Coercive questioning and detention by domestic intelligence agencies

References

• Anti-Terrorism Act SC, c 41 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, 2 SCR 248 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Attorney-General, Israeli Government. (1999). GSS Investigations and the Necessity Defence — Framework for Exercising the Attorney General's Discretion (Following the High Court Ruling) (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, Cth (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act, Cth (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Banks, W. (2012). The United States a decade after 9/11. In V. Ramraj, M. Hor, K. Roach, & G. Williams (Eds.), Global anti-terrorism law and policy (pp. 449–480). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Basic Law: The Government, 5728-1968 (1968).
   Google Scholar
• Basic Law: The Government, 5752-1992 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Basic Law: The Government, 5761-2001 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E. (2011). Domestic intelligence: New powers, new risks. New York: Brennan Center for Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Burch, J. (2007). A domestic intelligence agency for the United States? A comparative analysis of domestic intelligence agencies and their implications for homeland security. Homeland Security Affairs, 3(2), article 1. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://www.hsaj.org/pages/volume3/issue2/pdfs/3.2.2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cain, F. (2004). Australian intelligence organisations and the law: A brief history. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 27(2), 296–318.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Criminal Code RSC, c C-46 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act RSC, c C-23 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Carne, G. (2004). Detaining questions or compromising constitutionality? The ASIO legislation amendment (Terrorism) act 2003 (Cth). University of New South Wales Law Journal, 27(2), 524–578.
   Google Scholar
• Carne, G. (2006). Gathered intelligence or antipodean exceptionalism? Securing the development of ASIO's detention and questioning regime. Adelaide Law Review, 27, 1–58.
   Google Scholar
• Chalk, P., & Rosenau, W. (2004). Confronting the ‘enemy within’: Security intelligence, the police and counterterrorism in four democracies. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Chari, P. R. (2012). National counter terrorism centre for India: Understanding the debate. IPCS issue brief, 181, 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Chesterman, S. (2010). Ordinary citizens or a license to kill? The turn to law in regulating Britain's intelligence services. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, Paper 225. Retrieved from http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_plltwp/225/
   Google Scholar
• Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, 176 CLR 1 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Cleroux, R. (1990). Official secrets: The inside story of the Canadian security intelligence service. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
   Google Scholar
• Cobain, I. (2008, May 12). Revealed: Torture centre linked to MI5. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Cobain, I., & Bowcott, O. (2010, July 14). Classified documents reveal UK's role in abuse of its own citizens. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, J. (2002). And the walls came tumbling down: Sharing grand Jury information with the intelligence community under the USA patriot act. American Criminal Law Review, 39, 1261–1286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Government. (1981). Second report: Freedom and security under the law. Quebec: Canadian Government Publishing Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006). A new review mechanism for the RCMP's national security activities. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, N. (2004). ‘Intelligence led policing or policing led intelligence?’: Integrating volume crime analysis into policing. British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 188–203. doi:10.1093/bjc/44.2.188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denning, Lord, United Kingdom Government. (1963). Report on the profumo scandal. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Doron, G. (1988). Israeli intelligence: Tactics, strategy and prediction. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 2(3), 305–319. doi:10.1080/08850608808435067
   Google Scholar
• Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists. (2009). Assessing damage, urging action. Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.
   Google Scholar
• Executive Order 13354 of August 27 (2004). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2004-08-30/html/WCPD-2004-08-30-Pg1696.htm
   Google Scholar
• Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/criminal-procedure.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Pub L 95-911, 92 Stat 1783 (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Amendments Act of 2008 Pub L 110-261, 122 Stat 2436 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• General Security Service Law 5762-2002 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Gill, P. (1989). Symbolic or real? The impact of the Canadian security intelligence review committee, 1984–88. Intelligence and National Security, 4(3), 550–575. doi:10.1080/02684528908432016
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, S. (2008). Policing terrorism in India. Crime, Law and Social Change, 50(1–2), 111–124. doi:10.1007/s10611-008-9123-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, M. (2004). ASIO, secrecy and lack of accountability. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 11(4), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hocking, J. (2003). Counter-terrorism and the criminalisation of politics: Australia's new security powers of detention, proscription and control. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 49(3), 355–371. doi:10.1111/1467-8497.00291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocking, J. (2004). Terror laws: ASIO, counter-terrorism and the threat to democracy. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hocking, J., & McKnight, D. (2004). National security and democratic laws: Australian terror laws. Sydney Papers, 16(1), 88–95.
   Google Scholar
• House of Representatives, Australian Parliament. (2002, March 21). Hansard.
   Google Scholar
• Imseis, A. (2001). ‘Moderate’ torture on trial: The Israeli supreme court judgment concerning the legality of the general security service interrogation methods. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 19, 328–349.
