House Arrest

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.

Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).

BTW, I was answering the point made on Radio 4, not arguing with you Ramrod (we do appear to agree the government shouldn't just be able to imprison people without proving they are terrorists).

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by scastle

Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).

BTW, I was answering the point made on Radio 4, not arguing with you Ramrod (we do appear to agree the government shouldn't just be able to imprison people without proving they are terrorists).

Signing the official secrecy act doesn't mean someone can have access to all levels of security information. There are many different levels of security clearance, some of which the names cannot even be repeated.

Anyone who has been involved in this sort of thing should be able to confirm that from me!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Escapee

Signing the official secrecy act doesn't mean someone can have access to all levels of security information. There are many different levels of security clearance, some of which the names cannot even be repeated.

I do realise that. I was over simplifying, but I was trying to make the point that the government (logically) must already have procedures in place for trying crimes involving classified evidence. The "evidence" for these terrorist activities could be classified and the trial conducted using these procedures.

Unless the government has no evidence, and is just lying so that they can imprison who they want.

[punky]

Originally Posted by scastle

Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).

But the whole reason MI-5 was secret in the first place, is that people on our level can't really comprehend the danger posed by us, and so what we don't know won't hurt us. We can go about our little lives without worrying about who is about to kill us. Like the "Men In Black" principle. Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.

Of course after 9/11 people found out that the intelligence agencies had some prior warnings or indications, and they pressed for a more transparent security service. Now threats are more public (like the Wall Street one), everyone is moaning about the culture of fear.

Originally Posted by punky

Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.

But of course the evidence to back those claims up isn't available to us, nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts.

So pardon me if I'm a little sceptical.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

But of course the evidence to back those claims up isn't available to us, nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts.

So pardon me if I'm a little sceptical.

Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people. It is also foolish (I believe) to think that Al Qaeda are the only people that hate us, and they are in a couple caves in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by punky

Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

"nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts."

Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people.

Or that, having had years of downsizing following the end of the Cold War, they're doing their damndest to make sure that they take every possible advantage of the current situation to re-establish their position.

It is also foolish (I believe) to think that Al Qaeda are the only people that hate us, and they are in a couple caves in Afghanistan.

It is also foolish to assume that every time we hear of "an organisation with links to Al Qaeda" there is some sort of global conspiracy with Osama Bin Laden pulling the strings and orchestrating acts of terror instead of, much more likely, a bunch of vaguely related fanatics who share similar aims.

Originally Posted by punky

Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people.

I recommend Orwell for a nightime read. There's always a 'threat'. Remember too how over very short periods of time allies become enemies (Iraq, Afghanistan....).

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

But the whole reason MI-5 was secret in the first place, is that people on our level can't really comprehend the danger posed by us, and so what we don't know won't hurt us. We can go about our little lives without worrying about who is about to kill us. Like the "Men In Black" principle. Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.

Of course after 9/11 people found out that the intelligence agencies had some prior warnings or indications, and they pressed for a more transparent security service. Now threats are more public (like the Wall Street one), everyone is moaning about the culture of fear.

All well & good, but according to Ramrod, the government have said they cannot try these people as the evidence is inadmissable or revealing it would jeapordise ongiong ops. I was pointing out they could just classify any evidence therefore reducing any chance of leaking.

I didn't mention (and wasn't actually talking about) any security service.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

I recommend Orwell for a nightime read. There's always a 'threat'. Remember too how over very short periods of time allies become enemies (Iraq, Afghanistan....).

I do too. I loved reading 1984. I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.

Originally Posted by Scastle

All well & good, but according to Ramrod, the government have said they cannot try these people as the evidence is inadmissable or revealing it would jeapordise ongiong ops. I was pointing out they could just classify any evidence therefore reducing any chance of leaking

Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

I do too. I loved reading 1985.

1985 eh? As in the sequel to 1984?

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

1985 eh? As in the sequel to 1984?

ARGH!! That was a bad typo. I have read it, honest.

[clairey]

Originally Posted by punky

I do too. I loved reading 1984. I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.

did you understand the pount he was making about an ever changing enemy.

Your argument re jury's better off not knowing is positively scary.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.

So you can justify the government imprisoning who it wants because any evidence presented might scare the jurors?

A lot of court cases expose the jury and other people in the court to information that they would probably be better off not knowing. Maybe we should imprison the defendants in those cases too?

[soneill]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.

I thought that they checked potential jurors for conflict of interest as part of jury selection. Your hypothetic juror should get "deselected" fairly early on in the process on that basis!