From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 15:31:28 MST
Michael P. Read wrote,
> Harvey,
>
> I think the issue here is what Bush, et. Al. mean by "secret evidence."
> Secret to whom? If the people involved in the actual trial
> (particularly the defendant and judge) are being denied access to the
> evidence against the defendant, there is a problem. If it is "secret
> evidence" in that the common public doesn't get to see the evidence,
> that might be more excusable in this context. In the quotes I've read
> regarding "secret evidence" on this list, it is unclear how they mean
> it.
Secret evidence means the defendant and their lawyers cannot see the
evidence, cannot cross examine the accusers, and cannot be given details of
the crime of which the defendant is accused. Sometimes the judge is allowed
to see the evidence, but sometimes even the judge is asked to trust the
evidence sight unseen. In extreme cases, Bush and Ashcroft have argued that
the military should hold a secret trial without even informing the court
system of the event.
Although most people accused of crimes are assumed to be innocent until
proven guilty, this is not the case with terrorists or enemy combatants.
They are assumed to be guilty from the start. As such, they have lost their
right to a lawyer, trial, review of the evidence, facing the accusers, etc.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:58 MST