Frank > 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.
In this case, I think it does indicate counsel for the defense. After all, the page says "interests of the subject". I imagine the advocate will be appointed but I would need to do some research in order to confirm this. > More importantly, 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. Well, at the moment I would like to focus on the UK system which has the specific law in question. > 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. I am not sure how loosely you are speaking here. My perspective, from the other side of the pond, is that the Republicans and Democrats vigorously oppose either other. I see little to suggest a cartel which is a word suggesting cooperation. The idea that the matter of secret evidence is straight-forward is not one I endorse. I have read The Count of Monte Cristo and recognise that we must avoid a Edmond Dantes situation, bearing in mind that Dantes was innocent. I just feel that if I am to advocate against the restrictions in the US and the UK, I would like to put solid tested arguments rather than appeals to feeling or slippery slopes (frogs in boiling water). Rejecting every change to the legal system on the grounds that it defies tradition is a recipe for stagnation. http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/uk0305/2.htm The page above says The use of secret evidence also raises the very real spectre that evidence obtained under torture may be adduced by the government to justify control orders, in whole or in part. Does this objection sound like a solid one to other list members? Regards Tim Babylon 5 - Infection Vance: Struggling through mountains of paper, vanishing grants, who has time for that? _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
