9 ms·
It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order
by frandroid 6y ago
It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.
- JoeSmithson 6y agoI have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 6y agoI don't have experience of extortion, either, but I'm plenty qualified to object. Your position seems to be that there are legitimate reasons it was introduced. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that the process doesn't involve lying in court to deprive people of their rights. You say "conceal a source" but that is precisely depriving the accused of their explicit constitutional right to be "confronted with the witnesses against them". (I will note that I've definitely been speaking with a US focus - not all of my comments will generalize.)
- kls 6y agoExactly there are established legal proceedings to protect sensitive information be it a source that could be endangered, classified information or a method employed, the judge can seal that information, but it has historically been the judges call and that should not be taken out of the courts hands by law enforcement.