The Irish Minister, Michael McDowell, told a joint conference of the Australian and Irish Bars at Dublin Castle that it was dangerous to compromise standards of the rule of law in order to protect the rule of law.
He said the use of the phrase “war on terror” whipped up the idea that the armed services would be saviours and that it was total war where everything had to be put in abeyance – including individual rights – to defeat the enemy. So it could be an excuse to erode fundamental values of human rights and the rule of law.
“The struggle against terrorism cannot be won on the level of a war,” he said. “If the ‘war on terror’ is a legitimate phrase, the phrase jihad is equally valid. We should change the language.”
The attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001, was a massive act of terrorism, but it was not different in kind to things that have happened before. Nations have had to deal with lawlessness for a long time and should deal with this on that level.
“If there are people organising to kill other people their motivation must be found and understood,” he said.
Irish barrister Bill Shipsey, SC, condemned Australia’s failure to ratify the treaty on torture; to reject the jurisdiction of the World Court over Timor; and its rejection of international refugee law.
“Australia appears to be sending a message to the world that international solidarity and international law can be jettisoned just at the time when the world needs countries like Australia more than ever. . . .” he said.
“And yet, in the name of creating more security we see governments attacking human rights, flouting international law with impunity and turning their backs on multi-lateralism. . . .
“What we are seeing is the arrogant triumph of power over legality and morality.”
The “war on terror” was making the world less safe, not more safe.
In supporting the US over Guantanamo and the “war on terror” Australia was contributing to the climate of fear and mistrust which had dominated the world since the World Trade Centre attacks.
Working to enforce human rights was the way to reinforce security.
He called more attention to real sources of terror. The real weapons of mass destruction were small arms which killed 500,000 people a year, yet the West continued to engage in smalls-arms trade.
Australian barrister Ian Barker QC condemned Australia’s new terrorism laws.
“Seventeen Bills have created a myriad of powers over citizens and hundreds of new offences. . . .” he said. “We are being asked to put our trust in the Attorney-General and intelligence agencies who say they need these powers.”
But they had not demonstrated that need. They had spoken in generalisations about “enhancing the capacity of ASIO to counter terrorism”.
Many of the offences were vague, using terms like “terrorist organisation” and “terrorist act”. Existing more precise laws were satisfactory.
He condemned the new power to allow ASIO to detain a person for up to seven days if it thought the person could supply information that might help uncover a terrorist offence. This would inevitably catch lawyers and journalists.
Further those people would commit a further offence if they told anyone why they had been detained.
“A person cannot disappear for a week and not be expected to give an explanation,” Mr Barker said.
Offences had been created based on the opinion of an intelligence officer.
Mr Barker said Australians should be sceptical of this “trust us” approach. Given the Government’s maladministration of immigration laws and its applause of unfair US military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, this trust was not warranted.
“The ‘war on terror’ is like declaring war on an abstract noun,” he said. “No one could say how long it would go.”
Some US officials said it could go for several generations. That meant life imprisonment without trial for Guantanamo Bay detainees.