The Expansion of Secret Courts

[teamsaint]

Their would be a lot less violence and terror if the UK and US governments stopped participating in them.

Remind me who we are funding in Syria?

[aeolium]

Personally I never think the 'real world' is improved by undermining the rule of law, as can be seen by looking at countries where the rule of law - as it is understood internationally - does not operate.

[ahinton]

No, by 'real' world, the actual nitty-gritty of trying to track down and prevent crime, terrorism etc.

A very different issue that that which was being discussed about secret court trials; investigation prior to charging and trying is not at issue here, as far as I understand it; it's what might transpire in court and whether or not that's done publicly or secretively that's under discussion here.

The actions that usually keep you nice and safely tucked up in bed without a care in the world other than entertaining us with another of your posts.

What makes you have the arrogance to think that I feel "safe" in the way that you say? And what makes you think that any of my posts on this subject are intended merely to "entertain" rather than express concern about the thread topic?

It's the world of those who risk life, limb and the very strong possibility of extremely unpleasant personal violence being meted out on them should their cover get blown.

As I've said, investigating and bringing suspects to court is not something about which I have a problem, provided that both are conducted legitimately; it's how what might happen thereafter that I'm considering here, not least because that's the subject under discussion.

Would you feel happy to be arrested and charged with a crime, only to be taken to court to find that the evidence used by the prosecution is withheld from you and you could therefore not defend yourself properly?

[Cornet IV]

Simon's views (#6) are reasoned and somewhat seductive but ignore the venality of politicians. However, I have read all the comments made so far in the shadow of Benjamin Franklin's They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Wherever there is secrecy, there is the propensity for dishonesty - in order to obviate the latter, it is necessary to eliminate the former. Simples!

And most assuredly, Gee Dubya was squinting in the wrong direction. He had only to look over his shoulder to see the architect of the pernicious Patriot Act and principal enemy of American freedom in modern times, the sinister Dick Cheney.

[ahinton]

Simon's views (#6) are reasoned and somewhat seductive but ignore the venality of politicians

Whilst the latter half of what you write here is undoubtedly correct, I cannot concur with you that what Simon writes in #6 is either "reasoned" or "seductive" and, accordingly, I challenged him point by point in #13.

However, I have read all the comments made so far in the shadow of Benjamin Franklin's They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Wherever there is secrecy, there is the propensity for dishonesty - in order to obviate the latter, it is necessary to eliminate the former. Simples!

And most assuredly, Gee Dubya was squinting in the wrong direction. He had only to look over his shoulder to see the architect of the pernicious Patriot Act and principal enemy of American freedom in modern times, the sinister Dick Cheney.

Agreed on all points here - which is why I find it strange that you regard Simon's #6 as you do!

The risk that secret trials for alleged terrorists might ultimately be encouraged to spread their wings into other areas of criminal trial is surely as obvious as it is disturbing. Furthermore, acts of terrorism and threats of terrorist activity can be made without those who commit them having to come anywhere near the threatened nation; imagine, for example, North Korea carrying out a nuclear attack on US - there would be no one to try in a court of law, either in secret or in public in the affected nation.

More importantly, however, the right to be treated and regarded as innocent until proved guilty and to appeal against a conviction is likely - or possibly even certain - to be fundamentally undermined in cases where the accused's access to the prosecution's evidence is compromised or even declined altogether and, as it is hard to imagine such a circumstance being allowed to pertain in a public trial, it would be exclusive to a secret one, thereby demonstrating that secret trials are at the very least likely to raise the risk of miscarriages of justice as a direct consequence of the unjust conduct which their very secrecy encourages. As I suggested earlier, few if any would wish to be tried in secret and be put at an immediate disadvantage to the prosecution by having some or all of the prosecution's evidence being withheld from them and from their legal representatives.

Another problem with this is what should happen at the conclusion of a secret trial. If the accused is found guilty, should that result be kept secret or published and, if the latter, why surround the trial with a cloak of secrecy when the court intends from the outset to allow the result to become public? Likewise, what should happen if the defence is found not guilty? And, again, what happens if the defence is found guilty but wishes - and is allowed - to appeal the conviction? - should any of that, or any subsequent appeal procedure and result, be made public?

[Resurrection Man]

.....

Would you feel happy to be arrested and charged with a crime, only to be taken to court to find that the evidence used by the prosecution is withheld from you and you could therefore not defend yourself properly?

Quite happy because, not being a terrorist, it isn't going to happen.

PS I find your posts 'entertaining'.....when I can be bothered to wade through the labyrinthine sentences.

[amateur51]

Quite happy because, not being a terrorist, it isn't going to happen.

PS I find your posts 'entertaining'.....when I can be bothered to wade through the labyrinthine sentences.

Such faith!

[Pabmusic]

Quite happy because, not being a terrorist, it isn't going to happen.

PS I find your posts 'entertaining'.....when I can be bothered to wade through the labyrinthine sentences.

You fall into the trap that so many fall into. If you are right in your confidence, why do we bother with trials at all? Why not just let the police arrest people and throw them in gaol. After all, police never arrest the wrong person (or shoot the wrong suspected terrorist) do they?

[ahinton]

Quite happy because, not being a terrorist, it isn't going to happen.

I did not suggest that you were or are a terrorist, but clearly the fact that you are not one has enabled your stance to be based upon a degree of wilful complacency. Everyone is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty in UK law; this means that courts find some people innocent of the crimes with which they've been charged. Accordingly, it is possible for people to be charged with crimes that they've not committed. Not being a terrorist does not therefore rule out the possibility that someone might be falsely charged with terrorist offences, either deliberately on the back of fabricated evidence or otherwise. If you were innocent of a crime with which you were charged, why would you therefore be happy to be tried in a secret court for it, even if you were to be found not guilty at the end of it? Do you not consider that your UK citizenship entitles you to a fair trial if charged with criminal offences and to be judged by your peers in almost all cases? If so, then you should be tried and judged in public and should have a right to be so tried.

