On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:29:33 +0100, "Tim Bedding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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 can't comment about the UK since I'm not familiar with your specific laws or issues. >> 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 two parties have one common interest: they both vigorously oppose any third party from getting a foothold in government. As it stands, both parties have the chance to command a majority of Congress, as the Republicans now do. If a third party ever gets enough seats then the possibility for -any- party to hold a majority is slim, and they would be forced to work primarily for the benefit of the country instead of their respective parties (which is what they should be doing anyway). I think Alexander Hamilton and a few other of our founding fathers wanted to prohibit political parties in this country. I think if more of them would have agreed if they could see all the partisan bickering and lame-duck sessions these days..... but that's a seperate issue. >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. It's not a matter of tradition but of history. If you want crystal clear examples of the potential for abuse of "secret evidence" then study the political history of just about any authoritarian regime, especially the USSR. >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? I think Eisenhower said it best: "....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." ----== 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
