3 ms·
If the government has secret interpretation of all its laws, how do they expect citizens to conform with them? Let's say they arrest someone based on a secret i
by meric 15y ago
If the government has secret interpretation of all its laws, how do they expect citizens to conform with them? Let's say they arrest someone based on a secret interpretation of its laws, does it mean the trial has to be secret too, to avoid revealing this secret interpretation? Can the arrested person hire a lawyer of his choosing, or are only lawyers with the appropriate level of access (determined based on the government's own choosing) allowed to be hired by the said arrested person? The secret trial is held, the judge deems the person guilty (at this point we're not sure the judge was granted access to the secret interpretation, though), the person goes to jail. Now, will the person has access to the secret interpretation, so at least they now know for what secret interpretation of the law they got into jail for? If not, then what if the sentence was capital punishment?
- splat 15y agoThis is assuming that there is a trial at all. The Obama administration has already made clear that it has the power to execute US citizens without trial.
- andylei 15y agoso let's say it's world war ii and i'm a us citizen. i get on a boat to germany and join the german army. do you think a us soldier is not allowed to shoot me because the constitution allows me a trial before "execution"?
- gyardley 15y agoNo, it's not considered murder to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war. The parent is probably referring to the drone strike in Yemen that successfully killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. Here the issue isn't his death, but the process leading to it. The circumstances surrounding al-Awlaki's death might be legally justifiable - apparently there's a 50-page DoJ memorandum arguing that it was. I'm certain the 'wartime enemy' argument was used. However, the public will never know if the death of al-Awlaki was justifiable, because that memorandum is secret. The executive order that led to al-Awlaki's death is secret - the Obama administration is refusing to discuss any US involvement. The evidence that informed the executive order leading to al-Awlaki's death is secret. I'm not a naïf. I'm prepared to concede that under certain quite rare and specific circumstances, it might be justifiable for the US government to kill a US citizen without full due process - I'd choose that, say, over a nuke going off in Manhattan. But there must be some judicial oversight. At the moment, we have no idea how many US citizens the president has ordered killed - and because the details behind these are 'state secrets', normal checks and balances against the abuse of power do not apply. I've got no sympathy for al-Awlaki, but this is as good a definition of tyranny as any.
- CamperBob 15y agoNo, let's not say it's World War II, because it isn't.
- donohoe 15y agoIn addition, it seems certain US states think its okay to execute it citizens even when it looks like they are probably innocent...
- zandor 15y agoYou should read a bit about Nicholas Merrill who got a National Security Letter and subsequently sued the FBI and the DoJ. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte... Talk at CCC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25EkdWLU1k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25EkdWLU1k
- georgieporgie 15y agoTalk at CCC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25EkdWLU1k* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25EkdWLU1k* That was slow to get started, but became very* interesting quickly. Thanks for posting it.