UK Seeks To Hold Terrorism Trial In Secret 240
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.'
Dear UK (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There is accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's missing the point. There are lots of trials where shoddy evidence or misconduct by the police or CPS came to light, but due to the way the system works could only be investigated afterwards and brought up in an appeal. Lots of people have been subsequently found not guilty on appeal thanks to various interested parties taking up their cause and finding new evidence on their behalf.
For there to be proper scrutiny the evidence and testimony have to be made public. With a secret trial we don't even know
Re: (Score:2)
The people need to trust that the justice system is fair in order for it to be relevant. The trials need to be open for the people to have faith that its fair.
Re: (Score:3)
Open justice means the people can see what the tabloid papers want us to think the people who are supposed to bring justice are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Which is to say, the government doesn't get to shy away from giving ammunition to its critics simply by moving the justice system underground.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Let's be very careful about absolutes. I can certainly imagine circumstances in which a summary execution without a trial could be morally justified. But I'd expect the executioner to go to jail for murder.
> We just cannot - under any circumstance - accept a situation that a government can capture, try and imprison people without ever having to be accountable
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just have a publication ban on the names. They do it around here all the time, usually for juveniles. The press just has to refer to the defendants as AB and CD when reporting. Same with any sensitive witnesses, refer to them by letter.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
People stopped demanding liberty and freedom and started demanding safety. The government complied as best they could. Democracy in action!
Re:Dear UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Canada it is the government leading the safety thing and the people demanding privacy. They keep introducing legislation to give more powers to the police etc, things like being able to go to ISPs and demand names and the people keep screaming no. Terrorism, child porn and this time, cyberbullying. Unluckily the public slowly gets worn down, the new powers are attached to other legislation and it looks like they may succeed this time around.
Thing is this government, who got voted in on a transparency promise, is the most secretive government ever and freaks out when their privacy is broken. The former Public Safety Minister (WTF?) accused everyone of being for child molesters while trying to pass his new law and then freaked when his public divorce proceeding, including how he was screwing the babysitter for 8 years, was publicized.
They really seem to go on the principal that everyone is as crooked as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of several real world situation where this is needed.
For example revealing identities indicate a breach has been done and postoperative at risk.
I could go on and on. I could also go on and on about abuse.
I wish the data would be come public in 3 years after the trial.
Now you saw no matter how bog the attack, but have you really thought about it? 100K people dead? eastern seaboard?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear UK (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The whole point of the modern trial system is to do things out in the public so anyone can look at it if they desire and check up on governmentt abuse.
It is a hard-wrought lesson of history. Shame on modern political opportunists (who, in the US anyway) foresaw their emergence.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know, because it's secret. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM!
Snark Not (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org] topic from yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
...Attempting to lure them back by imitating their practices...
Wag the dog. The US never really broke away. They just rearranged the furniture a bit. God save the Queen!
Re: (Score:3)
Ironicly, this is one of the REASONS the US broke away from the empire. That bit about a public trial in the Sixth Amendment wasn't put there because the founders had some theoretical idea that secret trials would be used to dispense injustice -- it was because they had experience with the British doing just that.
Re:Dear UK (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a good example of why the government might think secret trials are a good idea: Some people (such as residents_parking) are swayed more by emotional rhetoric than demonstrable facts, and as such any details of a brown guy in the dock will cause them to conclude they are "right" about whatever hate-filled, ignorance-dripping nonsense they heard some other racist muppet hear down the pub or on the radio the other night.
I don't agree with secret trials, and I also don't agre
Re:Dear UK (Score:4, Funny)
Then there's this other Muslamic guy I work with and had a perfectly ordinary conversation with where our views differed and he didn't try to convert me or anything!
Surging I tell you, Surging!
Why, at lunch I was in the staff room and there was a mix of people from different cultures and NO ONE mentioned Islam!!!! I couldn't believe it!!!
So you can imagine what a breath of fresh air it was stumbling over your balanced, measured, calm and reasonable post.
We need more of your kind of sanity around here.
Secret trial in UK "first in legal history" (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the UK's legal history reset with Richard I instead of William the Conqueror? Source?
Not The First Time (Score:5, Informative)
for the first time in British legal history in an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice
Wrong [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not The First Time (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure they were referring to the MODERN justice system, ie post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they were referring to the MODERN justice system,
Don't you mean the Scottish justice system?
Re: (Score:2)
Black bush is what you drink when you want a good unchallenging spirit.. scottish stuff is for when you want something which won't go down like caramel colored water.
