill rightly notes that such powers are open to abuse, and it takes little imagination to see that there are innumerable opportunities for such powers to be used inappropriately or frivolously or simply with malice aforethought. Crucially, and it is here that it may impact on the numbers of alleged terrorists successfully prosecuted, evidence thus gathered will be admissible in the course of judicial or other legal proceedings or processes to ensure a fair trial fair both to the state or provincial prosecutor and the alleged criminal in terms of how they may mount their defence. The Bill has yet to pass the Senate and there are hurdles as to its implementation. There is minimal civilian oversight of the agencies that will be using this legislation as an evidence net, and thus it may be challenged by the defence or even the Bench as to its validity if presented. The competencies of those gathering or presenting the evidence may be challenged; and evidence such as this is open to manipulation or outright fakery which is one reason why many developed states are wary or unwilling to go down this road. Doubts aside, anything that gets more terrorists properly convicted and behind bars has to be welcomed, but the government must be mindful of quality control and accountability within the law-enforcing agencies if this is not to be just another piece of redundant legislation or a handy tool to go after troubling voices of dissent or political opponents.
Convicting those arrested for alleged terrorist offences has been a somewhat hit-and-miss business with more misses than hits. Cases are not infrequently thrown out by courts either for lack of evidence or poor evidence gathering by the police. Those accused of terrorism, the cases against them having failed, have been known to re-emerge to carry on their activities. After years of procrastination the government has finally moved to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation and the federal cabinet has approved the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2012. Essentially this tidies up the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, and seeks to strengthen provisions in terms of the freezing of assets including bank accounts and property which may be used in the furtherance of terrorism and allow due process of law to come into play with rather more muscle than hitherto.
In the same session the Federal Cabinet also considered a piece of legislation that has the potential not only to be far reaching, but also to significantly impact on the type of evidence presented before anti-terrorism and other courts. The Investigation for Fair Trial Bill 2012 provides for investigators and presumably not only those investigating allegations of terrorism but a spectrum of other crimes as well with the remit to gather evidence by means of modern devices and techniques. Decoded, this is going to mean the tapping of landlines, the interception of calls made using mobile handsets and communications made between those alleged to be involved in crime that use the internet, which is nowadays a favoured means of communication by criminals and terrorists alike. The Bill rightly notes that such powers are open to abuse, and it takes little imagination to see that there are innumerable opportunities for such powers to be used inappropriately or frivolously or simply with malice aforethought. Crucially, and it is here that it may impact on the numbers of alleged terrorists successfully prosecuted, evidence thus gathered will be admissible in the course of judicial or other legal proceedings or processes to ensure a fair trial fair both to the state or provincial prosecutor and the alleged criminal in terms of how they may mount their defence. The Bill has yet to pass the Senate and there are hurdles as to its implementation. There is minimal civilian oversight of the agencies that will be using this legislation as an evidence net, and thus it may be challenged by the defence or even the Bench as to its validity if presented. The competencies of those gathering or presenting the evidence may be challenged; and evidence such as this is open to manipulation or outright fakery which is one reason why many developed states are wary or unwilling to go down this road. Doubts aside, anything that gets more terrorists properly convicted and behind bars has to be welcomed, but the government must be mindful of quality control and accountability within the law-enforcing agencies if this is not to be just another piece of redundant legislation or a handy tool to go after troubling voices of dissent or political opponents.
