What do you mean by that?
Are you suggesting the security services are neutralising suspects secretly? Or that the suspects are never convicted and let free?
Terrorist Attack in Copenhagen, Denmark
- Thread starter StriderX
- Start date
What do you mean by that?
Are you suggesting the security services are neutralising suspects secretly? Or that the suspects are never convicted and let free?
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
I think I'll defer to the experience of the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ giving evidence at the intelligence and security committee rather than your very poor guesses at what goes on.
That the defence asks to see the evidence and in order to protect sources and methods used, the security services will not divulge it.
The threat was nullified and the source or method is still secret.
So you are suggesting that either the people were killed extrajudicially or that the security services let them go?
Alternatively there have been many terror trials that have not been reported that are far bigger than the ones that have been reported.
There have been a couple of trials with secret evidence, or trials that have only been reported on after the event but to not be allowed to report on a trial full stop is a whole other level.
Where on earth have I suggested anyone is killed!
I am saying a suspect is arrested and charged then defence then asks to see the evidence. At this point the security services, in order to protect a method used to gather the evidence or to protect a source, will not disclose the evidence.
It isn't that hard to understand.
I am saying a suspect is arrested and charged then defence then asks to see the evidence. At this point the security services, in order to protect a method used to gather the evidence or to protect a source, will not disclose the evidence.
It isn't that hard to understand.
And yet you will not defer to their experiences or that of their departments when the data they produce doesn't support your agenda.
What happens after they say no? They let the suspect go?
It's not hard to understand but you aren't answering the important bit, what happens after.
There is a setup whereby secret evidence can be used in courts of law in cases like these but so far very few appear to have done so, why is this? If the evidence against the accused is strong enough to be classed as a real terror plot then why can they not use existing rules to allow the accused to be tried.
It's not hard to understand but you aren't answering the important bit, what happens after.
There is a setup whereby secret evidence can be used in courts of law in cases like these but so far very few appear to have done so, why is this? If the evidence against the accused is strong enough to be classed as a real terror plot then why can they not use existing rules to allow the accused to be tried.
Last edited:
And then what happens to the defendant? Is he released without charge due to lack of evidence?
Not to mention that such evidence and the methods and people involved can be submitted in closed conditions when it is warranted and a matter of national security.
Last edited:
Yes, the suspect is let go.
You have to understand the the security services are not always interested in securing a conviction.
If you can continue with a covert method of gathering evidence and at the same time disrupt terrorism than why not do that?
Paranoia in the ranks is a very powerful tool.
The justice system has specific procedures which means that essentially there is no need to release anyone unless they simply have insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Evidence from covert operations can be submitted to the judiciary behind closed doors, without compromising or endangering the methods used in obtaining it.
Sounds like you're the one who is paranoid. Have you anything to actually back this up, oh wait...its secret!!!
I know it can but sometimes they choose not to.
Plenty of terrorism cases have ended because of disclosure or the lack of.
Sounds like you're the one who is paranoid. Have you anything to actually back this up, oh wait...its secret!!!
Given your claims of where you have been and what you have done, you are the last person on here that I would have thought didn't know about trials ending because the security services not wanting to disclose evidence.
Are you really suggesting people planning terror attacks bigger than 7/7 are just going to go "better not do it now, they're on to us"?
In which case those islamic terrorists really aren't anything to worry about, they're less dangerous/persistent than most petty criminals (who continue after they are jailed)...
If someone is willing to kill themselves for a cause the potential of being jailed is probably not high on their priorities of reasons to stop.
The reality is most of those "plots" that are foiled and probably just someones fantasy, over exaggeration or turn out to be completely false. If they weren't then they would be sent to court, they would be in front of a judge and they would be sent to jail for a VERY long time. Planning multiple murders is not something taken lightly by the criminal justice system and there are procedures in place to allow trials to go ahead without releasing evidence.
Last edited:
And there would be multiple media reports of this happening. Can you provide some?
This has been addressed with relatively new legislation and the ability to give such evidence without the need to specify methodology and investigators. Trials end generally because the evidence is either obtained through illegal or unverified means or is insufficient to justify or continue the trial or secure a safe conviction.
Protections such as Public Interest Immunity and accreditation of reporters, independent secure verification of closed testimony and so on all offer sufficient access to trial without limiting national security means, not to mention the ability to pursue further ad hoc protections as are deemed necessary to individual cases to the Courts, both High and Appellant.
What you are saying simply doesn't stand up any longer.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Your clumsy attempts to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism is especially ridiculous in this current climate. Operation Crevice, Operation Rhyme and Operation Overt were more than just 'collecting metadata'.