Follow by Email


Monday, July 1, 2013

Secret Courts

From the Washington Post: “Secret-court judges upset at portrayal of ‘collaboration’ with government”

Let's see now. These judges belong to a secret court. Sounds like free and open democracy with justice for all to me. Just because the court almost never refuses a government request doesn't mean it's collaboration, even though it looks exactly like that.


Guess what judges, it doesn't matter what legal justifications you hide behind. It doesn't matter that it's for “National Security.” You are not on the side of the angels.

Consider, just consider that those who put life and limb in jeopardy to reveal these secret government programs might be the good guys. They put themselves in harm's way, sacrifice good jobs and status, connections with friends and family, all because something ain't right.

If you are ashamed to have the actions you do in private become public, you are in the same category as adulterers, pedophiles, thieves, embezzlers, and other criminals.

Putting a thin veneer of legality on something doesn't make it right.



  1. The Inquistion, what a show
    The Inquistion, here we go
    We know you're wishing
    That we'd go away
    But the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay
    The Inquistion, oh boy
    The Inquistion, what a joy
    The Inquistion, oy oy

    - Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
    I just got back from the auto-da-fé
    Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
    It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway

    Skit skat voodely vat tootin de day

  2. Amen! The courts should never be held in secrete.Checks and balances are founding tenents for a reason.Its a shame when whiseleblowers have to become fugitives when they acted as patriots.We should commit no act that we are embarrassed by.

    1. For reason they think privacy is only for them. Of course, they do have things to hide -because they are shameful.

  3. The public should hold court on the secret court.

  4. Same in the UK.

    "The Justice and Security Act was given parliamentary approval on 25 April this year. One of the main justifications for expanding so-called secret courts was to prevent intelligence provided by US sources being exposed in British courts.

    The Guardian's revelation that GCHQ, the UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, received material obtained by America's National Security Agency (NSA) through Prism, the online surveillance operation, will reinforce fears about what is being withheld from open court hearings.

    What is a secret court?

    The legal mechanism is known as closed material procedures (CMP). Secret intelligence can be introduced by the government but will only be seen by the judge and security-cleared "special advocates". The special advocate who represents the interest of an individual claimant cannot reveal precise details of the evidence and may only provide a "gist" or loose summary. Claimants may not, therefore, be aware of all the allegations made against them. Critics say this results in parties no longer being on an equal footing, tilting the advantage in the government's favour."

    I don't call that justice for all.

    1. Certainly doesn't sound like it to me either. Remember, everything Hitler did was legal. Didn't make it right.

  5. Sad state of affairs, for sure!