2 ms·

> 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 h

by 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.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > 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. Nobody said it was a legal right. Whether something is a "legal right" or not is pretty irrelevant when you are defending against a nation state political attack. The nation state can probably just do whatever it wants anyway. > The allegedly indicted party (who is not a defendant until and unless prosecuted) has no legal or moral right to do so The best way to defend yourself against nation state attacks is rarely "Put yourself in a cage, controlled by said nation state.". > Once there is such an accusation, it will be public. Not if they do the same thing that they done with the other accusations, which is to seal the indictment. Secret courts, secret judges, secret crimes. There is zero way to hold the government accountable for this kind of stuff, unless you count "Just put yourself in the cage, controlled by said nation state" as some sort of solution that achieves justice. > well, not assisting flight from prosecution is one of the key reasons indictments are often ordered sealed until the accused is in custody. And it is a key reason to support making it public, if you believe that the process is corrupt to begin with. There isn't any way to hold the government accountable otherwise. Would you support Sadia Arabia if they started extraditing gay US citizens, from the United Kingdom, and then executing them for being gay? I wouldn't. The situation with Assange isn't much different then supporting Sadia Arabia if they engaged in that kind of behavior. IE, I am sure that exposing government crimes is "illegal" in many countries that don't want to be exposed. That doesn't make it right. And the moral thing to do in that situation, is to undermined any and all efforts to prosecute whistleblowers, and undermine them through whatever means necessary, regardless of what the legal opinion of the nation state is on the matter.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Not if they do the same thing that they done with the other accusations, which is to seal the indictment. No, what is alleged now is that there is a sealed indictment (which is fairly routine before an accused party is in custody.) To actually prosecute based on such an indictment, it will be unsealed. > Secret courts, secret judges, secret crimes. There are no secret criminal courts and no secret judges in the US. There are secret proceedings, including all grand jury proceedings, but I have yet to hear an argument for why that is a bad thing rather than an important protection of all of the rights of the (potentially) accused, the rights of third parties on whom grand jury evidence may touch, and the interests of integrity of law enforcement process. And simply yelling “secret court” repeatedly is, as well as being factually inaccurate, not an argument. There are, naturally, secret crimes, but that's because criminals often (but not always!) prefer to do their crimes that way. > Would you support Sadia Arabia if they started extraditing gay US citizens, from the United Kingdom, and then executing them for being gay I wouldn't support any country for prosecuting people for being gay, what the punishment, process, or whether they attempted to use extradition is irrelevant. But since there's no even remotely plausible reason to suspect that any US offenses for which Assange may have been indicted, or which a federal grand jury might now be in the process of considering indicting him, are for anything remotely like sexual orientation, that's hardly relevant.

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.

stale2002 8y ago
> 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. Nobody said it was a legal right. Whether something is a "legal right" or not is pretty irrelevant when you are defending against a nation state political attack. The nation state can probably just do whatever it wants anyway. > The allegedly indicted party (who is not a defendant until and unless prosecuted) has no legal or moral right to do so The best way to defend yourself against nation state attacks is rarely "Put yourself in a cage, controlled by said nation state.". > Once there is such an accusation, it will be public. Not if they do the same thing that they done with the other accusations, which is to seal the indictment. Secret courts, secret judges, secret crimes. There is zero way to hold the government accountable for this kind of stuff, unless you count "Just put yourself in the cage, controlled by said nation state" as some sort of solution that achieves justice. > well, not assisting flight from prosecution is one of the key reasons indictments are often ordered sealed until the accused is in custody. And it is a key reason to support making it public, if you believe that the process is corrupt to begin with. There isn't any way to hold the government accountable otherwise. Would you support Sadia Arabia if they started extraditing gay US citizens, from the United Kingdom, and then executing them for being gay? I wouldn't. The situation with Assange isn't much different then supporting Sadia Arabia if they engaged in that kind of behavior. IE, I am sure that exposing government crimes is "illegal" in many countries that don't want to be exposed. That doesn't make it right. And the moral thing to do in that situation, is to undermined any and all efforts to prosecute whistleblowers, and undermine them through whatever means necessary, regardless of what the legal opinion of the nation state is on the matter.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Not if they do the same thing that they done with the other accusations, which is to seal the indictment. No, what is alleged now is that there is a sealed indictment (which is fairly routine before an accused party is in custody.) To actually prosecute based on such an indictment, it will be unsealed. > Secret courts, secret judges, secret crimes. There are no secret criminal courts and no secret judges in the US. There are secret proceedings, including all grand jury proceedings, but I have yet to hear an argument for why that is a bad thing rather than an important protection of all of the rights of the (potentially) accused, the rights of third parties on whom grand jury evidence may touch, and the interests of integrity of law enforcement process. And simply yelling “secret court” repeatedly is, as well as being factually inaccurate, not an argument. There are, naturally, secret crimes, but that's because criminals often (but not always!) prefer to do their crimes that way. > Would you support Sadia Arabia if they started extraditing gay US citizens, from the United Kingdom, and then executing them for being gay I wouldn't support any country for prosecuting people for being gay, what the punishment, process, or whether they attempted to use extradition is irrelevant. But since there's no even remotely plausible reason to suspect that any US offenses for which Assange may have been indicted, or which a federal grand jury might now be in the process of considering indicting him, are for anything remotely like sexual orientation, that's hardly relevant.