"Trial By Ambush"

That's what lawyers for Capt. James Yee are calling the case against the chaplain charged with mishandling classified documents while stationed at Camp X-Ray in Cuba. The government takes the now familiar stance that Yee cannot have access to all the evidence to be used against him because it is so very secret.

Comments

[thoreau]

Quit all this whining about his rights. Since he's betrayed his country he should be grateful he wasn't just shot right then and there. The federal government has the power to do whatever it wants in the interests of national security, and I'm tired of hearing all this whining about due process.

Remember, we're in a war against Islamo-fascists who will destroy this country and take away our freedom if we show even the tiniest sign of weakness. So quit whining about the rights of somebody who's guilty. There's no need for a trial.

Some of you are probably wondering about my sudden change of heart in this thread and the thread on North Korea. Well, after reading a lot of the posts about war and terrorism around here, I've decided if you can't beat them then join them. So I'm going to argue as loud as possible for the most aggressive military and counter-terrorism policies possible. I'm going to prove on this forum that I really do care about my country! From now on, the only criticism I have for George Bush is that he isn't being aggressive enough in going after the people who would take away our freedom!

[Citizen]

^Possibly the only thing more annoying than over the top patriots are people feigning over the top patriotism to be ironic or to make a point or whatever it is you think you're doing. Kudos. Is there a "thoreau-filter" option on this board?

[thoreau]

Don't worry, citizen, in a day or two I'll once again be a traitorous left-libertarian 😉 Just venting a little bit...

[Dan]

Yee cannot have access to all the evidence to be used against him because it is so very secret

I think you need to read the article a little more carefully. The materials and personnel that the prosecutors are attempting to withhold are not evidence for the prosecution (ie, stuff to "be used against" Yee), but "evidence" demanded by the defense. Obviously material meant "to be used against" a defendant will inevitably be shown to the judge and jury (and thus the defendant). Otherwise there's not much chance of it convincing the judge/jury to convict, is there?

It is a standard defense tactic, in any case where classified materials are involved, to insist that piles of classified material are "essential to your case". After all, it costs the defense nothing to ask, and the very act of asking (and being refused) both (a) convinces a certain percentage of the public that there's a cover-up and (b) provides possible grounds for appeal.

Now it could be that there really is a cover-up here. There just isn't any evidence for that yet. Thus far, all we know is that the defense claims there's one. Uh-huh. They also claim their client is innocent and was unfairly prosecuted. Uh-huh. They're defense attorneys. If they claimed the prosectors were fair and their client was guilty as sin, that would be news. 🙂

[thoreau]

Dan made a good point: The only evidence that the defense has a right to is evidence that favors the government's side. The government's allegations (that he's guilty) are far more credible than the allegations of a man presumed innocent (that there's a cover-up).

Sure, it could turn out that the prosecution's evidence is being presented out of context. In that case, if the defendant got access to classified materials he could show the whole story and be exonerated.

But he's guilty. If he wasn't guilty, the competent and conscientious people in our government would never indict him.

[Jean Bart]

Where exactly did they come up with the term "Camp X-Ray" anyway?

[M. Simon]

In a military case the purpose of demanding intelligence reports is counter intelligence i.e. find out who the spies are so they can be neutralized.

I expect the trial will be as fair as possible "for a military trial". When you take the oath you agree to be ruled by the UCMJ and established military law. Civilian rules do not apply. In most cases there are congruences. But in all cases the need of the service is predominate even if it means injustice.

Don't like it? Don't join.

Simon - Tonkin Bay Yacht Club '66 - volunteer