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.'

Comments

Dear UK

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Dear UK

[Thanshin]

How do you know it's not a case so important and transcendental that absolute secrecy is required to protect British society as a whole?

We only know it's a terrorism trial.

Maybe AB downloaded a Justin Bieber song. Maybe CD whistled a Disney tune during a bus trip without paying the representation fees. Maybe AB is brown skinned!

See? Now I'm afraid. I hope they have already been executed, just to be sure. Or sent to an american torture camp, to be exchanged for the next marine that's abducted by a pirate arab communist hacker terro-jihadist.

Re:Dear UK

[captainpanic]

I enjoy your sarcasm, but I will still answer your 1st question as if you were serious.

How do you know it's not a case so important and transcendental that absolute secrecy is required to protect British society as a whole?

Because the system on which our liberty and freedom is based is more important than some guys setting of a bomb, no matter how large the attack.

We just cannot - under any circumstance - accept a situation that a government can capture, try and imprison people without ever having to be accountable for those actions.

I could accept a situation where trial is postponed because of ongoing investigations against others, but the trial must be public. Heck, we (= the West) have been fighting regimes that did this in the past, saying we had to liberate the people from the oppression, etc. etc., and now we're doing it ourselves? Does not compute.

Re:Dear UK

[Anonymous Coward]

First it's once, then twice, and before you know it every single trial will be private. I still don't buy the whole terrorist defense we slap that tag on pretty much everything. Slap on the terrorist tag and you can pretty much ignore some unlucky fuckers basic human rights whether they;re guilty or not.

I don't care if it was Adolf Hitler, it needs to be public because this one fucked up precedent. You do not want to let this happen unless you're fine with your kids and their kids dealing with it.

Re:Dear UK

[rich_hudds]

What a load of shit.

Most Muslims in the UK are quite happy with the way things are. You really think they want to turn us into Pakistan?

The 'UK School Trojan Horse Plot' is some hyped up nonsense based on a fake letter. Reminds me of the fake 'elders of Zion' hoax that still causes grief to Jews.

Some nutters blew up a couple of buses 10 years ago and as a result of peple like tyou playing into their hands by over-reacting we have awful legislation like this.

Islamic Extremism is not surging in the UK and don't bandy about your 'We' as if you represent me you ignorant arsehole.

Not The First Time

[mentil]

for the first time in British legal history in an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice

Wrong

Re:What did you expect?

[jandersen]

Oh give it a rest, will you? Queen were actually quite good, although their lead singer was a rather odd character.

Re:Sigh

[rogoshen1]

My theory is because currently terrorism still has a bit of 'awe' factor behind it. Treating these cases like any other case would diminish that. The emperor has no clothes, and they are terrified at letting us see what precisely is going on, and what we're giving up civil liberties over.

Terrorism is the vehicle by which the authoritarian elements in society (on both sides of the pond) can use to gain more power and exert control over the populace. Since 9/11 (and I'm sure 7/7) the state has granted itself more power at the expense of personal privacy.

Allowing us to see that in reality it's not an extraordinary case, that plotting to murder people over ideology shouldn't be treated any differently than plotting to murder people indiscriminately -- takes that avenue away from them.

Re:Sigh

[Thanshin]

You don't know they brought back capital punishment. And if they told you, they'd have to kill you.

Secretly.

Re:Sigh

[oobayly]

My theory is because currently terrorism still has a bit of 'awe' factor behind it. Treating these cases like any other case would diminish that.

If that's the case, then we've gone backwards in the last year. I was incredibly relieved when the CPS decided to charge Lee Rigby's murderers with murder, rather than elevating them to terrorists. This meant that they could be shut down when they started sprouting their insane bullshit - which is what happened during the trial.

When that happened, I thought we'd started to reach a turning point - that terrorism wasn't a simple way of getting us to agree with policies - and I haven't received or heard any of the ridiculous ACPO* "suspect your neighbour" leaflets. We do have an election coming up next year, so maybe that's the reason.

The sane way to deal with this would be to charge them attempted murder, thereby making any political statements irrelevant to the trial.

* The ACPO is tentatively a non-profit organisation, but they do like to lobby and earn cash for selling records at 11667% of cost (£70 for a 60p cost)

Re:What did you expect?

[Noughmad]

What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN?

I would expect it all, and I would expect it now.

Major Not

[JimSadler]

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.

Re:Maybe forr once they really have to keep it sec

[Camael]

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, 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.