4 ms·

> You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret Umm, no. If there have been secret ac

by stale2002 8y ago

> You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret Umm, no. If there have been secret accusations and secret courts and secret trials against someone for almost a decade, the very best way to protect that defendant is to make the information public. This is especially true if the defendant is the one demanding it all be made public.

joshuamorton 8y ago
>Umm, no. If there have been secret accusations and secret courts and secret trials against someone for almost a decade No. There have been 0 secret "courts", unless you're intentionally trying to stretch the term "court" to mean something it doesn't. There have been standard grand jury proceedings. Technically speaking, there have also been 0 "secret" accusations, because an official accusation is an indictment, which is public, and made after the grand jury. Standard grant jury proceedings are done in secret, yes. That an accusation is made in secret is fine. If the government "secretly accuses" me of some crime, and then there's a grand jury that convenes, and they find that nothing happened, then that's the end of the discussion. If the grand jury agrees, then, and only then, is the government able to make a public accusation and do important things like go to trial. What you're asking for is the ability for the government to publicly defame anyone based on no evidence. "Secret" grand juries prevent that.
dragontamer 8y ago
> This is especially true if the defendant is the one demanding it all be made public. The defendant isn't present yet. This is a Grand Jury proceeding. If anything, the main problem with Grand Jury proceedings is that they don't happen enough. Its absolutely essential that those involved in Grand Jury proceedings be kept secret, to protect the defendant to-be.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > Its absolutely essential that those involved in Grand Jury proceedings be kept secret, to protect the defendant to-be This does not protect a defendant who has had secret accusations against him for almost a decade. The defendant himself has demanded, for years and years, that the accusations be made public. There is absolutely no way you can spin this to be "protecting the defendant" when the defendant himself has been wanting the accusations be made public for years. They do not want the secret accusations and secret crimes. They want the accusations of crimes to be made public, so they can defend themselves. It is impossible to defend yourself against secret crimes. The best way to defend yourself against politically motivated prosecution is to bring things public and win via politics. Politically motivated attacks require a political solution. By making everything public, which is what the defendant wants! > The defendant isn't present yet. We live in a digital age. Bring it into the daylight, and let the world judge, in the realm of politics. I am not talking and defending yourself in the court, when you've already been arrested, and are therefore screwed. I am talking about defending yourself in the real world, IE, via politics. The world politics stage is the only stage that matters, when it comes to fights between nation states.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > This does not protect a defendant who has had secret accusations against him for almost a decade. Grand jury secrecy protects the legal rights and reputation of both the accused and third parties. It does not protect the preference of the accused to be able to decide whether or not to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States based on the scope and nature of charges they may face, which is not a legal right. Of course, that there is an indictment, or that they it has been around for a decade, is speculation (if supported by some, though not unambiguous evidence.) > The defendant himself has demanded, for years and years, that the accusations be made public. The allegedly indicted party (who is not a defendant until and unless prosecuted) has no legal or moral right to do so, until and unless the government chooses to prosecute the indictments which may or may not have been issued. (He could also ask to surrender and waive his fifth amendment right to indictment in the case currently before the grand jury, assuming he is the target, which would end secrecy and free Manning from any need to testify.) > They do not want the secret accusations and secret crimes. They want the accusations of crimes to be made public, so they can defend themselves. Until and unless charges are filed based on the indictment, which is merely permission for the government to file charges, there is no criminal accusation by the government to defend against. Once there is such an accusation, it will be public. > It is impossible to defend yourself against secret crimes. Most crimes are intended to be secret, and people defend against them all the time. It's impossible to defend yourself against secret accusations, but that's only relevant if something can happen based on the secret accusations. He only thing that can happen based on sealed grand jury indictments is...public criminal charges. Which aren't secret, and which you can defend yourself against the same as any other criminal defendant. > The best way to defend yourself against politically motivated prosecution is to bring things public and win via politics. Your basis for characterizing not only the existence but also the motivation of the supposed “prosecution” this way is...what? And, in any case, if your argument is that the interest in getting the indictment unsealed is so that the indicted party can use it to further bolster his bid for foreign-government political support to assist in avoiding being subject to legal process...well, not assisting flight from prosecution is one of the key reasons indictments are often ordered sealed until the accused is in custody.
    - 8y ago

joshuamorton 8y ago

>Umm, no. If there have been secret accusations and secret courts and secret trials against someone for almost a decade No. There have been 0 secret "courts", unless you're intentionally trying to stretch the term "court" to mean something it doesn't. There have been standard grand jury proceedings. Technically speaking, there have also been 0 "secret" accusations, because an official accusation is an indictment, which is public, and made after the grand jury. Standard grant jury proceedings are done in secret, yes. That an accusation is made in secret is fine. If the government "secretly accuses" me of some crime, and then there's a grand jury that convenes, and they find that nothing happened, then that's the end of the discussion. If the grand jury agrees, then, and only then, is the government able to make a public accusation and do important things like go to trial. What you're asking for is the ability for the government to publicly defame anyone based on no evidence. "Secret" grand juries prevent that.

dragontamer 8y ago

> This is especially true if the defendant is the one demanding it all be made public. The defendant isn't present yet. This is a Grand Jury proceeding. If anything, the main problem with Grand Jury proceedings is that they don't happen enough. Its absolutely essential that those involved in Grand Jury proceedings be kept secret, to protect the defendant to-be.

stale2002 8y ago
> Its absolutely essential that those involved in Grand Jury proceedings be kept secret, to protect the defendant to-be This does not protect a defendant who has had secret accusations against him for almost a decade. The defendant himself has demanded, for years and years, that the accusations be made public. There is absolutely no way you can spin this to be "protecting the defendant" when the defendant himself has been wanting the accusations be made public for years. They do not want the secret accusations and secret crimes. They want the accusations of crimes to be made public, so they can defend themselves. It is impossible to defend yourself against secret crimes. The best way to defend yourself against politically motivated prosecution is to bring things public and win via politics. Politically motivated attacks require a political solution. By making everything public, which is what the defendant wants! > The defendant isn't present yet. We live in a digital age. Bring it into the daylight, and let the world judge, in the realm of politics. I am not talking and defending yourself in the court, when you've already been arrested, and are therefore screwed. I am talking about defending yourself in the real world, IE, via politics. The world politics stage is the only stage that matters, when it comes to fights between nation states.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > This does not protect a defendant who has had secret accusations against him for almost a decade. Grand jury secrecy protects the legal rights and reputation of both the accused and third parties. It does not protect the preference of the accused to be able to decide whether or not to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States based on the scope and nature of charges they may face, which is not a legal right. Of course, that there is an indictment, or that they it has been around for a decade, is speculation (if supported by some, though not unambiguous evidence.) > The defendant himself has demanded, for years and years, that the accusations be made public. The allegedly indicted party (who is not a defendant until and unless prosecuted) has no legal or moral right to do so, until and unless the government chooses to prosecute the indictments which may or may not have been issued. (He could also ask to surrender and waive his fifth amendment right to indictment in the case currently before the grand jury, assuming he is the target, which would end secrecy and free Manning from any need to testify.) > They do not want the secret accusations and secret crimes. They want the accusations of crimes to be made public, so they can defend themselves. Until and unless charges are filed based on the indictment, which is merely permission for the government to file charges, there is no criminal accusation by the government to defend against. Once there is such an accusation, it will be public. > It is impossible to defend yourself against secret crimes. Most crimes are intended to be secret, and people defend against them all the time. It's impossible to defend yourself against secret accusations, but that's only relevant if something can happen based on the secret accusations. He only thing that can happen based on sealed grand jury indictments is...public criminal charges. Which aren't secret, and which you can defend yourself against the same as any other criminal defendant. > The best way to defend yourself against politically motivated prosecution is to bring things public and win via politics. Your basis for characterizing not only the existence but also the motivation of the supposed “prosecution” this way is...what? And, in any case, if your argument is that the interest in getting the indictment unsealed is so that the indicted party can use it to further bolster his bid for foreign-government political support to assist in avoiding being subject to legal process...well, not assisting flight from prosecution is one of the key reasons indictments are often ordered sealed until the accused is in custody.
  - 8y ago