How effing stupid are we?
-
I would replace it with the "Foreign Subjects Visiting or Residing in UK Act" That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can fuck off. If that means repatriating them to shithole regimes where they can be tortured and killed, then so be it. The flight back will be long enough for them to reflect on their folly of coming to Britain with evil intentions. British Subjects already have enough in law to protect them, and part of that protection is to be protected from foreign enemies. Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted should be deported in the national interest. They can fight the case via their embassies and governments. The first duty of any government is to protect it's people, and even if there is not enough proof, a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
evil intentions
How do you know what their intentions are? You haven't proved they were even involved.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted
If they're not convicted, how do you know they're criminals and terrorists? Maybe the cops just picked them up because they're Arabs, and happened to be within ten city blocks of where the bomb was supposed to go off.
Dalek Dave wrote:
a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
Dave... All I can say is... Orwell would be proud of you. Seriously, guys... You're really toeing the line between law and ThoughtCrime. You want to deport people just because you think they might be involved in something? Obviously I don't want to sound like Pillowpants here, but this is a slippery slope. If you let the government deport foreigners or lock them up just because they MIGHT be involved in something, you're basically giving your politicians free reign to do whatever they want to anyone who isn't a citizen. Now, it could be argued that the bar for "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Or whatever the UK equivalent) could be set a bit lower for foreigners, but there should still be some form of real evidence required for the government to act against someone.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
evil intentions
How do you know what their intentions are? You haven't proved they were even involved.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted
If they're not convicted, how do you know they're criminals and terrorists? Maybe the cops just picked them up because they're Arabs, and happened to be within ten city blocks of where the bomb was supposed to go off.
Dalek Dave wrote:
a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
Dave... All I can say is... Orwell would be proud of you. Seriously, guys... You're really toeing the line between law and ThoughtCrime. You want to deport people just because you think they might be involved in something? Obviously I don't want to sound like Pillowpants here, but this is a slippery slope. If you let the government deport foreigners or lock them up just because they MIGHT be involved in something, you're basically giving your politicians free reign to do whatever they want to anyone who isn't a citizen. Now, it could be argued that the bar for "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Or whatever the UK equivalent) could be set a bit lower for foreigners, but there should still be some form of real evidence required for the government to act against someone.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In reality, this case showed intent and proof, however owing to the nature of the proof (Intelligence Sources) it could not come to trial, but it would be safe to say that there was enough here to warrent the deportation, even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA. The police and authorities aren't going to go to all that trouble over an argument in a restaurant or a traffic violation, but it gives them the right to do this if enough intelligence take is available, even if that is under the OSA so it cannot be stated in open court. We do not live in a police state (not yet), and they will not deport simply because of race, religion or ethnicity. They would, though, if there were serious questions of intent. OK, we do not live in a perfect world, deal with it. But I want a state that errs on the side of caution than risk of offence. When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck
but if it weighs the same as a duck then it's a witch! I agree with a) but the problem I see is that they were concerned with what would happen to him if he was deported. On an intellectual level, I'd still be saying it's not your issue what happens to him when he got sent back but then that only leaves b) which would be paid for by..well...me. Which I wouldn't want to agree to.
-
digital man wrote:
if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck
but if it weighs the same as a duck then it's a witch! I agree with a) but the problem I see is that they were concerned with what would happen to him if he was deported. On an intellectual level, I'd still be saying it's not your issue what happens to him when he got sent back but then that only leaves b) which would be paid for by..well...me. Which I wouldn't want to agree to.
JHizzle wrote:
b) which would be paid for by..well...me. Which I wouldn't want to agree to.
