Persuasive Essay On Terrorism

Using the latest technology, Australian border forces and investing $35 billion, the government aims to reduce the threat of terrorism at our borders in an effort to keep our country secure.

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

In 1978, on Monday the 13th of February, Australia faced what is believed to be its first experience of terrorism, when a bomb hidden in a bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel exploded, killing two council workers and a policeman (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). At the time, the hotel was hosting eleven heads of government who were in Sydney for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). The Australian government reacted by mobilising the military, which came to be referred to as ‘Siege of Bowral’, that highlighted issues with the legislation that dealt with terrorism and how unprepared Australia was at responding to a terrorist event (Hancock, 2002). Over the following years, a range of legislation was enacted to handle matters associated with terrorism, laws such as allowing for defence to aid to the civil power, aviation and shipping safety, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, surveillance and intelligence services (Hancock, 2002).

This essay will be arguing that Australia’s historical fear of invasion does continue to influence Australia’s foreign policy today. This essay believes that the fear of invasion in Australia has evolves and changes over time from a traditional realist perspective that focused on states, to one focused on individuals and non-state actors. Firstly, this essay will briefly discuss the previous fears of invasion, from the introduction of the White Australia Policy to the War on Terror, and how events in Australia’s past shaped foreign policy. Secondly, this essay will discuss the current, evolved fear of invasion Australia experiences. How it has evolved away from the threat of invasion of another state or foreign political system to the invasion of individual people and conflicting ideologies. Lastly, this essay will briefly discuss foreign policy and the relation it has to the new fear of invasion. The policy that will be discussed is immigration restrictions and the treatment of people who have attempted to enter Australia informally.

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

In 2010, the Australian Federal Government released its Counter-Terrorism White Paper. It stipulates that Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy has four fundamental key points: (The Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p iii) Analysis - focussed on prevention through intelligence, protection - focussed on border management and increased airport security, Response - cooperative relationships between Intelligence, security and Law enforcement agencies nationally and Resilience - Unified rejection

In coordination with the growing outcomes of terrorism, both international and domestic, we can examine the effectiveness of Australian Law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state. Throughout the course of time we see the changing face of international terrorism and how it has implications that are far reaching and affect our day to day rights and freedoms. I will be referring to the following cases in my response; Mohamed Haneef, David Hicks, Peter Greste and also Australian citizens involved in ISIL.

The United States has been in a national state of emergency fighting a war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. The intelligence communities have pursued and tracked down terrorist suspects who pose a direct threat to this country, yet one of the greatest threat to this country is the astronomical number of mass shootings and hate crimes that have occurred in this country post 9/11.

Brian Jenkins (1998) offers a practical solution to the problem: terrorists are not typical criminals. They commit crimes for political purposes. When captured by security forces, they are not usually prosecuted as terrorists but charged with the crimes they commit. Terrorists strike targets for political purposes in a given situation, using crime as an incidental tactic. When terrorists cross national boundaries, they become international terrorists. Furthermore, terrorists are not exceptionally creative; they use a limited array of weapons and tactics.

The global political climate and media representation of Islam was subsequently shaped to generate fear amongst the wider Australian population (Kabir, 2007). The deliberate demonisation of all Muslims as terrorists gave individuals a free card to express discrimination ( Ack, 2016). Hanson exacerbated the fear that all Muslims are potential threats to Australian society with the firm statement that- “we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims, who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own”. This statement infers that Muslims are not fit to adjust into to the Judeo- Chrisitan society of Australia. Dooming them to either integrate or leave. When evaluating such blatant views, that are unworthy to be voiced in a parliament of a country that believes in the “freedom of religion”, one must consider the precedent set by former Australian politicians or Australia’s political system in general. Racism has always been a tradition of Australia’s governmental structure, for it is a successful way “for the ruling class to divert attention from their own crimes and the failings of the system they run” (Ack,

Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not

The purpose of the text by John Howard is to inform Australian citizens of the current situation of the possible terrorist threat that may face Australia and requests that all people report suspicious behaviour of those around one another to the National security hotline in which, all reported behaviour will be investigated to protect Australia. Uniting the community as one, to help protect Australia. The letter containing information of the counter-terrorism also includes reassuring information about Australia’s ‘strong counter-terrorist capability’ and emergency preparedness, to avoid panic from the public. The purpose of the text is to acknowledge Australia’s vulnerability to international terrorism following

People who come by boats should be allowed to live in Australia but some say that we should not accept boat people because we are unaware of these people really are and misjudge their character when they may be terrorists. Let just stop at this moment and think about this sensibly; the possibility that these boat people, who land on Australia by boats, are terrorists is highly unlikely. The distance to Australia is an extremely long way to go by boat. If terrorists decided to go to Australia, wouldn’t it take more risks for them to die any time at the sea before they accomplish their task? It is quite a bothersome to see some Australians are considering boat people as terrorists because many of them are genuine people who come to Australia

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas