Slashdot Mirror
UK Seeks To Hold Terrorism Trial In Secret
hazeii (5702) writes in with news about a secret trial set to take place in England. 'A major terrorism trial is set to be held entirely in secret for the first time in British legal history in an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice, the court of appeal has heard. The identities of the two defendants charged with serious terror offences are being withheld from the public, and the media are banned from being present in court to report the forthcoming trial against the two men, known only as AB and CD.'
I know you may still be annoyed at the US for breaking away from the Empire. Attempting to lure them back by imitating their practices is however NOT a good idea.
Sincerely,
The rest of the world
Formally, UK legal history goes back to the coronation of Richard 1 in 1189. Practically, it goes back to the 8th century or so. This is (one of) the few trials in camera in the last 100 years, that's all.
for the first time in British legal history in an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice
Wrong
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I guess we are following the Americans with their secret courts afterall. I was hoping we would avoid this.
I don't even understand the rationale behind it, the whole thing has to be held in secret because even naming the defendants would risk national security, but if it can't be held in secret and the defendants are named the case has to be dropped? So what's to stop the defendants or their family going to the media to say they're the defendants to get the case against them dropped? It doesn't make any sense.
At least it's still a jury trial if nothing else, but it begs the question as to how anyone outside the system can verify the jury isn't rigged.
What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN?
SLURM. It's highly addictive.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
OH MY FG!
There's this funny concept called "mobilization" or perhaps "recruitment". "Agitation" might also be a word, or "Agitprop".
Let's say there's something you really hate but few other people care about, call it A.
However, there's something which a lot of people do care about and don't want more of. Call it B.
So in the usual state of affairs you are standing there with your microscopic demonstration nobody cares about. What you then say is "Hey guys, did you know that A is the main barrier to improving on B, like A completely poisons B and makes B completely unachievable, we just gotta destroy A just so that we can fix B!" And suddenly everyone who actually dislikes B is now on your side against A.
Utilizing this concept is something psychopaths do, so if you don't want a society where psychopaths have power, then it's usually best to recognize who does it and vote for whoever doesn't give them power.
Recall when Duncan Campbell, Time Out reporter Crispin Aubrey and former SIGINIT operator John Berry faced witnesses from the UK intelligence community:
Colonel 'B'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The UK court system has reverted to 1977 and the Official Secrets Act 1911 to try and stop the press from reporting again. All this has been tested in the UK press and legal system before. Secret courts did not save the GCHQ from Time Out article "The Eavesdroppers".
If the case is so "major" and is legally sound, let the press in to see the UK justice system at work. The same issues where faced over Ireland, UK gov staff working for the Soviet Union, the first super grass efforts (well connected informers getting reduced time).
How a secret national security trial will legally challenged in open court after a conviction for the tactic of "major terrorism" will be interesting.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Oh give it a rest, will you? Queen were actually quite good, although their lead singer was a rather odd character.
Even the justice system are scared.
Maybe they haven't quite perfected the "parallel construction" that our intelligence agencies coach US law enforcement on. You need a good cover story that establishes probable cause so that you don't need to rely on illegally gathered intelligence as evidence. Ship them to GITMO I hear there are a couple empty bunks. That will allow you to avoid those pesky civil courts all together.
And the global dictatorship is slowly being pieced together.
And citizens do nothing, amazingly. People with any knowledge of history should be scared shitless - I know I am.
And soon it'll be too late to do anything about it...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The two guys probably don't even exist, the Judge just wants to play GTA or something for a bit and not be disturbed in his secret court. Probably has pillow forts and everything.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN? When you look things deep down, there are no democratical foundations in this country, there is only "because-I-can" principle. So don't expect human rights and fair trials.
You do know the queen does little more than stand around looking pompous?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
We are talking about a terrorism trial... There are more than only the defendants at stake.
Invalid passport, copy of a booklet or even possession of illegal weapon are insufficient to prove that someone is a terrorist. There probably need some witnesses. And thoses are at a great risk if their identity goes public... Some may be as good as dead !!!
So, yes, it's not nice, there may be doubt about what really happened behind those closed doors... But in this specific situation, it may be needed.
And it's quite better than to have these "potential terrorists" brought to court than to have then killed^H^H^H^H^H^Hhave an accident during their arrest.
How would they know if it's the first time? The press only knows it's the first time that they've heard about this happening.
"It's a matter of national security"
Surely that just means what ever they want it to mean doesn't it?
How long before the success of closed door "terrorism" trials makes the heads of those in power swell to the point where a simple traffic ticket is now a closed door trial?
Right up until they turn states wittiness and incriminate you eh?
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court begs to differ.
If the public has no idea what is going on in the FISC, then yes, it is a secret court.
What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN?
I would expect it all, and I would expect it now.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
But.... Then it is /not/ justice!
It is more like state terrorism against civilians.
Civilians now know that the moment that the state will destroy them, in secret, for any petty offence is not far off. And out of terror, people will start acting afraid and careful.
We are talking about a terrorism trial... There are more than only the defendants at stake.
Invalid passport, copy of a booklet or even possession of illegal weapon are insufficient to prove that someone is a terrorist. There probably need some witnesses. And thoses are at a great risk if their identity goes public... Some may be as good as dead !!!
So, yes, it's not nice, there may be doubt about what really happened behind those closed doors... But in this specific situation, it may be needed.
And it's quite better than to have these "potential terrorists" brought to court than to have then killed^H^H^H^H^H^Hhave an accident during their arrest.
This opens the door for secret trials, with secret charges, where you as a defendant may not even get to be present. Once the door is open what is to stop the scope of cases suitable for secret trials to be expanded?
It is obvious that we lost some wonderful and brave people on 9/11. We also lost some expensive buildings and the suffering of many people may ruin the lives of many families for life. Sometimes 9/11 is compared to Pearl Harbor. But in all seriousness 9/11 does not compare to Pearl Harbor at all. During that attack we lost ships and sailors and airmen that we would need to save our nation and the pain to our nation included the threat of loss of the nation. The 9/11 attack was not a major attack in that sense. I don't think many people viewed 9/11 as threatening to collapse the entire nation. The idea that for purposes of trial we label 9/11 as a major attack doesn't sit well with me. Yes, we do have a lunatic, cult like, group of incompetents who would like to crush us. But we see them more as idiots than a military threat. I think the term idiots is justified as none of the enemy will improve their place in life from the wretched little fight that these folks have put up. In the end these people live at our leisure. If they really were a "major threat" then we would have gone to the big weapons and simply erased them from the face of the Earth. Covert actions by our government may be far more dangerous than a bunch of religious primitives running about with AK47s.
And it's quite better than to have these "potential terrorists" brought to court than to have then killed^H^H^H^H^H^Hhave an accident during their arrest.
That's the obvious alternative. When you have Muslim scum who are willing to go to any lengths to kill non-muslims and undermine freedom and democracy you have to do something.
And, pray tell, how do you know the accused are terrorists? That the government has clear evidence that they are terrorists? Or that there are any credible witnesses at all?
You don't. In truth, you don't know anything at all. Because the whole proceedings are secret and hidden from you.
The government could drag you before the same secret court tomorrow, and none would be wiser. Think about it before you so enthusiastically throw away your rights. Secret trials because of "terrorism" can be used to hide many sins and subvert inconvenient rights.
How many were there previously that actually stayed secret? We only know about this because a hint of news escaped to the press.
That's the obvious alternative. When you have Muslim scum who are willing to go to any lengths to kill non-muslims and undermine freedom and democracy you have to do something.
So you want to stop them undermining freedom and democracy by undermining freedom and democracy?
Seems legit.
That's the obvious alternative. When you have Muslim scum who are willing to go to any lengths to kill non-muslims and undermine freedom and democracy you have to do something.
So you want to stop them undermining freedom and democracy by undermining freedom and democracy?
Seems legit.
Only for the terrorists - who don't believe in it anyway
There will be a jury - though one may be sceptical about how unprejudiced they will be - and the judge will be responsible for ensuring real fair play. The issue is, of course, about trust of these institutions given there is no chance for the gawping public to follow the details of the case. Given the inability of the public to accept jury verdicts when the they are 'sure' that the opposite answer is the right one, one has to doubt that the gawping public offers a great deal. I admit I'm thinking out loud here - I really don't know the right answer, I'm just not 100% sure 'open justice' really doesn't descend into witch hunting on a regular basis.
There are 2 things which seem to be the excuse for many reductions in human rights at the moment, terrorism and some types of porn. As soon as a government says that something is necessary to combat one of these then "the people" accept the legislation without question as they are presented with a "which is the lesser evil?" type of question and most people will quietly give up freedom to combat these perceived greater evils whether the legislation in question makes sense in the context of those crimes or not.
What are you blathering on about? It's got nothing to do with the EU.
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different." ~ Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.
I would rather we lost innocent lives because some terrorist acts weren't stopped than we take away freedom from our own citizens. We should endeavour to be the best we can be and pay the price that entails.
[NB: I have not lost anyone in a terrorist attack and so I don't really have the right to say the above.]
Invalid passport, copy of a booklet or even possession of illegal weapon are insufficient to prove that someone is a terrorist.
True if you are talking about the common language definition. But absolutely not true if you are talking about the legal definition. For example, how about this woman who was convicted (although this was later overturned on appeal) of terrorism for possessing books (including poetry she herself had written).
You do realise how ridiculous you sound, right?
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different." ~ Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.
Yeah, they already have trials where the witnesses are as good as dead if they speak. They have ways around that (e.g. televised evidence) without compromising the entire "public trial" concept.
it's a lot easier to deal with patsies used in staged terrorism that way..
I have to wonder what the international court of enforcing the european treaty of human rights has to tell about this....
They kill far more muslims than non muslims, maybe the problem will work itself out if we give them enough time. Either the 'moderate muslims' will get sick of dying/defending the idiots. Or all the muslims will end up dead. win win.
So you have christian^wmormon^wrandom scumm who are willing to kill other people.
Terrorism is just a scary word to convince morons they should give up their freedoms so they can be protected from some other group of people with different views to them. There are perfectly good laws, and a perfectly good legal system to deal with mass murderers.
It's like shooting fucking fish in a fucking barrel to get morons to hand over their freedoms in fear of some evil group, if you coin a scary sounding word to describe them.
The only thing secret trials are useful for is removing political opponents by imprisoning or executing them on fake charge. It's easier to go public in other situations. Witness lives can be safeguarded by appropriate programs. And they are hiding defendants' names, not witnesses'.
Then why bother announcing there is a trial? If it needs to be that secret, throw a gag order over the whole damn case. Why tease the public by saying "we caught some bad guys, but you're not smart enough to deal with it like we are"? I hate the idea of secret trials but I also live in the real world and know that sometimes the government has to work in the shadows.
"Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
This might be the most dangerous parallelogram in history!
To ensure Perfect Forward Secrecy, they should keep the charges secret from AB and CD too.
... he wants his Star Chamber back.
There were also notes of congratulations from Cardinal Richelieu and Joe Stalin.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Then why bother announcing there is a trial?"
To frighten any other potential troublemakers. Just keep your nose clean, keep your head down, do what you are told and never complain or criticize the authorities. And you'll have nothing to fear. Otherwise...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
We are talking about a terrorism trial... There are more than only the defendants at stake.
Invalid passport, copy of a booklet or even possession of illegal weapon are insufficient to prove that someone is a terrorist. There probably need some witnesses. And thoses are at a great risk if their identity goes public... Some may be as good as dead !!!
So, yes, it's not nice, there may be doubt about what really happened behind those closed doors... But in this specific situation, it may be needed.
And it's quite better than to have these "potential terrorists" brought to court than to have then killed^H^H^H^H^H^Hhave an accident during their arrest.
I believe that there are techniques by which a court can take testimony from a witness while obscuring his/her identity. Techniques that, in fact, long predate the War on Terrror and were used against organized crime.
Dropping a birdcage cover over the entire trial should be an action of last resort. Like when the very presentation of evidence could start an international war.
I would rather we lost innocent lives because some terrorist acts weren't stopped than we take away freedom from our own citizens. We should endeavour to be the best we can be and pay the price that entails.
[NB: I have not lost anyone in a terrorist attack and so I don't really have the right to say the above.]
I have, and I say the same thing.
a b c d fishes?
m no fishes.
s a r fishes.
e d b d fishes.
c m?
But over here, we're all democraticalismists!
Wasn't this whole secret trials system invented in order to hide the scandals that UK was directly involved with the torture of of the prisoners? One of the cases mentioned when this system was planned was the case of Binyam Mohamed, where the torture included making cut to penis and chest with scalpels or razor blades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
http://www.theatlantic.com/int...
To me, this misses the point of the Justice System. The function of the Justice System is to allow people to live together by administering, fairly, a set of rules that all know and have, by remaining in the country when they know the laws, agreed to abide by. Prosecution and punishment are a means to that end, not an end in themselves. If we have rules, we need to punish rule breakers. But if we have punishments, we need to reassure people that the law abiding will not be punished: and the mechanism for doing that open trial with guild established beyond reasonable doubt.
So it is more important that justice is seen to be done than it is done. The "beyond reasonable doubt" rule establishes this. Of course, the easiest way for justice to be seen do be done is for it to be done, where it can be seen. And secret trials break this paradigm. It will not deter other plotters from future plots, because they don't know about it. It might take two dangerous men off the streets - but can that not be done other ways, with a simpler and mor publishable level of proof?
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Your sort is a) Scarier than the terrorists b) collaborating with them to destroy our freedom. You're a traitor to your country. By your own logic you should be locked up (after a secret trial).
This has very clear and obvious potential implications for justice. Open justice has been a cornerstone of British justice and we should be very careful about derogations from it.
Â
However.
Â
What I think is missing from the vast majority of the comments to this article is the recognition that this is a very difficult situation. You can imagine the possibility that, for example, a long-term intelligence source reveals a terrorist plot - but where to prove that in open court would reveal the existence of the source, shutting the door to future intelligence and possibly leading to an informant's horrific death.
Â
You may think that the inviolability of the principle of open justice is such that no derogation is permissible from it. If you do, however, you should still be open about the fact that this might mean that known terrorists cannot be prosecuted - or, God forbid, are allowed to carry out deadly attacks - because the cost of losing our intelligence sources is judged too great.
Â
It might also be worth considering where the alternative leads. If the intelligence agencies are left with the dilemma above, will they in fact choose to allow the terrorist to go free or to perpetrate an attack - or is it more likely that they will deal with the threat in secret, without the oversight of the courts? It would be unfortunate if we were so unwilling to sacrifice any of the protections of a suspect that we ended up, in practice, losing them all.
Seriously. The last 20 years have seen British political life descend into the level of parody. Are we going to find out in another 20 years that the entire political class starting with Tony Blair was infected with some disease that ate their brains?
By the way, it is not the case that England has never had secret trials before. There used to be the Star Chamber, (prior to 1398 to 1641) :
That did not end will, and neither will this.
People have been detained or arrested in the UK under various iterations of the terrorism act for really pathetic things. In one example, a woman was arrested for walking on a cycle path.
http://news.sky.com/story/3792...
Given that we have already abused the terrorism laws by using them to detain and arrest people for offences that are clearly not terrorism related, how can we trust our system to hold trials in secret just because they are terrorism related ?
For all we know, these people walked on a cycle path - we have arrested people under terrorism related acts for things like this, so how can we be sure that the cause for arresting these people wasn't this trivial ?
So much for the concept of "Justice"
From the Guardian article it looks as though CD is only charged with possessing documents: http://www.theguardian.com/law...
Korma: Good
We already have protected witness testimony - lots of spooks have testified in court and have never been directly identified. Sorry, that one doesn't wash.
As I said above - the more reasons you can think of to make this secret, the more reasons there are to make it public. It's the wonderful irony of the whole thing.
What are you blathering on about? It's got nothing to do with the EU.
The ECHR he is ranting about is the European Court of Human Rights. It is one of the reasons rightwing parties all over Europe are against the EU: it annoying insists that humans have rights.
s/\^w/==/g
Fixed that for you.
In the article, it says that "AB" was charged with possessing documents showing how to make a bomb. I don't live in the UK, but I know in the US that it's completely legal to possess documents related to bomb-making, so long as no bombs are actually made or used. Hell, there are books in the US that will tell you how to make a nuclear weapon - but good luck getting your hands on any of the materials for it. As far as I'm aware, under the law in the US, I could download a tutorial on how to make a bomb and even draw up plans for a bomb and still not have committed a crime, so long as I don't make one.
Why isn't this the case in the UK? You would think it would be a basic freedom of speech issue - and yes, I'm aware that the UK has no official freedom of speech law, but you would think that simply possessing knowledge could not be ruled illegal.
The risks of government abuse if such a system is available are practically unlimited and, if history is anything to go by, almost guaranteed to come to pass. Ignoring them from your risk/reward calculations isn't just dumb, it's incredibly, mind numbingly dumb.
No, there is NOT a jury.
There probably need some witnesses. And thoses are at a great risk if their identity goes public... Some may be as good as dead !!!
You mean like in every major mob trial since the 1920's? Trials were witnesses as well as prosecutors and judges doubtlessly have risked their lives going up against extremely well funded criminal organizations that make Al-Qaeda seem a bunch of amateurs. Yet these trial have always been held in the public spotlight. This is especially true in Italy where they hold the mob trials in public even after the Maxi trials that triggered the murder of the residing Judge, his son and several terror attacks across the country with one single attack claiming 10 lives and injuring 93.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
The Star Chamber is why we have an open justice system. Reaction to that made it happen and that was a good thing for five centuries.
No. There have been too many violations by government officials, they can no longer be trusted.
Are these people even going to be allowed to defend themselves? www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email
Whenever a government demands a "secret" trial it generally means that either they have no evidence that will stand up in a legal trial, or that the defendants are rich or politically connected individuals who "can't be convicted" no matter what evidence is presented.
Fine. Just don't call it a trial. Because it isn't one.
Alternate terms they could use: "kangaroo court", "farce", "justification".