We'd have a whip round.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
In reality, this case showed intent and proof, however owing to the nature of the proof (Intelligence Sources) it could not come to trial, but it would be safe to say that there was enough here to warrent the deportation, even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA. The police and authorities aren't going to go to all that trouble over an argument in a restaurant or a traffic violation, but it gives them the right to do this if enough intelligence take is available, even if that is under the OSA so it cannot be stated in open court. We do not live in a police state (not yet), and they will not deport simply because of race, religion or ethnicity. They would, though, if there were serious questions of intent. OK, we do not live in a perfect world, deal with it. But I want a state that errs on the side of caution than risk of offence. When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA.
Ok, so let me get this straight... They DID have the evidence to convict, but it was classified intelligence... The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed... Tricky situation... If that evidence is genuine, the guy deserves to be deported or imprisoned... But if it's made-up evidence, then the government could use this procedure to deport anyone they want, simply claiming, "He's guilty, but we can't tell you why, because it's a secret." Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but what if he was a political refugee from his home country, and your government just made a deal to deliver him back for execution in exchange for some kind favor? "Oh, we'll just say he's a terrorist, make up some phony documents, and ship him out on the next flight." Like I said... Slippery slope.
Dalek Dave wrote:
When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
You're letting emotions get in the way of logic. By "these animals," do you mean "The people who blew it up," do you mean "The people who might have blown it up," or do you mean "Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?" Sure, if you can prove who did it, then strap 'em to the electric chair, ramp the current up nice and slowly over a 48-hour period, and put the whole thing on YouTube so all of their little terrorist friends back east can see what happens when they #%(*&@# with your country... But make sure you're punishing the right people.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA.
Ok, so let me get this straight... They DID have the evidence to convict, but it was classified intelligence... The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed... Tricky situation... If that evidence is genuine, the guy deserves to be deported or imprisoned... But if it's made-up evidence, then the government could use this procedure to deport anyone they want, simply claiming, "He's guilty, but we can't tell you why, because it's a secret." Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but what if he was a political refugee from his home country, and your government just made a deal to deliver him back for execution in exchange for some kind favor? "Oh, we'll just say he's a terrorist, make up some phony documents, and ship him out on the next flight." Like I said... Slippery slope.
Dalek Dave wrote:
When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
You're letting emotions get in the way of logic. By "these animals," do you mean "The people who blew it up," do you mean "The people who might have blown it up," or do you mean "Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?" Sure, if you can prove who did it, then strap 'em to the electric chair, ramp the current up nice and slowly over a 48-hour period, and put the whole thing on YouTube so all of their little terrorist friends back east can see what happens when they #%(*&@# with your country... But make sure you're punishing the right people.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Some Clarification: By Animals I mean those that planted and detonated the bomb. Secondly... Your line "
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?
" I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest. I am not a racist, I have many friends of all colours, creeds, sexual bias, genders, political persuasions and races. I do not count against any individual on any basis except those of Attitude and Beligerence. If someone is an Arsehole or needlessly aggresive then I make my decision, but I do not make decisions on skin, or lifestyle etc. I hope you can understand why what you said was offensive, thanks. Moving on... Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA.
Ok, so let me get this straight... They DID have the evidence to convict, but it was classified intelligence... The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed... Tricky situation... If that evidence is genuine, the guy deserves to be deported or imprisoned... But if it's made-up evidence, then the government could use this procedure to deport anyone they want, simply claiming, "He's guilty, but we can't tell you why, because it's a secret." Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but what if he was a political refugee from his home country, and your government just made a deal to deliver him back for execution in exchange for some kind favor? "Oh, we'll just say he's a terrorist, make up some phony documents, and ship him out on the next flight." Like I said... Slippery slope.
Dalek Dave wrote:
When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
You're letting emotions get in the way of logic. By "these animals," do you mean "The people who blew it up," do you mean "The people who might have blown it up," or do you mean "Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?" Sure, if you can prove who did it, then strap 'em to the electric chair, ramp the current up nice and slowly over a 48-hour period, and put the whole thing on YouTube so all of their little terrorist friends back east can see what happens when they #%(*&@# with your country... But make sure you're punishing the right people.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed.
The judiciary in the UK guard their independence and impartiality with some ferocity. Yes, they make mistakes but they're generally fair and even handed and will apply the law in as impartial a manner as they can. If the judge agreed with the security services it is because he read the evidence that was presented, not because he was acting for the government.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA.
Ok, so let me get this straight... They DID have the evidence to convict, but it was classified intelligence... The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed... Tricky situation... If that evidence is genuine, the guy deserves to be deported or imprisoned... But if it's made-up evidence, then the government could use this procedure to deport anyone they want, simply claiming, "He's guilty, but we can't tell you why, because it's a secret." Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but what if he was a political refugee from his home country, and your government just made a deal to deliver him back for execution in exchange for some kind favor? "Oh, we'll just say he's a terrorist, make up some phony documents, and ship him out on the next flight." Like I said... Slippery slope.
Dalek Dave wrote:
When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
You're letting emotions get in the way of logic. By "these animals," do you mean "The people who blew it up," do you mean "The people who might have blown it up," or do you mean "Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?" Sure, if you can prove who did it, then strap 'em to the electric chair, ramp the current up nice and slowly over a 48-hour period, and put the whole thing on YouTube so all of their little terrorist friends back east can see what happens when they #%(*&@# with your country... But make sure you're punishing the right people.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What I want to know is why a trial can't be done. There are quite a few people with classified, secret, and top secret clearance in every country. Contractors, ex-military, etc... Get a bunch of the people with the clearance necessary to view the evidence and hold a trial. Coverage limited to knowing it is happening and the outcome. Yes, it isn't perfect, because these folks will often be very patriotic, but it at least has a good chance of being a fair trial. That's much better than having a closed court view the evidence and decide the fate of someone without the person being able to address the claims against them. And yes, if they are terrorists, by all means, deal with them.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Some Clarification: By Animals I mean those that planted and detonated the bomb. Secondly... Your line "
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?
" I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest. I am not a racist, I have many friends of all colours, creeds, sexual bias, genders, political persuasions and races. I do not count against any individual on any basis except those of Attitude and Beligerence. If someone is an Arsehole or needlessly aggresive then I make my decision, but I do not make decisions on skin, or lifestyle etc. I hope you can understand why what you said was offensive, thanks. Moving on... Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
So that makes it okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Some Clarification: By Animals I mean those that planted and detonated the bomb. Secondly... Your line "
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?
" I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest. I am not a racist, I have many friends of all colours, creeds, sexual bias, genders, political persuasions and races. I do not count against any individual on any basis except those of Attitude and Beligerence. If someone is an Arsehole or needlessly aggresive then I make my decision, but I do not make decisions on skin, or lifestyle etc. I hope you can understand why what you said was offensive, thanks. Moving on... Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest.
Apologies... Didn't mean to imply that you are, but I think you can understand how public opinion can very easily swing in that direction after an incident. Not being very familiar with UK history, I can't point out specific examples there... But over on this side of the pond... After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor during WWII, the US government started rounding up anyone of Japanese descent, the vast majority of which were, obviously, not involved. After the WTC towers were leveled, there was widespread hatred of anyone Arabic, and some of that still lingers today. The first instinct after something like that is to seek out some group of people to blame, and much of the general public is going to just categorize people by race, instead of realizing that in any racial group, there are good ones and bad ones.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
See, you realize that it CAN happen, and possibly DOES happen already... Any government is going to have some amount of corruption, but you need to keep an eye on it to prevent that corruption from growing. It's for that reason that I support the presence of the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and even the Teabaggers (Heh)... I don't want to see them take over, because I don't agree with many of their viewpoints, but I think it's good that they're around to stop the guys in power from going too far.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed.
The judiciary in the UK guard their independence and impartiality with some ferocity. Yes, they make mistakes but they're generally fair and even handed and will apply the law in as impartial a manner as they can. If the judge agreed with the security services it is because he read the evidence that was presented, not because he was acting for the government.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
So that makes it okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
No, but it happens, deal with it.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest.
