Secret trials for terrorists, says US judge

I think Adams is correct here. We have to defend the country against all attacks, including terrorists. If we allow the freedom of this country to be endangered by those who do not share the values of freedom, we have done a great disservice not only to the future but to the past.

 

No. When I say follow the U.S. constitution that includes the amendments. Do I really have to say "the U.S. constitution plus the amendments" every time I reference it in order for people to know what I mean? I hope not.

 

I would question whether those who want to ignore the U.S. constitution plus the amendments share the values of freedom.

I would think that those who share the values of freedom would want to follow the rule of law and work to amend the U.S. constitution plus the amendments instead of simply ignoring it or twisting it to suit their desires.

 

So do think the Constitution should not be preserved from those who would ignore it for political expediency?

 

I agree. But I don't see how that charge applies here. I think we should absolutely follow the rule of law.

But why is life cheap enough to you to endanger it by risking the revelation of intelligence that may bring death to many when it can be avoided?

 

I agree. To do otherwise is not a conservative value.

 

Where in the world would you get that from? Who here has recommended ignoring the constitution for political expediency?

 

Secret trials? Depriving rights of the accused? Is that really constitutional?

 

Does a secret trial meet the test of Amendment VI?

If for some odd reason you were arrested wrongly for suspicion of terrorism would you be satisfied with a secret trial?

 

I am not sure, but apparently it is:

The Court has borrowed from First Amendment cases in protecting the right to a public trial. Closure of trials or pretrial proceedings over the objection of the accused may be justified only if the state can show ''an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'' 35 In Waller v. Georgia, 36 the Court held that an accused's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated by closure of all 7 days of a suppression hearing in order to protect persons whose phone conversations had been taped, when less than 2<SUP>1/<INF>2 hours of the hearing had been devoted to playing the tapes. The need for openness at suppression hearings ''may be particularly strong,'' the Court indicated, due to the fact that the conduct of police and prosecutor is often at issue. 37 However, an accused's Sixth Amendment-based request for closure must meet the same stringent test applied to governmental requests to close proceedings: there must be ''specific findings . . . demonstrating that first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights.'' 38
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/03.html)

To me that seems clear.

 

So what if those "bogeymen with box cutters" kill 3000 people. And you could have avoided it. How does that honor life in the image of God? Aren't you being pretty calloused here?

 

The Supreme Court says it does.

Why would I be arrested for suspicion of terrorism? And what would lead to a secret trial? Again, when you read what Posner said and what I said above, there has to be an overriding interest and a narrowly tailored exception.

Again, I guess part of this is seeing the value that we place on life at work. Prolife is a cute catch phrase to use so long as it doesn't cost us too much. I simply disagree with that. That doesn't make me in favor of secret trials, but it means that I understand that there could be a legitimate use for them.

 

I hardly find that a reasonable argument here. Again, you talk about being scared of bogeymen with box cutters and then trot out this kind of argument.

 

Even if one favors secret trials for terrorists, do you feel comfortable having the government define who is a terrorist?

Some conservatives think that is simple now because they trust George W. Bush. But if someone such as Hillary Clinton is president in 2009 will these same conservatives be as trusting for her to define who is a terrorist?

 

And then how will this be applied if/when some wacko fundy Christian commits a terrorist act?

 

I guess through the same mechanisms that result in no-knock raids on the wrong houses on a pretty much constant basis in this country - government officials' incompetence, laziness, or just plain meanness.

 

The Latin phrase "Silent enim leges inter arma" pretty much sums up what we are discussing in this thread.