Terms of Engagement in Times of Terror
University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
March 6, 2008
DEAR MR. RUDD: IDEAS FOR A BETTER AUSTRALIA, Robert Manne, ed., pp. 127-143, Black Inc. Books, March 2008
UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2008-1
According to Dr Johnson, 'when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.' Wondering whether you might be attacked by terrorists seems to have similar, if not always wonderful, effects. Certainly it concentrates, or at least galvanises, the minds of governments. Ours is no exception. From a standing start in 2001, when we had no national laws specifically dealing with terrorism, we have now enacted over forty-five.
There are laws defining, often in very broad terms, what will count as terrorist crimes, organisations, membership, advocacy, financing. Even without another attack, counter-terrorist activity will not stop there or soon. And when, not if, such an attack occurs, the pace will no doubt quicken again, particularly if the attack is spectacular or novel in any way, all the more so if it happens here. The pressure to be seen to 'do something' about unpredictable and deliberate acts of murderous destructiveness will never be resisted by democratic governments. Some will see this as a responsibility of their office (and if it isn't, it is hard to see what is), others as an opportunity for exploitation, but every government will do something. The question is whether it is the right thing.
In debates around responses to terrorism, four terms constantly recur: terrorism itself, war, balance, and the rule of law. This article is organised around those terms. My concern is with things, not words; but what we think about things is closely connected to what we call them.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 9
Keywords: terrorism, rule of law
Date posted: August 12, 2008 ; Last revised: December 20, 2011
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds