WARHAMMER Completely Secret Trial

[Scouse]

So, it looks like it's on, the first trial to be conducted completely in secret in the UK ma well be getting the go-ahead.

It seems that the terrorists may well have won.

So much for open and transparent justice. When the state can hold trials in secret it's time for the state to end...



Oh, and warhammer, because that's what's going to be used on people's rights in this new secret justice system. Our rights have always been abused in the past during secret trials, always will be abused in the future...

 

[ECA]

I hate this shit.
Secret trials are for dictators and oppressive regimes.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure the lives of a few dozen/hundred/thousand people are, in the long term, worth the possible loss of an open and fair[ish] justice system.

 

[soze]

I assume there will still be a Jury there or are they planning on just letting a judge decide that would be way too far.

Also i am now intrigued what this could be about for the CPS to say they will not prosecute if they can't do it in secret. Because if it is because the work of a super spy and naming him in court would blow his cover then they simply can't let these two go so either they go to trial or they get dissapeard? Or they have found a security loophole so easy and dangerous that letting the world know about it would mean massive loss of life, same deal they can't just let them walk away?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thought this was about the new warhammer MMO and how they're holding a secret closed beta.

 

[Scouse]

I knew Soze would be the first to say "secret trials are OK"...

All we need now is Ctuchikand a few of the younger members who don't remember what it was to live in a free society to pitch in on the side of facism...

 

[soze]

I knew Soze would be the first to say "secret trials are OK"...

All we need now is Ctuchikand a few of the younger members who don't remember what it was to live in a free society to pitch in on the side of facism...

Where have I said they are OK. My post was more about if we don't get a secret trial then surely we will either have state sponsored assassination or something like extraordinary rendition.

 

[Scouse]

By your post you are clearly ok with a secret jury trial.

Extraordinary rendition happens when our government wants to torture people in places other than the UK. Secret trials are just more evidence of our state turning more and more facist.

There's never any excuse for secret trials. They're more dangerous than terrorism.

A small risk to the lives of a few agents - who voluntarily put themselves at risk and know the score when they volunteer - is a small price to pay for keeping justice open.

 

[Gwadien]

I knew Soze would be the first to say "secret trials are OK"...

All we need now is Ctuchikand a few of the younger members who don't remember what it was to live in a free society to pitch in on the side of facism...

WAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Hitler = God.

Continue

 

[Ch3tan]

You've completely misinterpreted soze's post @Scouse

 

[Scouse]

You've completely misinterpreted soze's post @Scouse

To be fair, the english is so mangled. I read this:

I assume there will still be a Jury there or are they planning on just letting a judge decide that would be way too far.

and then struggled with the rest of his post.

That looks to me like jury trials in secret are OK - but judge trials in secret are too far...

 

[soze]

To be fair, the english is so mangled. I read this:

and then struggled with the rest of his post.

That looks to me like jury trials in secret are OK - but judge trials in secret are too far...

You are such a pompous twat.

I meant "at least they are keeping a Jury" as a secret trial where a single judge decides your fate is clearly much worse. And then I went on to say as per the article if the CPS are going to drop the case rather than run it in public it must mean that the information is so damaging that they can't let it go public. If they can't send them to trial then they can't let them go either. Which leaves you with two choices killing them or making them disappear which is just as bad.

 

[Scouse]

Sorry Soze. It was a mash of english and I'm not paying massive attention.

However:

If they can't send them to trial then they can't let them go either

If they can't send them to trial then they HAVE to let them go.

This is why Guantanamo is a justification for terrorism. You either try people in open court or you let them go. That's the deal with the state taking care of justice. Anything else, anything, is unacceptable. It's a ridiculous slippery slope.

It completely justifies this sort of action by Afghani nationals...

 

[soze]

And that was my whole theory if you can't send them to trial how can you let them go and let them report whatever the secrets they know are. I personally find the idea of the government killing people that are too much trouble to send to trail a horrible prospect.

But I don't see these two ever seeing the light of day, and as no one knows who they are who can protect them and make sure they do not have an accident.

 

[Scouse]

And that was my whole theory if you can't send them to trial how can you let them go and let them report whatever the secrets they know are.

That's the price you pay for open justice and the reigning in of the power of the state.

Public trial, or freedom. No other options. In the unlikely event that this costs lives, then those lives are well worth the cost of stopping the genuine horror of a runaway corrupt state...

 

[soze]

Public trial, or freedom. No other options.

I do agree with you. But if they can't hold the trial in secret and you can't let them go that leaves one option. I wonder if the Prime Minister has the power to send the SAS after people then just classify it.

 

[Scouse]

But if they can't hold the trial in secret and you can't let them go that leaves one option.

Assassination is, correctly, illegal under international law.

It's trial or freedom. Period.

 

[Ch3tan]

Yep, price of living in a free society, sometimes you can't stop bad things from happening. Better than losing freedom though.

 

[Embattle]

Never mind eh

 

[Gwadien]

Is there justification for Secret Trials?

Well.. Yes, and no.

Secret Trials are useful for the state, the Government and useful for the individual (potentially, ride on that word, potentially, for those tin-foil hat wearers you can just disregard this point, because I'm completely mixed about it, so I won't argue against it, it's just a point I'm putting forward.) The positives of such a trial would be abused, given the power to do so, so long as there's still a public jury in there, it remains to potentially be positive.

