Effectiveness Of Australian Law And Terrorism Kyle Luker

1068 words 5 pages
Evaluate the effectiveness of Australian law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state in the face of growing international terrorism

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.
Terrorism is an emerging and ongoing threat that says much about the
…show more content…

Australia supports the International Criminal Court and its goal of ending liberty for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes.
Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks appealed against his conviction for supporting terrorism. Lawyers for Hicks — the first man to trade a Guantánamo guilty plea for his freedom — did successfully appeal that conviction in an argument that invokes a civilian-court ruling that disqualified providing material support for terrorism as a war crime. Hicks, 39, a self-styled soldier of fortune from Adelaide, who at one point converted to Islam, was captured in Afghanistan early on in the U.S. invasion following the 9/11 attacks. He was brought to Guantánamo the day it opened, Jan. 11, 2002, and pleaded guilty in 2007, he is now back home.
His lawyers called his guilt “misleading” in a summary of their filing, which was still under seal at the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Guantánamo war court can’t use those charges for events that took place before Congress created them as crimes in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks was accused of war crimes related to conduct before his capture in late 2001. “No matter how this case is framed, David Hicks was convicted of a non-offence,” said attorney Wells Dixon at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which worked on the filing. “The principled and just result is to set aside his conviction without