The options as a layman (me) sees them A - trial in open court = maintains the status quo and stops the conspiracy theorists making up stories; give away how, who, when surveillance takes place and give ammunition to those we are trying to stop to know how to resist capture more effectively B - trial behind close doors = go against the principles of open justice; protect the processes and people involved in tracking and capturing those who may want to release nerve gas in a watleroo station C - let them walk free
I like the principle of Star Chamber; the problem starts when those feeding them the "evidence", which cases require further judgement and the membership of the Star. I'm sure we can all recall legal cases that didn't "appear"* to have the right outcome. * This depends on lot on what papers you read.
But we already have this as evidence can be given in secret so as not to disclose either the evidence or the persons/methods by which that evidence is obtained. So why the need to put everything behind closed doors?
As Pete said up there ^^^ this kind of thing has happened before. AFAIAA You can clear the court except for the required witness, defendant and associated appointees and continue from there. Once that part is done, you can bring everyone else back in. Remember that a trial is a series of evidence presentation with questioning, not a running series of questions on any random aspect. The danger, as pointed out in the opinion piece, was that once a precendant is set to hold a terrorism trial behind closed doors, it will make it easier for future cases to also be done this way. The apparent misuse/abuse/wide-scope of the terrorism act (see my first post on Mr Wolfgang) means that this could easily become an avenue to make certain "undesirables" more-or-less "disappear" if they are not given a fair and just hearing. Welcome to 1930s Germany?
You've been reading too much Chuffington Post, the thinking mans Daily Mail We have already shipped, and stood shoulder to shoulder with the yanks on doing it, 'suspects' to detention camps all over the world with no trial whatsoever, to sit in a cell 23hrs a day with god knows what treatment That is 1930's Germany And in 1930's Germany would we be passing laws to allow gay marriage....perspective please
Altho I totally agree on the over use of anti terror laws....countless vids on youtube of plod (its always the same source) using this as a reason to stop someone taking pictures of iconic buildings, as a simple example
lets say for example the Stephen Lawrence case where it was suspected that the family where being infiltrated/advised by certain groups. hence the under cover surveillance, if a potential terrorist group member was arrested after such a surveillance, could that lead to potential rioting? hence the need for private hearing.
D - let those involved in trying to sort this shit out do it to the best of their ability with whatever the resources are available....then 24 months down the line let a load of £2000 a day chinless wonders pick the bones out of it...prolonging the event to earn even more probably from legal aid.....
In posting your amusing and tendentious option D, you have been careful to refrain from indicating whether you prefer the "open court" or "closed doors" option, or why. So come on, which is it AndyB?
I love the 1930's courier font from an Underwood Touchmaster Five. I'm sure Pete travels around East London on penny farthing when he's not on his Mts1200
I am swayed by Pete1950 that this trial is nothing special. I can see that there could be some good reasons for keeping things under wraps. I am, however concerned with the amount of secrecy which has accompanied the War on Terror. I have just finished reading Angler about the Cheney vice-presidency and am about to finish reading Jeremy Scahill's Secret Wars. Both of these books will worry you, if you weren't already worried, about the total flouting of any fair or democratic process respected by the Americans when they have addressed the War on Terror. Rendition, assassination, black ops, dodgy budgets, multiple intelligence entities and above all, secrecy, have been the leit-motiv of the past dozen years. So you can see this trial as a one-off, or a leaf out of the US book. Let's agree with Pete and think of it as the former. But it's a tricky one. It could easily turn into the latter. Stay on the look-out.
I didn't say it was a one-off. I said it was nothing new, since the law has provided for this for many years. But it's nothing to do with the Americans.
A one-off as not necessarily the start of a worrying trend. Something that may have been done before but won't necessarily be repeated consistently in the future. In the war on terror it nearly always comes back to the Americans. They are why we went to Iraq, Afghanistan. As they have started an open-ended war which has so far achieved nothing but the antagonism of large areas of the world you can expect the jihadist situation to continue in one guise or another for decades. And you can probably expect more secret trials.
The identifies and methods of those who infiltrate and risk certain death so they can protect is in our beds, train stations and shops?
You mean the murky world of counterterrorism? So this is protecting the counterterrorists identity and his methods?
