This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/world/australia/counterterrorism-law-senate-prison.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Counterterrorism Law to Let Australia Detain Convicts After Their Sentences Counterterrorism Law to Let Australia Detain Convicts After Their Sentences
(about 13 hours later)
SYDNEY, Australia — Under a new Australian law, convicted terrorists can be kept in prison years after the completion of their sentences if a court believes they still pose a significant threat to the community.SYDNEY, Australia — Under a new Australian law, convicted terrorists can be kept in prison years after the completion of their sentences if a court believes they still pose a significant threat to the community.
The law, which cleared its last significant hurdle with approval by the Senate on Thursday, is part of a bundle of counterterrorism measures approved by legislators and aimed at strengthening national security. Another measure, passed last week, allows the police to enforce so-called control orders to monitor children as young as 14 if they were thought to be involved in or planning a terrorist act.The law, which cleared its last significant hurdle with approval by the Senate on Thursday, is part of a bundle of counterterrorism measures approved by legislators and aimed at strengthening national security. Another measure, passed last week, allows the police to enforce so-called control orders to monitor children as young as 14 if they were thought to be involved in or planning a terrorist act.
“It is a necessary response to the serious threat that terrorism poses to Australia and its people,” the attorney general, George Brandis, who introduced both of the bills, told Parliament on Thursday.“It is a necessary response to the serious threat that terrorism poses to Australia and its people,” the attorney general, George Brandis, who introduced both of the bills, told Parliament on Thursday.
Under the law, a court may order prisoners to be held for up to three years after their sentences are completed. After that period, the court can decide to extend them further, and there is no limit to the number of extensions the court may grant.Under the law, a court may order prisoners to be held for up to three years after their sentences are completed. After that period, the court can decide to extend them further, and there is no limit to the number of extensions the court may grant.
The bill passed with the support of the opposition Labor Party, and Pauline Hanson, a senator from the One Nation party, and Nick Xenophon, a senator from South Australia who leads the Nick Xenophon Team.The bill passed with the support of the opposition Labor Party, and Pauline Hanson, a senator from the One Nation party, and Nick Xenophon, a senator from South Australia who leads the Nick Xenophon Team.
The left-wing Greens party voted against it, saying the law would erode civil liberties and human rights. “What is just or predictable about being told 12 months before your sentence is due to finish that the government intends to apply to keep you in prison for another three years?” Nick McKim, a Greens senator, said in Parliament on Thursday.The left-wing Greens party voted against it, saying the law would erode civil liberties and human rights. “What is just or predictable about being told 12 months before your sentence is due to finish that the government intends to apply to keep you in prison for another three years?” Nick McKim, a Greens senator, said in Parliament on Thursday.
One lawmaker who voted against the bill, David Leyonhjelm, from the Liberal Democratic Party, said, “No amount of window dressing can hide the fact that this is a fundamental assault on a basic human right. It amounts to imprisonment without trial. We should not be able to effectively impose life imprisonment on someone who was not originally sentenced to life imprisonment.” One lawmaker who voted against the bill, David Leyonhjelm, from the Liberal Democratic Party, said: “No amount of window dressing can hide the fact that this is a fundamental assault on a basic human right. It amounts to imprisonment without trial. We should not be able to effectively impose life imprisonment on someone who was not originally sentenced to life imprisonment.”
The Australian Human Rights Commission said there are 15 people in prison who could be subjected to the extended prison terms. And Mr. Brandis said about 110 Australians were known to be fighting with militant groups in Iraq or Syria, 40 had returned from those countries and an additional 200 were being investigated on suspicion of links to terrorists.The Australian Human Rights Commission said there are 15 people in prison who could be subjected to the extended prison terms. And Mr. Brandis said about 110 Australians were known to be fighting with militant groups in Iraq or Syria, 40 had returned from those countries and an additional 200 were being investigated on suspicion of links to terrorists.
Australia already allows for the indefinite detention of some sex offenders, and previously, children as young as 16 could be subjected to control orders without being charged with a crime. Those measures restrict who they may associate with, and when, and allow the authorities to impose curfews.
The new laws reflect the government’s increasing concern over the radicalization of young people and the potential for attacks by so-called lone wolves. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia must remain “hardheaded as we assess the evolving threat.” In an address on national security last week that touched on the new laws, Mr. Turnbull said a single terrorist could wreak devastation. He cited the attack in Nice, France, in July that left 84 dead after a man drove a truck through revelers celebrating Bastille Day.The new laws reflect the government’s increasing concern over the radicalization of young people and the potential for attacks by so-called lone wolves. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia must remain “hardheaded as we assess the evolving threat.” In an address on national security last week that touched on the new laws, Mr. Turnbull said a single terrorist could wreak devastation. He cited the attack in Nice, France, in July that left 84 dead after a man drove a truck through revelers celebrating Bastille Day.
Legislators passed the bill on extending the detention of high-risk offenders after significant amendments narrowed its scope and increased safeguards for prisoners. Under the law, a judge must be satisfied that a prisoner poses a significant threat and that no other measures can effectively contain that threat. The law itself must be reviewed in six years.Legislators passed the bill on extending the detention of high-risk offenders after significant amendments narrowed its scope and increased safeguards for prisoners. Under the law, a judge must be satisfied that a prisoner poses a significant threat and that no other measures can effectively contain that threat. The law itself must be reviewed in six years.
Both bills were debated and redrafted in the months after a 15-year-old boy fatally shot an accountant, Curtis Cheng, in October last year. Mr. Cheng worked at Police Headquarters in Parramatta, a suburb of Sydney. The police shot and killed the boy.Both bills were debated and redrafted in the months after a 15-year-old boy fatally shot an accountant, Curtis Cheng, in October last year. Mr. Cheng worked at Police Headquarters in Parramatta, a suburb of Sydney. The police shot and killed the boy.
The president of the Law Council of Australia, Stuart Clark, said he was concerned that the government’s threshold for whether a person still represented a risk was too low. And Elaine Pearson, the Australia director of Human Rights Watch, said, “The law will facilitate the indefinite and arbitrary detention of prisoners.” If the government had evidence a prisoner still posed a threat to society, she said, that person should be charged. The president of the Law Council of Australia, Stuart Clark, said he was concerned that the government’s threshold for whether a person still represented a risk was too low. And Elaine Pearson, the Australia director of Human Rights Watch, said, “The law will facilitate the indefinite and arbitrary detention of prisoners.” If the government has evidence a prisoner still posed a threat to society, she said, that person should be charged.
Ms. Pearson said control orders imposed serious restrictions on children. “They follow Australia’s increasing tendency towards enacting counterterrorism legislation that incrementally chips away at fundamental rights,” she said.Ms. Pearson said control orders imposed serious restrictions on children. “They follow Australia’s increasing tendency towards enacting counterterrorism legislation that incrementally chips away at fundamental rights,” she said.