It would be completely unfair to smear this as a 'Nazi' or 'Bolshevik' state, because Nazis and Bolsheviks alike, would kill anyone that they required to without having a 'proper' court, here in the UK at least we enjoy more freedoms, such as a public jury because it is a vital and important part of our legal system, and imagining that the Jury have to sign the Official Secrets Act and the truth comes out, what happened, and why it happened in the not so distant future (25 years or so) then I could justify it. The time scale is relatively important, so we can do something about it.

If it's completely hushed up for ever, for what ever reason, I can't support it, for purposes of national security or defending the defendants because it's a loose case, and they potentially could be innocent, and living in the media crazed society that we do, they'd be declared guilty even before the evidence is heard. (Which let's be honest, being declared terrorist is a bit more extreme than being declared a paedophile, especially with the amount of nutters that we have around today.

In terms of national security, I think this is a bit more important, and as I mentioned before, so long as the 'security threat' has gone, they can come out and say this was the weakness, and they wanted to exploit it, weakness no longer there (Or what ever.) I do not like the idea of the Government saying, nope it's still a security threat.

Equally, if I wanted to steal all of the HMRCs money (some how) I'm sure they'd want to do that in private to not encourage other hackers doing the same, in fact, I'd be happier to see wider society go into 'secret trials' rather than just people who 'randomly' get checked at airports. (Which does NOT say I support secret trials, I'm implying if they have justification for one part of society, then they should be able to justify it for the rest of society)

If they're unable to justify it, then it makes me feel that they're playing on the fears of people of terrorists, so it's completely unacceptable.

The reason why I mention that our legal system is a bit 'fairer' is because at least we don't import criminals, then export them to a over seas territory, so they can be treated differently.

Yeah, yeah I know we're Americas bitch, and I think that's the true reason why we're not disclosing the full conversations between Blair & Bush, because we don't want to lose our position as their pet dog, not because they've been discussing how Saddam hasn't actually got WMDs.

Foreign relations vs the point of view of the people, show's that people are all talk, and no bite.

Which is a massive contrast to the past where people would cause a riot because Steve stubbed his toe on a factory machine, damn capitalists.

So, er to conclude, if the private trials were held with members of the public as the Jury there, signing the Official Secrets Act method, and being allowed to release this information after a 25 year period, and the reason to have the trial in private had a good justification, IE for a proper security reason, or to hide the persons identity from a media slaughter, which yeah, is unlikely, rather than locking people up on a whim, and getting away with locking people up for a long period of time due to lack of evidence, etc, but obviously, all good things are open to abuse.

Democracy is highly flawed, but it's not as flawed as the alternatives.

 

[Tom]

If they can't send them to trial then they can't let them go either.

 

[Raven]

I think its fantastic news. trials without tedious lefties getting involved.

Win, win.

 

[Scouse]

Disagree @Gwadien - now I've gotten round to reading it

Without being a trial being open to the public you lose trust - which is vital. You're asking the public to go on faith. Which is bullshit.

Justice *must* be transparent for it to work. Transparent (*2.2).

And it has been in the past. What threats do we face in the 21st Century that we've not faced before? The threat of terrorism is not worse than the threat of war, and we've survived countless wars - including the wars where we've secured the very freedoms that are now being undermined in the name of an invisible enemy and in the name of "national security" - the very idea of which is shrouded in secrecy and open to massive abuse.

As for transporting crims - UK.gov was involved in extraordinary rendition for purposes of torture. So it's already clear that we're breaking international and UK law. And that's aside from the fact that we're supporting guantanamo. UK citizens are locked up there - without trial.

That's not justice. That's a clear justification for violence against the state.

 

[ECA]

Assassination is, correctly, illegal under international law.

It's trial or freedom. Period.

Arguably.

The US drone program responsible for 1000+ deaths says it's ok.

 

[Scouse]

Arguably.

The US drone program responsible for 1000+ deaths says it's ok.

That's the whole "enemy combatant" classification that dubya came up with. Frankly, we all know it's murder - but the advantages to the state of being able to kill people without risking soldiers are simply too tempting for the cunts to leave it alone.

They've also killed US citizens abroad - which is in contravention of their constitution. But it's difficult to sue the US government once you're dead - or in guantanamo, especially whilst they have secret courts, secret trials and secret justice to go along with their secret prisons...

 

[ECA]

Yeah but enemy combatant is any male over the age of ?8 that might be killed.

Cousin of a terrorist and live above a bakery? Get a few phonecalls from your bro and hangout with his friends once or twice? Cool now you're a possible terrorist and we're gonna bomb you.

Family of 6 that lives and operates the bakery below you? Collateral. Sorry. Enemy combatants.

 

[Job]

If they're to be secret how come we know about them.

 

[Tom]

I'm not even going to point out how stupid that comment is, Job.

Oh wait, I just did. Sorry.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Without being a trial being open to the public you lose trust

Government losing trust an issue?

 

[Chilly]

Thing is, the Courts and the Government are totally different things and the Courts keep the govt in line constantly. Secret hearings ordered by the cabinet mean we need to have blind faith in both the government and the judiciary. The whole point of our mode of government is that we don't have to have this blind faith because, largely speaking, we can question everything.