WARHAMMER Completely Secret Trial
- Thread starter Scouse
- Start date
Ctuchik
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 10,466
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #35
The only reason we know is that the newspapers (remember them, eh?) got wind of it but the government had an injunction against reporting about the very existence of the trial - which the papers managed to get overturned.
But you and Job would know that if you'd read the article...
That is an innacurate assessment Chilly.
The courts apply the law, as created by the government. If the government keeps falling foul of the courts then they change the laws in their favour - as has happened recently.
The idea of secret trials was completely unthinkable until New
The courts are a small barrier that can be, and increasingly regularly are, bypassed by government.
Blind faith in a "system" is foolish - as the system itself is vulnerable to attack from vested interests and I'd argue was co-opted a long time ago.
Last edited:
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,851
Actually even these trials are not secret trials. As in the ones carried out in safe houses in (and to quote/paraphrase/whatever) bongobongo land with absolutely no interaction with the judicial system and probably very little government knowledge. We and the US have been doing it for years.
Job is right, we do not know about the vast majority of secret interrogations, trials and convictions, because they are secret.
They like to drop these little titbits now and again to distract people from what they are actually doing.
Job is right, we do not know about the vast majority of secret interrogations, trials and convictions, because they are secret.
They like to drop these little titbits now and again to distract people from what they are actually doing.
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
Isn't it a bit sneakier than that? I read it as the injunction is still in place to stop them reporting about the original trial but no such injunction is in place in the appeal court where they are fighting to have the secret trial over turned?The only reason we know is that the newspapers (remember them, eh?) got wind of it but the government had an injunction against reporting about the very existence of the trial - which the papers managed to get overturned.
But you and Job would know that if you'd read the article...
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,516
The only justification I can think of is that the way they obtained the evidence against these people is still actively being used. My instincts say "tough shit we live in a society of open justice" but I understand the dilemma. However, there's a second issue; the jury would have to sign the Official Secrets Act in order not to blab about the trial afterwards, and this can only lead to a tainted jury; if you're prepared to sign up to the OSA for a trial, you're already saying a lot about your political and social leanings...
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
If these people are being tried based on the information of some super spy based in the Taliban or similar and they know who he is then it is messy. Because even after a secret trial you would need to deny them access to any sort of communication with the outside world until the operation is over. If they don't know who he is the solution would appear to be to let them go but keep them under surveillance until the operation is over and scoop them up again then.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #42
Though seemingly unrelated this despicable sort of activity by the Metropolitan Police shows how low even the lowest-down-the-food-chain arms of the state is willing to go.
If the pigs are regularly doing this to not "terrorists" but simply environmental activists and their ilk (who, love them or loath them, aren't exactly a major existential threat to the public) then what sort of disgraceful actions are our security services involved in?
If the pigs are regularly doing this to not "terrorists" but simply environmental activists and their ilk (who, love them or loath them, aren't exactly a major existential threat to the public) then what sort of disgraceful actions are our security services involved in?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #44
Yep. The majority of the cases were of people who were animal or environmental rights activists - and the police infiltrated their relatively benign groups under false pretences and one of the women actually had a child with the undercover cop.
Frankly, if an agent of the state stole six years of my life all options would be on the table for me...
Ch3tan
I aer teh win!!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 27,318
It's pretty sick, they slept with them based on who they thought they were. Just as bad as date rape tbh.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #46
Worse tbh. Date rape doesn't make you oppressed by the state. It's bad having no trust in your government, imagine your government sanctioning date rape because it doesn't trust you...
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
I also think it is worse than date rape because with date rape you are drugged and out of it there is not a lot you can do. If this goes on for years it is not just physical as mentally you have given yourself over to this person as well I am not sure how well a person can recover from that in terms of trusting people again.
I would like to see what the rules on this are and if these officers broke rules as this has the potential to shatter peoples lives and they are not necessarily the people under investigation they are just close to them. If these officers are being ordered to do this something needs to be done.
I would like to see what the rules on this are and if these officers broke rules as this has the potential to shatter peoples lives and they are not necessarily the people under investigation they are just close to them. If these officers are being ordered to do this something needs to be done.
Hawkwind
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 7,541
So you would have the MI5 agents in open court giving testimony? Having to give their names etc. Whilst I would never want to see a police state or oppressive legal systems I honestly don't see much of an issue here.
For me as long as there is a jury I have no issue with not having the press or visitors etc there.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #49
In the name of open justice? Yes, absolutely.
If that makes them useless as agents from then on then that's a small price to pay.
Have more spies, by all means, so the ones you burn up bringing people to justice are replaceable. But if it's done in secret you're not bringing people to justice - you're operating the means of oppressive dictators and this applies:
Amongst a billion other quotes about the means you use tainting the people who use them...Thoreau said:
or maybe this:
...Sallust said:
...I'm obviously quote-happy today
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,851
I actually disagree, sort of. There are ways to keep the spies anonymous yet still gather and be questioned on evidence. You can still have an open and fair trial and still keep anonymity.
If that spy is still in the field gathering evidence then maybe not. Lets say for example they capture the number 2 in the chain of some random terrorist organisation but have well placed personnel in the field to capture number 1 down the line. Should they abandon it all and start again at a later date, potentially risking more and more lives?
You can't just "have more spies" you can't bus them into whichever country they are operating, it takes years sometimes to get them placed and connected.
If that spy is still in the field gathering evidence then maybe not. Lets say for example they capture the number 2 in the chain of some random terrorist organisation but have well placed personnel in the field to capture number 1 down the line. Should they abandon it all and start again at a later date, potentially risking more and more lives?
You can't just "have more spies" you can't bus them into whichever country they are operating, it takes years sometimes to get them placed and connected.
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
That is very true but then they should let the Spy testify in secret as has been done before. Also in some police cases haven't the officers been allowed to testify anomalously? You can still get the jury on the office secrets act and classify it for 20 years then make it all public when the operation is over.
As neither of these seem to be an option I do not believe these two have been caught by a super spy. I think it might be using technology that they just do not want the public knowing about. Either because it is a massive breach of privacy that goes on all the time or because they don't want anyone knowing we have the capability. If the whole case revolves around this tech they can't just hold parts of the trial in secret.
As neither of these seem to be an option I do not believe these two have been caught by a super spy. I think it might be using technology that they just do not want the public knowing about. Either because it is a massive breach of privacy that goes on all the time or because they don't want anyone knowing we have the capability. If the whole case revolves around this tech they can't just hold parts of the trial in secret.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #52
Then you decide which fish you're actually after before trial...
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
Might not be that straight forward. If you get told by your spy that A and B will be blowing something up at x time then you need to stop them. Once you have stopped them you can't then let them go because you are actually after their boss.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #54
Then you don't prosecute... you're after the boss, remember?
It's *tough shit* if we can't take down all our targets. That's the price of open justice - and we're in peacetime, remember?
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
But as the boss of a group of terrorists if two people get caught red handed but the Police just let them go I would be very very suspicious.
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,516
There are already processes in place for intelligence officers or undercover cops to give evidence in open court without revealing their names etc. This is a whole other level of secrecy; we're basically not allowed to know what they're on trial for, or who they are, and the jury is by definition subject to bias.
soze
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 12,508
This could be like what they are trying to hide. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/06/analysis-vodafone-feels-edward-snowden-effects
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #58
Just the sort of thing they've no business hiding.
Warrantless open-access to listen in on anyone's telephone with direct wired-in access to the infrastructure.
That's nailed-on state abuse of power, it's oppressive and dictatorial. "Official Secrets" are NOT to be trusted - because they're the main tool of state abuse.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,377
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,751
- Thread starter
- #60
I'm of the opinion that it should all in the open and if that means we don't get to prosecute some people then so be it.
We're not facing any existential threats to the UK at all. Having secret trials in any form when we're living in the longest period of peace and security the UK has ever had is a disgrace.