Secret Justice

2013-10-22 04:49:48

#1

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|7037|Cambridge, England

Is there any merit in secret justice?

Personally I cannot see it has any place in a democracy, yet it seems to be more and more popular in both the UK and US.

Is it something BF2s cares about?

2013-10-22 08:51:21

#2

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +695|6595|Washington St.

Define 'secret justice'. Do you mean vigilante justice?

2013-10-22 10:37:10

#3

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7048|Reality

vigilante justice : no if it means what I think
vigilante gathering of evidence : yes

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2013-10-22 15:07:27

#4

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7021

secret justice is court preceding that are closed and not open

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ourts.html
pretty much preceding the gov goes "lol classified you can't know about this"

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2013-10-22 15:54:13

#5

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7048|Reality

then no
government should be transparent

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2013-10-22 15:59:58

#6

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7021

but how can we fight terrorism!

2013-10-22 16:22:42

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5663|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
but how can we fight terrorism!

Stop being afraid

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-10-22 16:42:06

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7021

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
but how can we fight terrorism!
Stop being afraid

theyre unknown unknowns jay. you cant stop unknown unknowns

2013-10-22 21:42:50

#9

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7080|Moscow, Russia

Cybargs wrote:
secret justice is court preceding that are closed and not open

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ourts.html
pretty much preceding the gov goes "lol classified you can't know about this"

everything that's classified could be made public later when the risks associated with releasing the info have been mitigated.

yes, i am totally for "secret justice", provided the appropriate regulations are in place.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2013-10-22 23:22:55

#10

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7021

Shahter wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
secret justice is court preceding that are closed and not open

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ourts.html
pretty much preceding the gov goes "lol classified you can't know about this"
everything that's classified could be made public later when the risks associated with releasing the info have been mitigated.

yes, i am totally for "secret justice", provided the appropriate regulations are in place.

you mean 20 or 30 years later.

civilian courts should always be completely open, its all about government transparency.

2013-10-23 02:35:20

#11

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7080|Moscow, Russia

Cybargs wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
secret justice is court preceding that are closed and not open

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ourts.html
pretty much preceding the gov goes "lol classified you can't know about this"
everything that's classified could be made public later when the risks associated with releasing the info have been mitigated.

yes, i am totally for "secret justice", provided the appropriate regulations are in place.
you mean 20 or 30 years later.

that should depend on the case.

civilian courts should always be completely open, its all about government transparency.

there never was and never will be such a thing as government transparency.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2013-10-23 05:23:47

#12

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|7037|Cambridge, England

For the avoidance of doubt I am not referring to vigilantes but to secret courts.

I can accept that perhaps in very very limited circumstances matters of genuine national security may need to be dealt with behind closed doors.

However I am deeply opposed to the current proliferation of secret justice.

Recent examples include the NSA where it is difficult to see how secret justice has been used to do anything other than keep the actions of the NSA a secret as the full revelations are hugely damaging to the USA. This should ring the obvious alarm bell of "is what we are doing right?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22394488 wrote:
The "important guidance" for the judiciary was issued during a brief hearing at London's Royal Courts of Justice by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, and Sir James Munby, president of both the High Court's Family Division and the Court of Protection.

They announced: "It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice in England and Wales that applications for committal for contempt should be heard and decided in public, that is, in open court."

...

Equally, the fact that a hearing "may involve the disclosure of material which ought not to be published does not of itself justify hearing the application in private if such publication can be restrained by an appropriate order", they said.

I can understand the desire for restricted access to family courts, however I think holding the whole court in secret is wrong, anonymised records and judgments can be made public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885811 wrote:
Supreme Court president, Lord Neuberger, said a secret hearing in this case was "absolutely necessary".

The justices spent approximately 45 minutes in a locked session with two security-vetted lawyers. The hearing was so sensitive that the justices had to leave one courtroom and set up in another which had greater soundproofing. A security guard stood outside to prevent anyone trying to enter.

The Supreme Court had decided earlier this week that it had the power to close its doors and consider a secret judgement from the lower courts - but the justices had said they did not want to do so because they did not think it was necessary.

'International concern'
The justices are being asked to overturn a Treasury ban on an Iranian bank operating in the UK.

