Compare and Contrast the Pre and Post 9/11 Law Enforcement Response to Terrorism. What Strategies Could Be Implemented to Increase Future Law Enforcement Capability in Countering Terrorism?

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

The opportunity to contribute to society are many and varied and include positions within defence or local community protection. This provides the opportunity to work in a field which promotes and supports the community and the Nation’s interests. In regard to working within ASIO, the focus is on analysing and reporting prospective threats, resulting in the production of protective security measures, to ensure the safety of Australia’s communities, people and assets. In the words of Pietsch and McAlister “Australia has been relatively immune from acts of terrorism” (Juliet Pietsch & Ian McAllister, 2012). “I want Australians to be aware that a terrorist incident on our soil remains likely but also that Australians should be reassured our security agencies are working diligently and expertly to prevent that happening” (Malcolm Turnball, 2015). Terrorism is an increasingly greater threat in the 21st century, and it is clear from these statements that ASIO has an important role to play in ensuring the security of Australian

Much of the Federal legislation was implemented to comply with international terrorism treaties that Australia was party to (PA, n.d.-a). Examples of this legislation include ‘Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994’, which complied with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of

September 11, 2001 showed that there were weaknesses in communication and emergency response. It also significantly changed the role police have with the prevention of terrorist acts. As Oliver stated, “... policing in the post-September 11 environment is not only a response to the specific events...but also an amalgam of change brought about by various political, economic, and social factors in the United States...” (Homeland Security for Policing, 2007, p. 43).

4. Compare and contrast the counterterrorist efficiency of the Federal bureaucracy before and after the September 11, 2001 attack.

The horrific events of September 11, 2001, profoundly altered the way law enforcement agencies conducted business. The creation of new agencies arose, strategies, procedures, and training for law enforcement was necessary to prepare and combat terrorism. In this paper, I will analyze the before and after effects, the events of 9/11 caused in law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and what improvements I feel are needed to keep our nation safe from terrorism.

The case of Thomas v Mowbray revolutionised and created a new, broad, perspective of the constitutional defence powers in regards to terrorism. This was the first case to reach the High Court on the validity of anti-terrorism measures that were recently introduced to Australia by the executive. Thomas made several submissions within this case, including that the defence power was limited to defence against threats from foreign states and that the words ‘naval and military’ present in the wording of the section confines the defence power to those activities and cannot underpin broader activities to protect the community. Unfortunately, on the first point there was a 6:1 majority that the law was valid under the power for threats both domestic and foreign. Kirby J dissent held that the Commonwealth had essentially failed to establish the factual basis that was needed to support its reliance on the defence power. Further, Kirby J concluded that the ‘facts underpinning the war on terror did not constitute hostilities for the purposes of the first limb of the defence power.’ The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-terrorism laws that allowed for the courts to impose control orders upon persons of whom they believed to pose a threat due to their connections to listed terrorist organisations, regardless of the possibly that some derogable rights maybe be overridden. The control order imposed on Thomas required him to remain in his residence

Domestic terrorism has been a major threat in the US since the catastrophic event that took place during attack on 9/11. Following the aftermath of the terrorist attack, the US intelligence services and law enforcement agencies emphasized heavily on combating terrorism on global scale as international terrorism was views as the major threat to the public security of the US which caused the issue of domestic terrorism to be overlooked. We have seen many terrorist attacks since the attack on 9/11 that were planned and executed by individuals and groups born and raised in America. Some of those attacks include the Oklahoma City bombing, the Boston marathon bombing. There has also been increasing number of mass shooting by individuals that were identified as to be radicalized by terrorist groups abroad, the most recent mass shooting that was identified as a terrorist act was in Orlando where more than 50 people were killed (Alveraz, p.1). The cases mentioned above will be discussed in detail later in the essay. Although, American law enforcement agencies are actively conducting intelligence and operational missions to prevent international terrorism, however, the US needs to develop efficient tactics to prevent the rise of domestic terrorism. Otherwise, the United States may face a danger of the unfailing growth of domestic terrorism similar to some of the European countries; such as the United Kingdom. Consequently, law enforcement agencies should concentrate on the preclusion

In December 2005 ‘Control Orders’ became part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorism threats (The Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p 57). Issued by a court, at the request of the AFP, an individual could be prohibited or restricted in movement, for the express purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act. Such restrictions may comprise of curfews, electronic monitoring devices, restrictions of telecommunications, specified reporting to police and other measures. Jack Thomas (August 2006) and David Hicks (December 2007) are the only two individuals who have been issued control orders in Australia by law enforcement. (Jaggers, B. April 2008). para 1).

The 9/11 terror attacks is one of the historical and fatal events that changed the United States of America forever, especially in relation to terrorists and terrorism. While these concepts were on the minds of very few people in America's population before the attacks, the 9/11 incident made terrorism to become one of the major concerns for the whole nation. This is despite of the fact that they were carried out in New York City, Washington, and parts of Pennsylvania. Since it was a major concern, the terror attacks dominated all kinds of media and contributed to increased security measures for average Americans. Moreover, terrorism currently provides a major threat to global security that any time in American and global history (Dyson, 2001, p.3). As a result, it has become a fundamental aspect for law enforcement agencies and their initiatives, particularly with the rapid technological advancements.

Terrorism has never been in the States; only in third world countries. Since 9/11-2001 is has been a reality and ongoing nightmare and hit close to home. The attack on the World Trade Centers in New York was a wakeup call. United States has been on high alert ever since, waiting for the next possible Terrorists attack. This paper will explain why terrorism is a law enforcement concern as well as how terrorism is considered a crime. At last the paper will state some recommendations that the American Criminal Justice should do, to better prepare for future crimes.

The devastating events of 9/11 provided a forewarning to our country concerning the dangers of terrorism. However, it has created a particularly greater impact on the duties and standards expected of law enforcement agencies on all levels (local, state, and national). Law enforcement has begun implementing new tactics in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks from threatening our national security. One aspect of policing in which terrorism has brought about is the process of information sharing between all levels of law enforcement. Our nation has also witnessed a change from traditional policing to that of a militarized one. Furthermore, after the incidents of September 11th, the

Terrorism is one of the most debated topics in the twenty-first century and this is primarily owed to the 9/11 events, a moment when people worldwide acknowledged that they were more vulnerable than they previously considered themselves to be. All levels of law enforcement got actively involved in and prioritized preventing future terrorist acts from that point on. This meant that law enforcement officers were provided with new responsibilities and that they became a part of homeland security initiatives developed in the states where they worked. Florida has been involved in devising anti-terrorist strategies before the 9/11 events actually took place and the authorities within the state's borders have had to focus on reducing the chances of a terrorist threat happening by directing a significant number of resources toward the concept.

In 2005 the terrorist attack in London (7/7) killed 56 people and 700 were injured. This was the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in London in history. It is clear that law enforcement agencies powers have increases with the statutes that have been implemented. The Terrorist Act 200 created a power to carry out blanket stop and searches. The Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced new powers for the Treasury to freeze terrorist funds