It's bad enough we're flushing 800 years of legal tradition - which has survived the Spanish Habsburgs, the Valois, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler and Stalin - away because OMG TEH TERRERISM.
But no, we had to go one step further. Had it not been for an extraordinary effort by the press, even reporting on this trial would've been considered a breach of "national security" - the reason given for the secret trial in the first place.
All we know is that two male defendants, AB and CD, are on trial for terrorism offences, and these offences relate to national security. I have no doubt whatever they are charged with and the particulars of the offences is of great importance - why else go to such extraordinary effort? But the groupthink of the intelligence services and political class is disturbing, and prone to error. And even if it were, closed court sessions are not unheard of in the UK.
I would really like to know what is going on.
As would I. The increase of closed court sessions over the past decade had put us quite firmly on this path so while depressing, it feels inevitable in many ways. Secret courts trying anonymous defendants based on secret evidence. Joe McCarthy would be proud.
Despite any claims to the contrary, these organisations are acting illegally and, as such, any moral claims to authority are rendered null in my view. This is not a democratic government so I'm no longer compelled to obey or respect any of it's institutions at face value. There is no such thing as guilt under this regime. It should be treated with the same respect as any other dangerous natural disaster - avoidance, mitigation and (if at all possible) destruction.
Secret courts?
It's a good thing your Grandparents fought the Battle of Britain, yeah?
We don't know. That information has been classified.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 05, 2014, 02:10:10 PM
We don't know. That information has been classified.
:lulz:
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 05, 2014, 02:10:10 PM
We don't know. That information has been classified.
:lulz:
Hey now, let's be fair. Terrorists are scary. They killed 50 people, once. Clearly a bigger threat than Hitler.
Confirming or denying that would compromise your right to privacy.
What I find particularly amusing is that terrorists only became really scary when they killed a bunch of people in another country an ocean away.
Seriously, the IRA got up to all kinds of shit without anyone screaming a fraction as loudly about terrorism. One beardy guy buys some fertiliser and it's off to the oubliette.
The IRA didn't direct their attacks at a hysterical, ultra-paranoid nation? Bear in mind the UK only converted to the hysterical ultra-paranoidism at the request of the US.
Bullshit, to both of those.
Ireland existed as a "frontier" of the British state, much like Malaysia or Kenya or any number of colonies inhabited by "lesser peoples". As such, methods as arbitrary detention, secret trials, "pseduo-gangs" and arming of loyalist factions - who would then carry out the torture, kidnappings and assassinations which would make MI5 look like bad KGB knockoffs, or at the very least scabs taking work away from the CIA - were the standard operating procesure.
What's worrying, beyond the existence of such tactics in a nominally democratic liberal state, is the mainstreaming of those tactics on the mainland, something I suspect would even horrify the security services involved in the Malaysian Emergency, the Troubles etc. "Rough" methods are accepted on the frontier, even though they shouldn't be. But even the Serbs under Milosevich saw the danger in undermining the rule of law in core Serbian territory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27806814
QuoteThe court heard that AB and CD had been arrested "in high-profile circumstances" and faced allegations of the preparation of terrorist acts and possessing bomb-making instructions.
The court was also told that if a decision was made to hold the trial in open court, and identify the defendants, the CPS could abandon the prosecution.
Surely this stinks now. I'm trying to think of a good reason why you'd abandon prosecution if you had to do it openly. I can't think of one. Either the circumstances of their arrest, the evidence against them or something else is some kind of national security issue. Given the kind of news we get every day now, I'd strongly suspect the evidence gathering techniques to be the issue.
Government embarrasment. 110% certain now. Someone fucked up so badly they want to sweep this under a rug so the press and Parliamentary watchdogs will never hear of it.
Is this not attracting a lot of attention, surely there's loads of journalists hoping to be the first spill the beans on this?
Will we ever find out what this was about?
It is, yes. Journalists were instrumental in changing the court rulings so the existence of the secret trial could be reported on, as initially the government wished that even the existence of the trial be covered up.
In addition to pure journalistic interests, there is also a lot of interest in the media in doing things like this, in order to show that government plans to further regulate the media (in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry) would amount to silencing a free and independent press.
As to whether we will find out...it's hard to say. The UK secret state is actually fairly good at keeping secrets, unlike their American counterparts, and IMO has far greater influence in Parliament and the press than many intelligence agencies in other democratic states. If enough pressure is brought to bare, dissidents in Parliament (of which I imagine there is quite a few) might be able to work together with the press and exert influence, or at least (ab)use Parliamentary Privilege to leak key details.
AB and CD have been named as Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar.
A Google search turns up almost nothing of interest, in fact almost nothing at all about either man.
Aliases? Spies?
Maybe. Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has a linkedin profile...not very interesting, housing and social work in Greenwich, degree in economics. The other guy doesn't even have that.