3 ms·
I think government should be permitted to say "National Security," but it should come along with a presumption that the evidence would have been adverse to the
by Glyptodon 5y ago
I think government should be permitted to say "National Security," but it should come along with a presumption that the evidence would have been adverse to the government's case just like spoliation, and the case should proceed, not a blanket get out of jail free card.
- einpoklum 5y agoWhy do you believe the (US) government be permitted to say "National Security" to excuse severe, widespread and continuous breaches of constitutional rights?
- Glyptodon 5y agoI don't. Treating witheld/secret information as like spoilation would mean an assumption that whatever cannot be presented would be adverse to their side of the case. Which is to say they could basically say "we can't have this info in courts," and the courts would say "okay, we believe you, but because this information is effectively withheld, and that information would be crucial to the case, we will proceed with summary judgment favoring the other side in areas impacted by said evidence" or something similar. I'm saying they can make the excuse, but there'd be cost pretty much.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago"Spoilation" is the idea that if you destroy evidence, the court assumes the evidence is unfavorable to you. If the government invokes national security in a case to prevent the court from seeing evidence, it should be treated as destroying evidence and the court should assume the worst about the evidence that they aren't allowed to see.