Is the operation of a bank really a matter of the deepest secrecy?

Im concerned by the growing desire by those in power to act in secrecy as much as possible, this isnt restricted to the government but also the NHS, Care industry and of course the Copyright industry. Too often things are kept secret to avoid embarrassment and the issues remain unaddressed. Whistle blowers are particularly hated and are unlikely to work in their industry again, or if its against the government they will be silenced and imprisoned. This should not be happening in western democracies, we are supposed to have left this behind. Openess and transparency are supposed to be things that set us apart from China et al, the reality appears to be that we are better at keeping it quiet.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2013-10-23 05:24:45)

2013-10-23 05:26:47

#13

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

Nope, I've had direct experience of corrupt police, corrupt prosecutors and corrupt courts doing the establishments bidding and its not hilarious.

Open courts and a free and powerful press are essential in a democracy.

That and secret courts are usually not for national interest, but to save the govt political embarassment.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-10-23 05:27:57)

Fuck Israel

2013-10-23 05:56:58

#14

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7080|Moscow, Russia

Dilbert_X wrote:
Open courts and a free and powerful press are essential in a democracy.

yeah, that's exactly why democracy is impossible.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2013-10-23 13:28:12

#15

BVC: Member; +325|7000

Deleted post due to misreading OP.

Secret laws - how as a citizen can I be expected to obey the law, if laws are deliberately kept from me by lawmakers? How then can I trust a government which enacts such 'secret laws'?

Secret courts/rulings - These can be helpful when the presentation of information can cause harm, and this isn't just in matters of national security. For example, the identity of sexual assault victims is often suppressed (at least here in NZ) on the grounds that releasing the names of rapists and their victims can cause the victim and the friends/families of both victim & rapist harm.

2013-10-24 01:59:32

#16

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

Shahter wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Open courts and a free and powerful press are essential in a democracy.
yeah, that's exactly why democracy is impossible.

What is difficult about having a free press, freedom of information and free speech?

Fuck Israel

2013-10-24 02:01:59

#17

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

BVC wrote:
Secret courts/rulings - These can be helpful when the presentation of information can cause harm, and this isn't just in matters of national security. For example, the identity of sexual assault victims is often suppressed (at least here in NZ) on the grounds that releasing the names of rapists and their victims can cause the victim and the friends/families of both victim & rapist harm.

"Secret" trials of rapists aren't secret at all, they're public, if you attend you can know their names and see their faces.

Details can't be reported outside the court, which is not the same as a the existence of a trial and the evidence being kept a complete secret even from those being tried.

Fuck Israel

2013-10-24 02:11:30

#18

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7080|Moscow, Russia

Dilbert_X wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Open courts and a free and powerful press are essential in a democracy.
yeah, that's exactly why democracy is impossible.
What is difficult about having a free press, freedom of information and free speech?

it's not difficult, it's impossible. press and other information manipulation instruments are always employed by those who are in power for whatever they want. edit: everybody else gets shut down.

Last edited by Shahter (2013-10-24 02:28:13)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2013-10-24 02:53:22

#19

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

I'm glad the Police are being exposed as dishonest in the 'Plebgate' business, now that MPs are affected hopefully they'll do something about Police corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate

It may seem trivial but it exposes Police officers in blatant dishonesty, and senior officers in covering it up.

Fuck Israel

2013-10-24 03:39:40

#20

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7048|Reality

but at least nobody died.
on this side of the pond police regularly cover up for their brethren in circumstances where people have died.

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2013-10-24 08:08:33

#21

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5663|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Open courts and a free and powerful press are essential in a democracy.
yeah, that's exactly why democracy is impossible.
What is difficult about having a free press, freedom of information and free speech?

Try to reconcile this belief with all of your other government expansion beliefs. Doesn't work.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-10-24 23:39:48

#22

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Try to reconcile this belief with all of your other government expansion beliefs. Doesn't work.

I don't believe in expansion of govt, a free press is perfectly compatible with having a govt however big it is.

Now you reconcile your belief in self-reliance and libertarianism with having taken money from the govt to impose their values on the citizens of another country by military force, living in one of the most heavily governed and policed parts of america and working in a tightly regulated closed-shop industry.

