Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

There is a difference between "hopefully not going to get a convection in a civilian court" and "nonexistent."

[RedKing]

Who said anything about letting them go?

I've said from the very start that they should be tried in a court of law, because that's the only legitimate way to punish anyone. Not to show them mercy, or to be nice, or any of the simpering things you seem to think I want. I am simply demanding the strength to adhere to our morals under all circumstances.

And, if we do find that one of these suspects has no evidence against them, then we will conclude that they were wrongly imprisoned. They won't get away with anything, because they will have been proven to have not done anything.

Your statements would have us lock up everyone who could possibly be a terrorist. That group includes everyone. I don't want to live in your country.

the problem is that to prove someone is a terrorist one very often needs evidence that can't be used in court. The court system isn't built to handle cases that rely on state secrets. So handling them in court would amount to releasing the bulk of them scot-free.

The trouble with injustice for security's sake is that only the authorities are safe.

That pretty much sums it up, but without the sarcasm. Catching terrorists is often a matter of infiltration and unauthorized phone taps, neither of which can be used in court. The evidence itself isn't lying, but the court system just doesn't allow it because it's not obtained in the normal ways (which usually don't work in cases like this)

Bullshit. There are provisions to allow classified material into a court case. Usually, the judge sees it, determines if it is materially relevant to the case, and if so, the defense is vetted and allowed to view the material. There's also...y'know, whole courts set up to deal with rulings that involve sensitive intelligence?

At least come up with a new argument, don't just parrot the drivel they spoon out on 24. Infiltration is extremely rare, even in domestic criminal prosecutions. Phone taps are usually one of the last bits of evidence obtained, and mostly to seal the deal after you already know what's going on and who's involved. The bulk of criminals and terrorists nabbed are done through so plain old hard detective work.

One problem is that thanks to NCIS, CSI, 24, and all the other damn "forensic drama" shows, everybody thinks they know how law enforcement and "catching the bad guy" is done. YOU DON'T.

[Earthquake Damage]

convect

convection

Spoiler: The More You Know...* (click to show/hide)

Perhaps you mean convict?

[Leafsnail]

The evidence is not non-existent, but it often contains sensitive information that you can't give to a public jury or is gathered (often necessarily) in a way that would be inadmissible under normal circumstances. Then there is still the case of the crimes not being committed on American soil because they were planned somewhere else and luckily not executed yet, which complicates persecution further.

Hehehehe.

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, pain or exclusion.

And, uh... does the evidence really involve sensitive information?  Plenty of terrorists have been tried in civilian courts before.  Or is this the "He confessed to eight bomb attacks after we waterboarded him for 14 hours" kind of "sensitive information"?

[Nadaka]

If he confesses to 8 suicide bomb attacks he must be one hell of a terrorist.

[Leafsnail]

Man, some of them happened before he was born.  You have no idea how good a terrorist he is.

[Virex]

Who said anything about letting them go?

I've said from the very start that they should be tried in a court of law, because that's the only legitimate way to punish anyone. Not to show them mercy, or to be nice, or any of the simpering things you seem to think I want. I am simply demanding the strength to adhere to our morals under all circumstances.

And, if we do find that one of these suspects has no evidence against them, then we will conclude that they were wrongly imprisoned. They won't get away with anything, because they will have been proven to have not done anything.

Your statements would have us lock up everyone who could possibly be a terrorist. That group includes everyone. I don't want to live in your country.

the problem is that to prove someone is a terrorist one very often needs evidence that can't be used in court. The court system isn't built to handle cases that rely on state secrets. So handling them in court would amount to releasing the bulk of them scot-free.

The trouble with injustice for security's sake is that only the authorities are safe.

That pretty much sums it up, but without the sarcasm. Catching terrorists is often a matter of infiltration and unauthorized phone taps, neither of which can be used in court. The evidence itself isn't lying, but the court system just doesn't allow it because it's not obtained in the normal ways (which usually don't work in cases like this)

Bullshit. There are provisions to allow classified material into a court case. Usually, the judge sees it, determines if it is materially relevant to the case, and if so, the defense is vetted and allowed to view the material. There's also...y'know, whole courts set up to deal with rulings that involve sensitive intelligence?

At least come up with a new argument, don't just parrot the drivel they spoon out on 24. Infiltration is extremely rare, even in domestic criminal prosecutions. Phone taps are usually one of the last bits of evidence obtained, and mostly to seal the deal after you already know what's going on and who's involved. The bulk of criminals and terrorists nabbed are done through so plain old hard detective work.

One problem is that thanks to NCIS, CSI, 24, and all the other damn "forensic drama" shows, everybody thinks they know how law enforcement and "catching the bad guy" is done. YOU DON'T.

You really think the intelligence agencies had permission for all the evidence they've gathered? If not then you've still got the problem of inadmissible evidence which clearly shows the guy is guilty but can't be used because nobody authorized the search.


Also, while in civilian cases there are next to no moles, it is common practice for intelligence agencies to work with them. The same is true for phone taps.

And, uh... does the evidence really involve sensitive information?  Plenty of terrorists have been tried in civilian courts before.  Or is this the "He confessed to eight bomb attacks after we waterboarded him for 14 hours" kind of "sensitive information"?

No, but the evidence would be rejected due to excessive pressure during the interrogation.

[Earthquake Damage]

If he confesses to 8 suicide bomb attacks he must be one hell of a terrorist.

Or a terrible one.  Sure, he may get the bomb part right, but failing suicide eight times, with bombs?!

[Criptfeind]

rulings that involve sensitive intelligence?

That does not really cover this, at least not very well and it certainly does not help with the baser issues like legality of the evidence.

Perhaps you mean convict?

It stopped being funny a long time ago, but good try.

[RedKing]

rulings that involve sensitive intelligence?

That does not really cover this, at least not very well and it certainly does not help with the baser issues like legality of the evidence.

FISA wasn't designed for this, but it could certainly be adapted for it. My point is that a blanket dismissal of the legal system by saying "They can't HANDLE the secret truth!" is bullshit.

[Criptfeind]

Okay, fine. Lets make a new system of courts to handle this. (Although at that point it will be little more then the people that have already decided to keep them there and am I sure everyone will just start complaining that the new courts are too secret.) It is the best idea obviously. But it will take money... And cooperation... And perhaps even a temporary lapse in the "Your party matters more then the government" mentality.

Basically it will be very hard, maybe imposable, and the gain will be minuscule.

But despite that... I do agree with you... I just am not optimist enough to think it will happen.