On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:36:15 +0100, "Tim Bedding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Frank > >> I understand the logic of such actions. But the big problem is >> the potential for abuse. If the government cannot be >> held accountable for >> their actions (i.e, if the 'secret evidence' is withheld >> upon legal challenge of the imprisonment, as allowed under >> the unPatriot Act) >> then most certainly I oppose it. > >http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1243 > >I quote from the page: >independent judicial scrutiny of decisions to impose control orders, >including the hearing of evidence in open and closed session by the High >Court, with the interests of the subject of the order represented by a >special advocate in closed session; > > >So the person under the control order would not see the secret >evidence. The special advocate would see the evidence. > >Do you still think there is potential for abuse? Yep. > If so, could >you provide the libnw list with an example of the kind of >thing that might happen? Note the term that is used to denote the representative of the accused: "special advocate". It's a term that's subject to a wide variety of interpretations, and doesn't necessarily indicate counsel for the defense. Until the legal interpretation of this term becomes settled law (which may never happen) this "special advocate" could be appointed without arbitration, and may not be subject to review or any other means of accountability. More importanly, there is also the matter of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Since nobody is being charged with a crime, this "control order" may be found (by the Supreme Court) to constitute "due process" and circumvent the right of a public trial by jury. The President therefore has the power to imprison people without a trial or other legal recourse based on nothing more than an executive order. The consequences of this should be obvious: gulags. The first US gulag (that we know about) currently exists at Guantanamo Bay. >The right to privacy may be advanced by the Libertarian Party >and presumably privacy would apply in hospital. I should point out that I'm not a Libertarian; I do, however, support any party (or independent) that opposes the current two-party cartel. >In the Babylon 5 episode, The War Prayer, Garibaldi placed >a man under surveillance even when in hospital and it led to >the capturing of Home Guard criminals. The Home Guard is >a fictional organisation which violently opposes the presence >of aliens on Earth. I don't watch much TV. It rots the brain. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