Even the Cardassians gave defendants a public trial.
The outcome was predetermined but at least it was public.
The US Secret Service did not detect this as snark! How did you get inside information into a foreign case exactly?
If you are confused see this topic from yesterday.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You don't seem to believe in it either, as you are willing to do away with it. You need some help.
Of course he doesn't - if he had enough mental capacity to realise that, he wouldn't be on slashdot showing the world what a hate-filled asshat he is, tilting at brown windmills that only exist mainly in the mind of him and his racist ilk.
There was a mismatch on the personnel code numbers.
-- S. Lowry, Information Retrieval
I think we can officially classify the UK as fascist, now.
So, what's your 'reason' to counter:
Intelligence agency won't prosecute in an open court in order to protect valuable intelligence and the terrorists are freed and commit some horrendous act against many innocent people.
I'm genuinely curious.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Remember, this is a country that not too long ago, classified journalism as terrorism.
I don't know, is she a fat bottomed girl?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
For lies, misdeeds, torture, gross incompetence directly leading to deaths of hundreds of thousands of earthlings.
CD = Cheney, Dick
AB = A#**@#, Bush
Are hereby summoned to British chamber of the stars to answer for their crimes against galactic federation.... (...wakes up on a cold sweat..what a weird dream..)
I'd rather take the risk that innocent people suffer through terrorism than that we remove the safeties and balances of justice.
If these individuals are that dangerous then court orders for ubiquitous surveillance will be trivial, and that will provide the evidence of wrongdoing that can be prosecuted in open court.
If they're not that dangerous then set them free.
" that make Al-Qaeda seem a bunch of amateurs."
no. The Mob has nothing on Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a global organization bent on destruction. Maybe person AB is a banker laundering money who has contacts into several cells and they want to track where that money goes to the specific person? Maybe some of that money moves through a well connected political corporation? Maybe if people know who they are it will spark a series of attacks?
My point is I can see a place for them. How do we be sure it isn't abused? A law that says the records are opened in 3 years?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
odd?
hmm..
What are you blathering on about? It's got nothing to do with the EU.
/qu
Maybe in your macroscopic world it may not but in real life it is very much so try looking at just how intertwined the EU is in the UK every thing that happens has to be passed by the EU , you cant even have a crap without EU permission .
Wake up ..
Removing safeties and balances of justice wouldn't even require a court or judge just have the target disappear.
I am assuming since you made such a factual statement, that you have extensive personal experience in the matter of employing the use of ubiquitous surveillance to detect terrorists.
I honestly can't think of any terrorism cases in open courts (since the 80s, I don't really know much of court cases before then) that didn't make use of surveillance that went beyond ubiquitous capabilities to make a case.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
"Republic" and "Democracy" are pretty much orthogonal concepts. The UK is not a republic, because it has a monarch. It is a democracy, because laws are created by a body elected in a reasonably free and fair manner.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If these guys are so dangerous, why not just keep them under surveillance? Occasional search warrants? Phone taps? It's real hard to be an effective terrorist when you're being watched.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What are you blathering on about? It's got nothing to do with the EU.
The ECHR he is ranting about is the European Court of Human Rights. It is one of the reasons rightwing parties all over Europe are against the EU: it annoying insists that humans have rights.
Yes, but it still has nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate body that existed long before the EU was formed.
Then why bother announcing there is a trial? If it needs to be that secret, throw a gag order over the whole damn case. Why tease the public by saying "we caught some bad guys, but you're not smart enough to deal with it like we are"? I hate the idea of secret trials but I also live in the real world and know that sometimes the government has to work in the shadows.
If you read TFA, the government didn't announce it. They were found out, and the gag orders were challenged in court.
If your definition of "actual secret court" is a court whose very existence is not known to the public (in contrast to trials held in a known court but whose proceedings are kept secret) then I suspect it doesn't exist.
The reason is simple- courts are essentially for public consumption. Its very existence is for justice to be seen to be done, to reassure the public that they are being governed by rule of law. That is why the existence of the FISC is disclosed to the public- to try and convince them that the NSA's powers are circumscribed by judicial authority (whether this is true or not is another matter).
If the court is completely secret, it serves no purpose. It is no different from someone making decisions/ruling by decree.
There was actually a gag order on the whole thing to begin with. That was recently revoked due to a separate court decision, allowing the press to report on the fact that they previously weren't allowed to report on the fact that they weren't allowed to report on this trial.
You're making the assumption that isn't happening currently, the issue is that the intelligence agencies do not want to reveal the sources of information to the public.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
You don't know how Wong you are. People like Chris Qureshi are certainly not racist and know exactly what Muslims do.