well, i am not an expert. But i would assume, if this was a proper "undercover " operation, with a genuine cause and need, (ie not a set up by agents provocateurs or similar), that by the time something gets to court, (which they often don't due to evidence rules and incompetence), that the need for cover names etc has then gone.
Just an assumption. And probably a bit naive.
the alternative seems to me to be having undecover officers producing "evidence" in court without even the security for defence of knowing who is actually providing the evidence., and the same officers doing this yrear after year, case after case. Very dangerous
As I said, I think or hope that justice would be better served by a generally truthful approach...and I am far from clear how truthful the govt led undercover approach is. Seems to me that too often (EG in northern ireland) the govt and its undercover ops cause as much terrorism as they solve.
And if you want an example of govt dishonesty, just look at iraq and its non existent weapons of mass destruction.
Just an assumption. And probably a bit naive.
the alternative seems to me to be having undecover officers producing "evidence" in court without even the security for defence of knowing who is actually providing the evidence., and the same officers doing this yrear after year, case after case. Very dangerous
As I said, I think or hope that justice would be better served by a generally truthful approach...and I am far from clear how truthful the govt led undercover approach is. Seems to me that too often (EG in northern ireland) the govt and its undercover ops cause as much terrorism as they solve.
And if you want an example of govt dishonesty, just look at iraq and its non existent weapons of mass destruction.
Comment