Apologies... Didn't mean to imply that you are, but I think you can understand how public opinion can very easily swing in that direction after an incident. Not being very familiar with UK history, I can't point out specific examples there... But over on this side of the pond... After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor during WWII, the US government started rounding up anyone of Japanese descent, the vast majority of which were, obviously, not involved. After the WTC towers were leveled, there was widespread hatred of anyone Arabic, and some of that still lingers today. The first instinct after something like that is to seek out some group of people to blame, and much of the general public is going to just categorize people by race, instead of realizing that in any racial group, there are good ones and bad ones.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
See, you realize that it CAN happen, and possibly DOES happen already... Any government is going to have some amount of corruption, but you need to keep an eye on it to prevent that corruption from growing. It's for that reason that I support the presence of the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and even the Teabaggers (Heh)... I don't want to see them take over, because I don't agree with many of their viewpoints, but I think it's good that they're around to stop the guys in power from going too far.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)My proposed law would not make this happen, it is happening already under the EHRA, so whats new? I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That is because of a long history of not getting it too wrong, too often. We generally accept the honesty of the authorities, and it is rare when they are corrupt. Even the recent scandals over expense claims was a bit of a joke, the average 'misclaimed' expense was less than £2000 per member per year, which, whilst still wrong is really trifling in comparison with other politicians around the world.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels):laugh: Not really: but the judiciary is not elected so they don't tend to make political decisions.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
My proposed law would not make this happen, it is happening already under the EHRA, so whats new? I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
Like I said, it's a matter of figuring out which ones are the "undesirables," not just pointing at some random person and saying "You're a bit creepy. Get out." :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
That is because of a long history of not getting it too wrong, too often. We generally accept the honesty of the authorities, and it is rare when they are corrupt. Even the recent scandals over expense claims was a bit of a joke, the average 'misclaimed' expense was less than £2000 per member per year, which, whilst still wrong is really trifling in comparison with other politicians around the world.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Fair enough :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
:laugh: Not really: but the judiciary is not elected so they don't tend to make political decisions.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Same over here... the Supreme Court judges are appointed for life, to keep them out of politics.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
I wouldn't but I don't act like a duck and I'm not advocating that the UK should become a muslim state.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so.
Nonsense: I was challenging him to accept the fact that there comes a point where any government has to make some decisions that appear to go against common sense and justice. If he is that convinced that they pose no threat, regardless of the legal status, let him shelter them rather than have them deported. It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
Most of the time I would stand right behind you with this. But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
Are you volunteering to be mistake number 1? If he has to have them in his house, because he believes the government should let them free, you should get to be the first mistakee for your belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
What I want to know is why a trial can't be done. There are quite a few people with classified, secret, and top secret clearance in every country. Contractors, ex-military, etc... Get a bunch of the people with the clearance necessary to view the evidence and hold a trial. Coverage limited to knowing it is happening and the outcome. Yes, it isn't perfect, because these folks will often be very patriotic, but it at least has a good chance of being a fair trial. That's much better than having a closed court view the evidence and decide the fate of someone without the person being able to address the claims against them. And yes, if they are terrorists, by all means, deal with them.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
What I want to know is why a trial can't be done. There are quite a few people with classified, secret, and top secret clearance in every country. Contractors, ex-military, etc... Get a bunch of the people with the clearance necessary to view the evidence and hold a trial. Coverage limited to knowing it is happening and the outcome.
The defense is NOT going to want people associated with the gov/def being the ones who decide. They are more likely to find them guilty. On the other hand, if the government wanted to divulge the intelligence related practices and information, they would hold the trial in open court. If the person if convicted, they can spill their guts on everything they heard, since they won't be sent back to prison for breaching state's secret laws if they are already in for life.
Opacity, the new Transparency.