Intelligence agencies go to supreme court over ruling on secret evidence

"Trust us, we have evidence, but, uh, we just can't show it to you right now... so, give this person the death penalty. Please... pretty please!"

I jest, but this is very serious, and a slippery slope leading to a true police state!

MI5 and MI6 will argue in a test case before the supreme court tomorrow that in future no intelligence gathered abroad... should ever be disclosed in a British court.

source

the Billmeister

Yes it is, and just the other morning, General Dynamics and the US Government were in the Supreme court on an issue regarding the government suing the contractor, and invoking state secret to prevent the contractor from having a defense.

That, is some crooked she it if you ask me!

Sounds like MI5 & MI6 are more concerned with saving their ass than the nations by pushing this line. It really does make you wonder how far all this illegal detention and human abuses does go.

reply to post by Billmeister


Yep they are a disgrace. Amazing how i never committed any crime and i have to live in london with these loons perving into my life day in day out with high techs, making up because i did not fancy females, i was some sort of threat.

These people have used electronic mind control monitoring on me for 19 years and have never correctly second guessed what i wanted in life ever. They absolutely are beyond a joke in stupidity.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Billmeister

 

These people have used electronic mind control monitoring on me for 19 years and have never correctly second guessed what i wanted in life ever. They absolutely are beyond a joke in stupidity.

I'm not quite sure how that works, but yes indeed as KWAKAKEV has noted, they sure seem to be trying to cover their incompetent heinies.

I mean, at least show the evidence in a secret court, or make some up... it's not like they haven't done it in the past.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


And so they should!

Think about it, if the Americans or any other of our intelligence allies take risks to gain intelligence that is of use to us British and shear this information with us. It should be for those who gather the intelligence to decide what to do with it. If they thought that they couldn’t pass on information to us that is significant to the national security of the UK because it will appear in the daily mail the next day they are not going to shear with us. They are going to avoid giving us any intelligence because if it is exposed in a court room it not only compromises UK intelligence assists but those of other states.

I am in favour of some transparency but not if it compromises our national security.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Billmeister

 

And so they should!

Think about it, if the Americans or any other of our intelligence allies take risks to gain intelligence that is of use to us British and shear this information with us. It should be for those who gather the intelligence to decide what to do with it. If they thought that they couldn’t pass on information to us that is significant to the national security of the UK because it will appear in the daily mail the next day they are not going to shear with us. They are going to avoid giving us any intelligence because if it is exposed in a court room it not only compromises UK intelligence assists but those of other states.

I am in favour of some transparency but not if it compromises our national security.

Yes, only this particular situation concerns evidence in a court of law, not intelligence gathered for a particular operation but for prosecution.

Picture yourself being accused of a crime, and the prosecution tells the judge that you are guilty, but they do not have to provide any tangible evidence to support this claim... how would you feel?
The same goes for a sting operation against organized crime. Law enforcement keeps the operational details secret (i.e. undercover, infiltration, informants) but, when it comes time to prosecute, they must produce some evidence.

Otherwise it is a "because I say so" argument, so I guess the defense attorney could counter with an "I know you are but what am I".

In my opinion, this can no longer be considered justice, and is truly a police state.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister



Its worth remembering however, that we are talking about very few cases and there is a justification for their actions.

If you however want to disagree with this action, I can understand why. It’s just that we balance the scales of liberty and security differently.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Its worth remembering however, that we are talking about very few cases and there is a justification for their actions.

If you however want to disagree with this action, I can understand why. It’s just that we balance the scales of liberty and security differently.

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, it is more of a "where do we draw the line?" argument.

I would also assume that they have some legitimate reasons for asking for this secrecy, but how can we ever be certain, if no evidence has to be shown?

And yes, you are correct that I am somewhat radical in my balancing of liberty and security, as I simply choose to not live life in fear. For me, liberty trumps security every time.
(For example, I would gladly forgo all airport security and take my chances, but I know that this is a radical view.)

To be clear, I also understand and totally respect your point of view.

the Billmeister

reply to post by kevinunknown

If you however want to disagree with this action, I can understand why. It’s just that we balance the scales of liberty and security differently.

Mostly I just want to be real about these situations and what is important. I consider a typical case might go like this. You get a tip some group wants to blow something up and send in an operative to check out the situation. They identify a few targets and get rounded up and interrogated. The group talks and you get some good and bad information. Some of this you can verify, some you cannot. One of the groups mates is in trial overseas and you have some information that might help or might not, but you have it and want to let the judge decide.

This operative you first sent in may still be out in the field or living as a local so you want to keep him safe, that is fair enough and I see no reason why you could not use a false name in the statements provided. But then the court may want to question this operative, maybe he is to busy or it is to risky so it gets declined. You helped with some information towards the case, but could not provide everything. Video hook ups are becoming more popular in courts when there are compelling reasons and maybe an option.

The court may want to question the people that were rounded up. I see no problem with this if they are still in custody. Otherwise information may have been gained through illegal means, you have the evidence but do not want to incriminate yourself in the process. Police do not have a mandate to break the law and such evidence is dismissed. The secret services have a bit more flexibility with the law and some consideration and judgements is needed to determine its admissibility. While the secret services may look bad, they are just doing their job in a bad world. I can see some arguments for trying to protect sources and techniques, but the information maybe misleading or out of context without the defendant having a right to speak against it.

Are there any other general situations where it is valid to claim secret evidence?