Had you read what I'd written, you'd have noticed my remark "the risk that secret trials for alleged terrorists might ultimately be encouraged to spread their wings into other areas of criminal trial is surely as obvious as it is disturbing"; 30 words - that's all. You have avoided responding to it, though.

[Cornet IV]

Whilst the latter half of what you write here is undoubtedly correct, I cannot concur with you that what Simon writes in #6 is either "reasoned" or "seductive" and, accordingly, I challenged him point by point in #13.


Agreed on all points here - which is why I find it strange that you regard Simon's #6 as you do!

Whilst suggesting that Simon's offering was reasoned, I did not indicate that I attributed any particular probity to his arguments. Similarly, I managed to avoid seduction which, given my age, seems a wicked squandering of opportunity!

Of course, arguments for either case cogently can be presented but having lived in the United States during the Bush years and his response to 9/11 as enshrined in the Patriot Act and
having made a study inter alia of the Warren Commission's deliberations following the Kennedy assassination, I am of the view that any form of state-sponsored secrecy in the machinery of justice is a profoundly bad thing. Secret courts may claim a possibly specious legitimacy only if those participating in the judicial processes can be seen as Caesar's wife but as almost every day reveals, those in high office are possessed not only of clay feet but criminal dispositions too - vide Huhne et al. And as has been suggested, what is to prevent the "mission creep" of national security clandestine proceedings into wider areas of jurisprudence if this sought to advance the administration's agenda?

Proceedings in camera - perhaps I should have employed the current "behind closed doors" to avoid further use of italics but I'm not a BBC newsreader - should be adequate but I accept that this does not address the issue of compromising covert operators. Frankly, I find this a knotty one but the simplistic approach as employed by Bush should be required study if only to avoid the consequences arising therefrom. The shower who currently govern us seem unable effectively to accomplish this mandate and behave themselves in the full view of public gaze; who would trust them or an increasingly politicised judiciary in secret trials?

Not me. But I am a disciple of de Rochefoucauld!

[amateur51]

You fall into the trap that so many fall into. If you are right in your confidence, why do we bother with trials at all? Why not just let the police arrest people and throw them in gaol. After all, police never arrest the wrong person (or shoot the wrong suspected terrorist) do they?

And most recently the staggering case of John Catt ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-surveillance-of-this-kind-undermines-our-democracy-judges-rule-that-action-against-peaceful-protester-john-catt-was-unlawful-8534345.html

[teamsaint]

And most recently the staggering case of John Catt ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-8534345.html

Thanks for that great link Amsy.

As you know, I am seldom stuck for something to say, but on this occasion........

Its an Alice in Wonderland world. At best.

Which make me think of this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZewtKJbpMk

Never fails to cheer me up, which needs to happen when I read things like that indie piece...

[ahinton]

Whilst suggesting that Simon's offering was reasoned, I did not indicate that I attributed any particular probity to his arguments. Similarly, I managed to avoid seduction which, given my age, seems a wicked squandering of opportunity!

Of course, arguments for either case cogently can be presented but having lived in the United States during the Bush years and his response to 9/11 as enshrined in the Patriot Act and
having made a study inter alia of the Warren Commission's deliberations following the Kennedy assassination, I am of the view that any form of state-sponsored secrecy in the machinery of justice is a profoundly bad thing. Secret courts may claim a possibly specious legitimacy only if those participating in the judicial processes can be seen as Caesar's wife but as almost every day reveals, those in high office are possessed not only of clay feet but criminal dispositions too - vide Huhne et al. And as has been suggested, what is to prevent the "mission creep" of national security clandestine proceedings into wider areas of jurisprudence if this sought to advance the administration's agenda?

Proceedings in camera - perhaps I should have employed the current "behind closed doors" to avoid further use of italics but I'm not a BBC newsreader - should be adequate but I accept that this does not address the issue of compromising covert operators. Frankly, I find this a knotty one but the simplistic approach as employed by Bush should be required study if only to avoid the consequences arising therefrom. The shower who currently govern us seem unable effectively to accomplish this mandate and behave themselves in the full view of public gaze; who would trust them or an increasingly politicised judiciary in secret trials?

Not me. But I am a disciple of de Rochefoucauld!

Broadly in agreement with you here - and de la Rochefoucauld is, after all, the person who is reported as having once said the language was given to Man to conceal his thoughts, upon which my own personal take has long been that musical language was given to Man to conceal those thoughts of which he was incapable of concealing using words...

[Simon]

But that a prosecution should present evidence to the court which is not disclosed to the defence and allow it to materially affect the outcome of the case has been considered by the great majority of lawyers ... to be fundamentally prejudicial to a fair trial.

Undeniably. And disclosing it has been considered by the great majority of intelligence services to be fundamentally prejudicial to their chances of preventing terrorist offences.

You pays your money and you makes your choice. Do you go with the glorified solicitor or with the IO?

My suggestion would be to take a rational look at who knows most about the subject, but there we go.

[Pabmusic]

Undeniably. And disclosing it has been considered by the great majority of intelligence services to be fundamentally prejudicial to their chances of preventing terrorist offences.

You pays your money and you makes your choice. Do you go with the glorified solicitor or with the IO?

My suggestion would be to take a rational look at who knows most about the subject, but there we go.

Then why not do away with trials altogether and just let the experts (the police) decide guilt? [See post 38]