Reactions to Indefinite Preventive Detention: An Analysis of How the Singapore, United Kingdom and American Judiciary Give Voice to the Law In the Face of (Counter) Terrorism
[A] mid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent" - and it is up to judges to give voiceto the law. Acts of terrorism have not ceased since 11 September 2001 and news offresh attacks or foiled attempts continues to surface regularly. It is not surprising thatin order to preserve the nation st...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1809 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3761/viewcontent/ReactionsToIndefinite.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | [A] mid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent" - and it is up to judges to give voiceto the law. Acts of terrorism have not ceased since 11 September 2001 and news offresh attacks or foiled attempts continues to surface regularly. It is not surprising thatin order to preserve the nation state, governments have used legislative tools to deterand punish terrorism, including the tool of indefinite preventive detention. In thisarticle, I analyse the pieces of legislation providing for indefinite preventive detentionin Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the judicial responseto them. Adopting Justice Aharon Barak's approach, I submit that the ideal role for thejudiciary in responding to counter-terrorism is two-fold: (1) to bridge the gap betweenlaw and society and (2) to protect the constitution and democracy. |
|---|