Why don't you give self-reliance and libertarianism a try? What are you afraid of?
Oh yeah, it doesn't work

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-10-24 23:58:20)

Fuck Israel

2013-10-25 10:19:16

#23

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5663|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Try to reconcile this belief with all of your other government expansion beliefs. Doesn't work.
I don't believe in expansion of govt, a free press is perfectly compatible with having a govt however big it is.

Now you reconcile your belief in self-reliance and libertarianism with having taken money from the govt to impose their values on the citizens of another country by military force, living in one of the most heavily governed and policed parts of america and working in a tightly regulated closed-shop industry.

Why don't you give self-reliance and libertarianism a try? What are you afraid of?
Oh yeah, it doesn't work

Engineering is largely self regulated. ASHRAE, ANSI and ASME write most of the codes and then they're adopted by the city. The codes are based on experience with best practices and experimentation. What I can do within the confines of those regs is fairly infinite.

Should anyone who wants be allowed to design and build whatever they want? No. Why? Because the people having thd building built don't live or work in it for the most part. If it falls down and people die, or people get sick they can just declare bankruptcy when sued. If there were real consequences I might feel differently.

Libertarianism doesn't mean anarchy. It means the govrrnments role should be limited to its core roles of defense and justice, and no that doesn't include social justice. The governments role should not include making people's decisions for them or instituting wealth transfer schemes or enriching cronies. The government should have a very narrow scope of work, not a broad all-encompassing one.

Have you ever gone outside of scope at work? Problems tend to snowball and budgets balloon out of control. The government's scope began snowballing the moment progressives took power and tried to fix social issues. Let's fix housing. Oh people are still poor lets give them healthcare. Oh costs are ballooning let's limit their soda intake etc. Core problems not touched, and expensive treatments for symptoms. Bollocks. Narrow the scope and do a good job within those confines.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-10-25 11:18:24

#24

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7048|Reality

defense and justice eh?
who pays for the roads and bridges?

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2013-10-25 12:16:36

#25

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5663|London, England

Stubbee wrote:
defense and justice eh?
who pays for the roads and bridges?

Why does that have to be a government function? Most roads and bridges were originally privately owned.

Let's look at NYC for an example. The bridges and tunnels were originally built by private companies or public-private Authorities. The tolls that were placed on them were originally supposed to expire after the bridge's construction was paid for. That never happened. The tolls were instead diverted to build new bridges and tunnels, a rather worthy goal, keep the system self-funding.

In the 60s and 70s the Mass Transit Authority, the guys that run the subways and commuter rail lines ran into massive trouble financially, mostly because the political class had placed a cap on fares they could charge. So the subways and trains and buses were losing money hand over fist and asking Albany for a bailout. Nelson Rockefeller came in and had the brilliant idea to take all those bridge and tunnel fares and give them to the MTA. Now the subways and buses and trains still hemorrhage money faster than they could ever earn it, again because of fare caps, but now the people who drive cars over bridges and through tunnels are now subsidizing those other transportation ventures.

It was government meddling in the MTA fares that caused the near bankruptcies, and its government meddling now that continuously causes the bridge tolls to rise. It now costs $15 for me to make a 20 minute round trip to The Bronx if I ever want to leave Long Island.

If you had a system in place today that was privately run would it really be very different from what is in place now? Yes. You would see a lot more toll roads and you would see a lot more transparency in your bills. You wouldn't be paying car registration fees supposedly going to pay for roads. You wouldn't pay gas taxes. You wouldn't have your tolls fund other projects. We pay a lot of money every year for our roads and we get negligible returns. How many times have you watched highway construction crews pave and repave the exact same spots on the highways? It happens constantly here. The original crew does a shitty job, they get paid by the city, the road falls apart in two years and the same crew gets paid to redo it. Corruption, graft, and no one giving a fuck because the guy signing off on the order to do the work has no skin in the game. He's the disinterested party that progressives like to claim will help save the world.

Take it to the extreme if you want, because I know that's the pet argument type of this site. There will be monopolies and the roads will be the exclusive province of the rich etc. The poor will be screwed over yadda yadda yadda. It wouldn't go there simply because these road companies would make their money on volume like Walmart.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums Secret Justice

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22394488 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885811 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

BVC wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Board footer