Balance of anti-terrorism measures and protection of human rights after 9/11

• Main Authors: Pin-Chieh Chen, 陳品潔
• Other Authors: 張文貞
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/50136766275993910044

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 96 === The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States. Terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon. Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks. After the attack, the United States declaring a War on Terrorism in response and launching an invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had been accused of willfully harboring terrorists. The United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act. These actions expand the authority in investigating of federal government, stating that it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other crimes. Many scholars and groups criticize the PATRIOT Act, saying that it allows law enforcement to invade the privacy of citizens and eliminates judicial oversight of law-enforcement and domestic intelligence gathering. These measures are considered to have invaded human rights illegitimately. Should the court lower its standard in the judicial review when examining the anti- terrorism measures? The opinions of scholars could be divided in three categories, business as usual model, extra-constitutional power model and accommodate model. The thesis agrees anti-terrorism is not war. It’s a special investigation of crimes. To avoid the emergency power from being abused by government; government operations during the period time of anti-terrorism should comply with Constitution. This is the meaning of business as usual model. However, the degree of separation of power can be different in the distinct period of time after the attacks. As time goes by, the Congress should enhance the check of these measures by making specific laws. The Supreme Court declared similar view in the anti-terrorism case after 9/11, The court does not agree the statement of President that authority of anti-terrorism belongs to him. The court requires government should get the agreement of the Congress in most anti-terrorism measures. Taiwan also made the draft of anti-terrorism act after 9/11, but to consider the historic experiments of emergency law institution in Taiwan, the thesis suggests that the anti-terrorism act can be canceled. Instead, we can establish a system that can help the international anti-terrorism affairs.