I was in Singapore on a Sept 11 evening as a visiting journalism researcher. What a Wonderful World was playing on the late night radio when the DJ cut Louis Armstrong short: "A plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center in New York." Seconds later, another tower was hit. That shook me up.

I pictured mental clips of the twin towers, which I had visited just two years earlier, burning. Terrorism as a concept took on a deeper personal meaning when I re-visited the site in July 2004. A chasm of nothingness was left where the towers once stood silhouetted in the New York sky. Screams for bloody retribution by the media foreshadowed the Bush Administration's prolonged 'virtuous' war in flushing out the murderers.

Five years on, the 'war on terrorism' led by a 'US-war president', waged in the name of 'God', 'freedom' and liberty' seems to have induced the birth of many more Osama's spewing contempt for America and all things Western. The global media have burnt the sufferings of American victims of 9/11 into our collective memory. The sufferings of the Other - victims of social and economic deprivation are diminished, the worth of human lives valued unequally, thus driving deeper the psychological wedge between the Muslim and Western worlds.

Ironically, we have learned less about Al-Qaeda and Osama, but more about how democratic governments can effectively bank on its neo-conservative ideology, moralistic hubris and military power in an age of uncertainty to achieve its strategic ends. 9/11 is arguably one of the most tragic moments in human history, but the general sentiment is it has changed nothing. The fundamental causes of terrorism national humiliation from the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, socio-economic deprivation in the Muslim world continue to be ignored. Meanwhile, democratic governments continually defer to 9/11 to enact laws that criminalise any person or any communication that fits its profile of a terrorist threat.

In Australia, we see counter-terrorism laws enacted with sunset clauses to give its agencies, such as ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP (Australian Federal Police) greater powers to profile, interrogate, arrest and detain without charge. New powers today include phone tapping and electronic surveillance.

The Telecommunications Interception (Amendment) Act 2006 now allows covert monitoring by the AFP and ASIO of phone calls, emails, SMSs and other "stored communications". This surveillance covers the "B-Parties" otherwise innocent people who have, even if unwittingly, communicated with someone suspected of a crime or of being a threat to national security.

According to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Australians are now among the most spied population per capita in the world ASIO has certainly been busy. The operating budget for ASIO jumped about A$63m (US$47.7m) in 2000- 01 to about A$143m (US$108m) in 2004-05. The number of ASIO staff has grown from 584 in 2000 to 1150 in June this year.

Undermine citizen's freedom

New sedition provisions last December will outlaw any communication seen to urge force or violence against the country, however it's defined, which journalists feel will undermine every citizen's freedom to political dissent. The Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network has thus published a booklet Anti-Terror Laws: ASIO, the Police and You in English, Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and Urdu, indicative of an implied correlation between particular ethnicity and terrorism.

The amended laws are shadowing journalists who report on terrorism. In its 2006 report The Muzzled Press, the MEAA (Media Entertainment Arts Alliance) notes: "Journalists must assume their conversations with sources will be intercepted. Those journalists who do contact terror suspects for a story may have their phone tapped, giving authorities access not only to conversations with the suspect but those of other innocent sources. At any time police could be listening, obliterating any professional right the journalist has to protect the confidentiality of their source.

"Despite assurances to the contrary, there is also a real threat that the authorities could use these new laws arbitrarily. Already, Australia issues 75 per cent more telecommunications interception warrants than the US. Per capita this translates to 26 times more warrants than the US. In Australia, non-judges issue 76 per cent of all warrants, whereas in the US only judges can issue warrants. This new law will not only deter confidential sources but may also lead to a culture of self-censorship.

"Without public faith in a journalist's promise to protect sources, much crucial information in the public interest would not come to light. Any attempt to destroy this trust will result in fewer people speaking out and the public left with nothing but government spin and media stunts." (MEAA's full report)

Under the Anti-Terrorism (No.2) Act 2005, passed by Parliament last December, any person who reports unlawfully disclosed information about terrorism suspects detained by police, including the length of their detention or any other information relating to the order, can be jailed for five years. Journalist's professional privilege no longer applies under this law. Federal police can force journalists to hand over information if it will help in their investigations into a terrorist threat, including information pertaining to the identity of a confidential source. The penalty for refusing to comply is A$3,300 (US$2,500).

The MEAA has called for a relaxation of the secrecy provisions that impose a blanket ban on reporting on people detained under the anti-terrorism legislation. This means essentially a journalist who reports a story or publishes against the actions of the government, police or judiciary, could be charged for sedition. The implication is journalists now could be compelled to reveal their sources or otherwise face jail for up to five years for reporting what they believe to be true.

The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, however, countered MEAA's argument with a letter to the newspapers on Nov.25 last year. He said the media had ignored "the good faith defences expressly outlined in the proposed law, which means the media can continue to criticise and lampoon government policy. A free press is an important part of our democracy, but a free press not willing to defend democratic institutions from violence has a distorted view of free speech."

Australian journalists are now caught in a situation that journalists in Malaysia are well familiar with.