Re: (Score:2)
No, right. Because that's not British legal history, it's *English* legal history. The Star Chamber was abolished in 1640. Britain as a legal and political entity didn't exist until the Act of Union in 1707.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be picky the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not come into being till 1801. For the period 1707 to 1801 it was just Great Britain, there was no "United Kingdom".
Sigh (Score:3)
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.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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* [wikipedia.org] "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: (Score:2)
eg "Exclusive: US blocks publication of Chilcot’s report on how Britain went to war with Iraq" (14 November 2013)
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Re "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."
They might be invited in for a chat and told if they talk or the cleared legal team talk they all get bundled in on long term charges, risk deporta
Re: (Score:3)
If it's held in secret how can anyone be sure it's anything that remotely resembles a fair trail? Maybe the defendants don't even know what that are being charged with. Maybe they are not allowed lawyers.
Secret trails are not the worst of this though. Since about 2005 the home secretary has the power to put anyone under house arrest indefinitely without any burden of proof. The UK government don't even need trails anymore.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/... [theguardian.com]
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the problem of a secret trial. The real problem of a secret trial is the presumption of guilt and the defendants must prove their innocence. That presumption of guilt is basically being "LOUDLY" and "PUBLICLY" declared tainting all possible juries. The trial has to be secret because they are guilty and 'er' 'um' because they are guilty. The judge in upholding the secrecy has publicly declared their guilt. So the trial is not longer a trial of guilt or innocence simply a secret declaration of an pre-agreed punishment to be handed out. The whole point of public trials to to force government to publicly prove it's claim because we don't fucking believe them until they do so and every time government fails to prove it's case it is because it is lying.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Because of the sensitive nature of its business, the court is a "secret court"
Re: (Score:2)
It does annoy me when I hear my fellow Brits talk about some of the things America has done in recent history as though they are somehow worse than what we ourselves are doing (Gitmo aside). We ultimately have the same problem that the US has: Politically there's very few votes to gain by being reasonable to "terrorists", and plenty to lose by being se
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the Snowden revelations as to how US companies are being pressured into things? how the whole system of oversight of the NSA's activity works?
Sometimes? Rarely? (Score:2)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [wikipedia.org] begs to differ.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough. Maybe he should have said secret trials. FISC is basically a warrant rubber stamp factory.
I'm genuinely curious about he extent of secret trials in the US. My understanding is that there are restrictions when it comes to public trials for minors. Probably other situations. Where the boundaries are, I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's about secret trials for terrorism then America still trumps Britain to an even greater extent - they just skip them and go for summary execution, or abduction to black sites. Secret trials would actually be a step up for many terrorism suspects compared to what the US currently does, though I understand Obama has tried to justify this by claiming all such actions are carried out after consulting legal advice, so it's possible that they do carry out secret trials, albeit presumably without a civilian
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
You don't know they brought back capital punishment. And if they told you, they'd have to kill you.
Secretly.
against the two men, known only as AB and CD.' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahmed the Bomber and Caleb the Destroyer! FEAR THEM!
Re: (Score:2)
So the only information we have is that there's maybe going to be a secret trial of two unidentified alleged terrorists for planning some unidentified terrorist act.
Beats me why they fucking bothered telling anybody about it at all. Still I guess it makes a change from Operation Yewtree.
Re: (Score:2)
For revealing the three special agents involved in the case, you too shall face a secret trial.
Welcome back to the ABC days (Score:5, Insightful)
Colonel 'B'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Haven't they heard of "parallel construction" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'expert witness" will have no name, past, court reviewed academic history as an export but will be able to affirm the copper line was tapped at the exchange or digital log was saved over 2 years...
The court is then reopened and nobody is any the wiser about UK methods.
In the US in theo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but all the more reason we need this to be public. If what you suggest actually took place, then letting the government introduce secret trials for something as trite as some double-standards isn't anywhere near reason enough to allow it.
The wonderful contradiction of secret courts - if it's worth making secret, then it's almost definitely worth making public. I hope it ends up the latter - otherwise every tom, dick and harry being tried for anything worse than a parking violation will push for a s
Secret courts are the stuff of dictatorships (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Secret courts are the stuff of dictatorships (Score:5, Insightful)
People are doing something, they're voting against the main parties.
The problem is in the process they're leaning towards the lures of the far right like UKIP with it's populist lies.
I find it incredible that the three main parties are running round like headless chickens screaming "Oh my god, we're losing votes to the far right, how do we stop this disease in our society!" yet remain completely oblivious to the fact that this sort of shit is exactly why people are flocking away from them en-masse.
I want them to change course not simply because things like this sicken me as they did during Brown era authoritarianism, but because the fact they're pushing people into the arms of the far right is even more disturbing.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Short of a bloody revolt, what exactly can the citizens do about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Short of a bloody revolt, what exactly can the citizens do about it?
They can stop voting for people who pander to their fears.
Re: (Score:2)
Short of a bloody revolt, what exactly can the citizens do about it?
They can stop voting for people who pander to their fears.
Who exactly do you suggest? Coz the only way I can see to do as you say is to simply not vote for anyone, and I can't see how that's going to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Get onto https://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com] and type in your postcode. Tell your MP that you don't care who he/she is, or how good their record for your local area. Tell them that because they're affiliated with the major parties that are either condoning this, or failing to do anything to stop it you no longer feel you can vote for them. Tell them you're going to vote for one of the smaller parties - you're not sure who just yet, but will look into it and pick one that seems like it's acceptable, just so long as
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Short of a bloody revolt, what exactly can the citizens do about it?
Protest, take it to the streets, hold signs that say "No Secret Courts".
Make a big nuisance so everyone knows what's going on.
It at least, is a start before the revolution (which I agree is probably going to be needed in the States and the UK).
Re:Secret courts are the stuff of dictatorships (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not scared enough, you're posting from an account.
And you too are not scared enough, you are posting. Or do you still believe that posting as AC provide any real anonymity?
Good skive for the Judge (Score:3)
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.
Major Not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're overplaying Pearl Harbor. The United States mainland was not in danger because of Pearl Harbor. All it did was set back our naval operations and gave Japan some breathing room in theirs. But due to our isolation, huge size, and manufacturing power, it was only a matter of time before we replenished and then some.
What it did do, however, just like 9/11, was shock the nation. And it wasn't just "some expensive buildings", it was the Twin Towers, the crown jewels of New York city, and also a direct hit
Re: (Score:2)
This world is in a terrible spiral of violence, which escalated with 9/11, but according to the religious nuts, that wasn't the start of this spiral. Since then the whole world is suffering from this. I even think that the economic crisis that started in 2008 is partly due to the huge worldwide economic costs of this still worsening spiral of violence.
My initial gut reaction was also in favor of 'preventive culling' on these nutcases, but I have come to the conclusion that a more effective weapon against them would be education. The world needs to educate the masses where these idiots come from, to prevent them from getting any foothold anywhere. It will take a long time, but the end result will be a lot prettier than the battlefields that we see emerging now. Answering violence with violence means we're playing their game instead of our own.
Actually, according to stats, violence has been going down. It's just that the less of it there is, the more the remaining violence gets played up.
Same thing with crime stats.
Re: (Score:2)
Educate the women. Their role in [...] educing the birthrate [...] is enormous.
I completely agree [reference.com].
First that we know of. (Score:2)
How many were there previously that actually stayed secret? We only know about this because a hint of news escaped to the press.
AB and CD? (Score:5, Funny)
King Charles I called... (Score:2)
... he wants his Star Chamber back.
There were also notes of congratulations from Cardinal Richelieu and Joe Stalin.
I think it is mad cow disease. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], (prior to 1398 to 1641) :
That did not end will, and neither will this.
Dodgy arrests under the terrorism act (Score:2)
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... [sky.com]
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 pa
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
So much for the concept of "Justice"
Why is this a crime in the UK? (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware that the UK has no official freedom of speech law
Don't we?
Last time I checked the european Declaration of Human Rights includes one of those and the UK is a signatory.
Re: (Score:2)
What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN?
SLURM. It's highly addictive.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh give it a rest, will you? Queen were actually quite good, although their lead singer was a rather odd character.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
What else could you expect from a country, reigned by the QUEEN?
I would expect it all, and I would expect it now.
Re: (Score:2)
But over here, we're all democraticalismists!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, is she a fat bottomed girl?
Re:Maybe forr once they really have to keep it sec (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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...
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] who was convicted (although this was later overturned on appeal) of terrorism for possessing books (including poetry she herself had written).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] trials that triggered the murder of the residing Judge, his son and several terror attacks across
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe forr once they really have to keep it sec (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Played. I was just thinking AB = Archibald Buttle. Someone in the prosecutor's office might have a wicked sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
It all comes down t