   Google Scholar
• Intelligence and Security Committee, United Kingdom Government. (2011). Annual Report 2010–2011. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Pub L 108-458, 118 Stat 3638 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Intelligence Services Act, UK (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Kiran, R. (2013). India needs national counter terrorism centre (NCTC). Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.sspconline.org/opinion/India%20needsNationalCounterTerrorismCentre_11022013%20
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, H. (2012, February 28). Does India need a national counter terrorism center?’ International Herald Tribune ( Global Edition).
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, A., & Williams, G. (2007). What price security? Taking stock of Australia's anti-terror laws. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
   Google Scholar
• Material Witness Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144.
   Google Scholar
• McCulloch, J., & Tham, J.-C. (2005). Secret state, transparent subject: The Australian security intelligence organisation in the age of terror. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 400–415. doi:10.1375/acri.38.3.400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGarrell, E. F., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. (2007). Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(2), 142–158. doi:10.1177/1043986207301363
   Google Scholar
• McGarrity, N. (2010). An example of ‘worst practice’? The coercive counter-terrorism powers of the Australian security intelligence organisation. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law, 4(3), 467–484.
   Google Scholar
• McGarrity, N., Gulati, R., & Williams, G. (2012). Sunset clauses in Australian anti-terror laws. Adelaide Law Review, 33, 307.
   Google Scholar
• McKnight, D. (1994). Australia's spies and their secrets. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, C. (2005a). Derogating from international human rights obligations in the ‘war against terrorism’? A British-Australian perspective. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17(1–2), 131–155. doi:10.1080/09546550590520636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, C. (2005b) Antiterrorism legislation in Australia: A proportionate response to the terrorist threat? Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 28(4), 321–339. doi:10.1080/10576100590950138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukasey, M., & United States Department of Justice. (2008). Attorney-General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/guidelines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 commission report: Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• National Counter Terrorism Centre (Organisation, Functions, Powers and Duties) Order. Retrieved from http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/2012/NCTC_2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nesbitt, K. (2007). Preventative detention of terrorist suspects in Australia and the United States: A comparative constitutional analysis. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 17, 39–98.
   Google Scholar
• Northcott, C. (2007). The rRole, organisation and methods of MI 5. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 20(3), 453–479. doi:10.1080/08850600701249758
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2011). US National intelligence: An overview 2011. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, A. (2004). Investigating and prosecuting terrorism: The counter-terrorism legislation and the law of evidence. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 27(2), 373–397.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, Australian Parliament (2002, April 30). Hansard.
   Google Scholar
• Protect America Act of 2007. Pub L 110-55, 121 Stat 552 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Public Committee against Torture in Israel v State of Israel, HCJ Case 5100/94, PD 53(4) 817 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Public Committee against Torture in Israel. (2010). Briefing to the human rights committee. Jerusalem: Public Committee against Torture.
   Google Scholar
• Raman, B. (2002) Intelligence: Past, present and future. New Dehli: Lancer.
   Google Scholar
• Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Re Vancouver Sun [2004] 2 SCR 332 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Risen, J., & Lichtblau, E. (2005, December 16). Bush Lets US Spy on Callers Without Courts. The New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Roach, K. (2007). A comparison of Australian and Canadian anti-terrorism laws. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 30(1), 53–85.
   Google Scholar
• Roach, K. (2010). The eroding distinction between intelligence and evidence in terrorism investigations. In N. McGarrity, A. Lynch, & G. Williams (Eds.), Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and justice after 9/11 (pp. 48–68). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roach, K. (2011). The 9/11 effect: Comparative counter-terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission on Security, Canadian Government. (1969). Report. Ottawa: Information Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Australian Parliament. (2002, November 12). Hansard.
   Google Scholar
• Shpiro, S. (2006). No place to hide: Intelligence and civil liberties in Israel. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4), 629–648. doi:10.1080/09557570601003361
   Google Scholar
• South East Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre. (2012). The national counter terrorism centre: The creation of the Indian stasi. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(11), 12.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, H. (2005). Investigative hearings into terrorist offences: A challenge to the rule of law. Criminal Law Quarterly, 50, 376–402.
   Google Scholar
• Subramani, A. (2012, March 26). Ex-officer questions intelligence bureau's legal status’. The Times of India.
   Google Scholar
• Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, Cth (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Pub L No 107-56, 115 Stat 272 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (1967).
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, B. (1993). The use and abuse of intelligence services in India. Intelligence and National Security, 8(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/02684529308432188
   Google Scholar
• Vitkauskas, D. (1999). The role of a security intelligence service in a democracy. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/97-99/vitkauskas.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Welsh, R. (2011). A question of integrity: The role of judges in counter-terrorism questioning and detention by ASIO. Public Law Review, 22, 138–152.
   Google Scholar
• Whealy, A. (2007). Difficulty in obtaining a fair trial in terrorism cases. Alternative Law Journal, 81, 743–759.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. (2011). A decade of Australian anti-terror laws. Melbourne University Law Review, 35, 1136–1176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar