3 ms·

The article never mentions the elephant in the room: if these men are put on a public trial, the government will have to reveal intelligence information that ma

The article never mentions the elephant in the room: if these men are put on a public trial, the government will have to reveal intelligence information that may embarrass or endanger the lives of people in the intelligence community.

freeflight 5y ago
That’s no “elephant in the room” it’s just the same old and tired non argument to justify holding people prisoner without granting them any rights or even charging them for a crime in a public court. “Trust us, this guy is a criminal but we can’t tell you why or how” is not an convincing argument, particularly when it’s coming from people and institutions who are constantly caught lying.
DaftDank 5y ago
There are plenty of federal prosecutors and judges who know how to handle classified evidence in court. I can't remember his name off the top of my head anymore, but I recall when I deep-dived into the Gitmo suspects and military tribunals a long time ago, there was a judge's name who constantly kept popping up in the paperwork of related terrorism cases. Seemed like he was one of the designated "terrorism judges" who had the clearance and authority to review classified intel and info and make determinations on what can be used and presented. I believe he is from the Virginia district courts possibly
- koheripbal 5y ago
  The issue is that in a court, a Defendant has the right to see the evidence against him.
  - DaftDank 5y ago
    Yes, the judge I was referring to was a district court judge in the US (I believe in the state of Virginia but not positive) who hears terrorism cases and makes decisions on whether the classified evidence the prosecution wants to withhold is actually worthy of being withheld -- i.e. if it's actually a threat to national security to disclose, and whether that national security risk outweighs the need for the defendant to be presented with all the evidence used against him to mount a defense. Also, if there is any way to present the evidence with redactions so that the defense can see it, but not reveal sources/methods etc. Prosecuting cases that depend on classified national security material is nothing new really when it comes to the federal courts. There is a system in place to do so. The military tribunals are an entirely different beast, although some might say different sides of the same coin. I'm inclined to go with the latter, although I don't think the federal courts are quite as bad as the military tribunals in terms of fairness to defendants.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> if these men are put on a public trial, the government will have to reveal intelligence information that may embarrass or endanger the lives of people in the intelligence community. Handling classified information is something the federal courts are set up for already and do as needed. Its not a novel issue that excuses indefinite detention without trial.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  I haven't litigated a classified case in civilian court, but my knee-jerk reaction is to be skeptical that they are adequately "set up for" handling classified material. Where is the FRE analog to MRE 505?
javajosh 5y ago
That is a lazy and dangerous thought. First, this is not the governments first rodeo - they know how to do trials involving sensitive data. Second, if what you say is valid, that the state the right to hold anyone they don't like indefinitely without trial, on any basis they choose, then what you've described is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The opportunities for abuse are without bound. The result is inhumane in the extreme. It is "only" a handful of men held for 20 years without trial, right? That's awful enough, I would say, but consider that your excuse could be used to justify the executive branch holding any number of people for any reason, and without any oversight. Consider what someone without scruples could do with that power.
kuraudo 5y ago
This is the lie that the intelligence community uses to perpetuate its drug running, assassinations, and general evil that it commits on a daily basis.
gorbachev 5y ago
The Government will just claim blanket state secrets on everything, and a judge will rubber stamp it.

freeflight 5y ago

That’s no “elephant in the room” it’s just the same old and tired non argument to justify holding people prisoner without granting them any rights or even charging them for a crime in a public court. “Trust us, this guy is a criminal but we can’t tell you why or how” is not an convincing argument, particularly when it’s coming from people and institutions who are constantly caught lying.

DaftDank 5y ago

There are plenty of federal prosecutors and judges who know how to handle classified evidence in court. I can't remember his name off the top of my head anymore, but I recall when I deep-dived into the Gitmo suspects and military tribunals a long time ago, there was a judge's name who constantly kept popping up in the paperwork of related terrorism cases. Seemed like he was one of the designated "terrorism judges" who had the clearance and authority to review classified intel and info and make determinations on what can be used and presented. I believe he is from the Virginia district courts possibly

koheripbal 5y ago
The issue is that in a court, a Defendant has the right to see the evidence against him.
- DaftDank 5y ago
  Yes, the judge I was referring to was a district court judge in the US (I believe in the state of Virginia but not positive) who hears terrorism cases and makes decisions on whether the classified evidence the prosecution wants to withhold is actually worthy of being withheld -- i.e. if it's actually a threat to national security to disclose, and whether that national security risk outweighs the need for the defendant to be presented with all the evidence used against him to mount a defense. Also, if there is any way to present the evidence with redactions so that the defense can see it, but not reveal sources/methods etc. Prosecuting cases that depend on classified national security material is nothing new really when it comes to the federal courts. There is a system in place to do so. The military tribunals are an entirely different beast, although some might say different sides of the same coin. I'm inclined to go with the latter, although I don't think the federal courts are quite as bad as the military tribunals in terms of fairness to defendants.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> if these men are put on a public trial, the government will have to reveal intelligence information that may embarrass or endanger the lives of people in the intelligence community. Handling classified information is something the federal courts are set up for already and do as needed. Its not a novel issue that excuses indefinite detention without trial.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 5y ago
I haven't litigated a classified case in civilian court, but my knee-jerk reaction is to be skeptical that they are adequately "set up for" handling classified material. Where is the FRE analog to MRE 505?

javajosh 5y ago

That is a lazy and dangerous thought. First, this is not the governments first rodeo - they know how to do trials involving sensitive data. Second, if what you say is valid, that the state the right to hold anyone they don't like indefinitely without trial, on any basis they choose, then what you've described is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The opportunities for abuse are without bound. The result is inhumane in the extreme. It is "only" a handful of men held for 20 years without trial, right? That's awful enough, I would say, but consider that your excuse could be used to justify the executive branch holding any number of people for any reason, and without any oversight. Consider what someone without scruples could do with that power.

kuraudo 5y ago

This is the lie that the intelligence community uses to perpetuate its drug running, assassinations, and general evil that it commits on a daily basis.

gorbachev 5y ago

The Government will just claim blanket state secrets on everything, and a judge will rubber stamp it.