{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009950248756218905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003980099502487562, 'mean_word_length': 5.57516339869281, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coercive questioning and detention by domestic intelligence agencies

In response to the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, the Commonwealth Parliament bestowed new powers of coercive questioning and detention upon the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 2003. These powers were extremely controversial. They raise critical issues about the role of a domestic intelligence agency in a democratic nation and the safeguards that should attach to the exercise of its powers. This article will undertake a country survey to determine if similar powers of coercive questioning and detention have been given to domestic intelligence agencies in four comparable countries—the UK, Canada, the USA, Israel and India. This provides an important insight into whether the response of the Australian Parliament to the threat of terrorism is an exception or rather part of an international trend towards the vesting of coercive questioning and detention powers in domestic intelligence agencies.