Back to the future : the war on terror and its impact on civil liberties

This comment looks at the capacity of the Australian Constitution to protect the civil liberties of a small number of citizens and would be citizens whose lives have been forever changed by recent acts of terror and the legislative and executive actions taken by the Commonwealth in response to those terrorist acts. These legal changes have included the creation of specific "terrorism" offences, the legislative proscription of two foreign organisations and, most notably, a significant expansion of ASIO's investigative powers.1
Whilst the Constitution contains a number of provisions and principles protective of civil liberties, in most instances they cannot resist government action expressly aimed at curtailing or infringing individual rights and freedoms. To this end, steps ought to be taken to strengthen existing institutions and mechanisms capable of providing meaningful civil rights scrutiny of government legislation. The comment begins with an examination of the close historical and legal parallels that exist between the present day and the Cold War era and suggests how the High Court might interpret the defence power should a terrorist attack occur on Australian soil. It concludes with a proposed reform. The reform involves vesting Ch III courts with the power to measure Commonwealth laws against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when determining a legal controversy. This may operate to secure better legislative outcomes from a civil liberties perspective without compromising the supremacy of Parliament.

Ruminations on war, culture war

To descry that this generation of artists has been in the midst of a war, a cultural war, sounds so obvious. After all, what generation in deeply reactionary times could not claim the same? However, who is struggling with whom and over what can often prove far more open than the popular polarities which pitch government, business, bureaucracy on one side and artists, performers, intellectuals on the other.  But what is it to say we on the one side are at war with the other? Is the war, culturally as much as militarily, limited or unconditional, intermittent or continuous, external or internal, declared or undeclared, defensive or aggressive? Is it a warfare aiming to annihilate or to annex, to conquer or to cleanse, to dominate or to displace, to eliminate or to expel, to impregnate or to enslave. In brief, warfare is waged in diverse ways with diverse goals as the brutally concise words of Thoukydides reveal when brooding upon stasis--the strife from 427 B.C. convulsing city after city in the great war between Athens and Sparta--as  the cause of many calamities--as happens and will always happen while human nature is what it is, though there may be different degrees of savagery, and, as different circumstances arise, the general rules will admit of some variety [Bk 3.82; 1972: 242).

Speed, international security, and "New War" coverage in cyberspace

Mass media representations foster a view that the "War on Terror" is taking place both everywhere and nowhere, presenting Western governments with an opportunity to mobilize public support in new and ubiquitous ways. Starting with Virilio's critique of technology, speed, and de-territorialization, this article discusses the ways in which mass support is mobilized by the state in conventional pursuit of geopolitical objectives. Drawing on  contemporary international relations theory, the authors introduce the concept of "securitization" and discuss how war coverage in cyberspace has been used to securitize international threats, such as "global terrorism," to justify state intervention, including war. It is concluded that one of the paradoxes of war coverage in cyberspace is that whereas cyber-technologies should democratize the politics of war by liberating access to information about war, the state has coopted information and communication technologies to facilitate new forms of mass mobilization for war itself.

Maine and the Hartford Convention: The Impact of the War of 1812 on the Politics of Maine and Massachusetts

The question of why the New England Federalists failed to force a confrontation with the national government has been a continuing historical controversy. I feel that the vigorous stance of the New England Democratic-Republicans particularly in Maine (then a part of Massachusetts), to radical Federalist schemes acted to restrain their opponents. In the final analysis my argument is that New England could not act without Maine. To paraphrase Federalist George Herbert of Ellsworth, on such a slender thread do the destinies of nations hang.