# Secret Detention, Secret Evidence, \[i\]Secret Arguments\[/i\]???!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447 "2005-02-23T01:00:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/41 "2005-02-23T15:39:26Z")
I don’t know what that evidence is, but must point out that evidence alone doesn’t necessarily lead to one conclusion only. The fact that such evidence is unrebutted is proof of absolutely nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/42 "2005-02-23T15:58:01Z")
I’m not a lawyer, as most of you know. And while I do understand as much of the law as a layman might reasonably be expected to, and use such understanding in my posts, I will readily defer to genuine lawyers on these points. I would especially like to know how cases involving legitimate national security concerns might proceed. Case law is quite muddled here, and while Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla have modified the precedent somewhat, my understanding is that ex parte Quirin still is enforceable law. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/43 "2005-02-23T16:09:07Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > It’s a lawsuit in American courts which is in violation of our “open courts” tradition. There may conceivably be the rare case in which such an action is regrettably necessary, but you’d have to argue long and hard for me to believe that any given case is that exceptional circumstance. We don’t have enough information to say whether the particular (non)argument given by the government in this case is or would have been justified, but we do know that this is already an “exceptional circumstance.” As I mentioned, in the vast vast majority of cases of US citizens held by a foreign country held for a crime against that country’s laws, there’s no “argument” to be made at all. “He’s not our guy, judge.” “OK, case dismissed.” As you made clear you understand, “unrebutted” != “unrebuttable.” Note that the government’s filing regarding the “secret” legal reasoning (which appears to have been disclosed to the judge, just not to the defense attornies) came _after_ the sealed indictment was handed down but _before_ Mr. Abu Ali was returned to the United States and the indictment unsealed. I don’t think anybody here has alleged that it’s impossible that the government was up to no good here, rather that a reasoned best guess on the available evidence indicates a probable motive much less sinister than it would seem to some on first glance. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/44 "2005-02-23T16:41:41Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > I just don’t know enough about the facts of the case. See, that seems to be the core difference between our positions. I want a compelling concrete reason _before_ I accept throwing fair trials out the window. > [@](#): > > Here’s a few wild-ass speculations, nothing more, as to what the “secret argument” might have been. > > **Things which would be bad** I think we both agree “things which would be bad” shouldn’t be used to justify this, so let’s move on. > [@](#): > > **Things which may or may not be good law but which might be reasonable for a prosecutor to argue under the circumstances** > > We have a secret intelligence-sharing agreement with the Saudis and the argument that the existence of that agreement does not mean that the US is complicit in Mr. Abu Ali’s detention but the government can’t make the argument without disclosing the existence of the agreement. “We have intelligence from a source we cannot disclose.” Since it seems we’ve already collectively held our nose and said secret evidence is alright, why does the argument itself have to be secret in this case? > [@](#): > > The Saudis agreed to return Mr. Abu Ali to the United States conditional on us indicting him and we weren’t ready with the indictment. And just _how_ many terror suspects have we held without formal charges in the last few years? Why should I believe holding Mr. Abu Ali without an indictment would give the U.S. government even a moment’s pause? > [@](#): > > The secrecy of this argument is that making it would require disclosing the progress of an indictment which was still sealed. Why would the government feel it necessary to present this argument at the civil trial _at all_, let alone in secret? As I understand it, Mr. Abu Ali’s family is charging that the Saudi’s arrested Mr. Abu Ali at the U.S. government’s request. So either (a) This is false, in which case the U.S. can say “this is false”…no need for secret arguments. (b) This is true, and the U.S. request the arrest becasue they were planning to indict Mr. Abu Ali but weren’t yet ready to do so. Which would demonstrate a stunning lack of competence on their part, and doesn’t justify secret arguments. (c) This is true, but the U.S. did not have plans to indict when they requested the arrest, or else the reason for the request was independent of the indictment plans. In which case such an argument as you propose is irrelevant anyway. > [@](#): > > **Things which would be good** : > > The Saudis wanted to execute Mr. Abu Ali and we were trying to prevent it. Making a public legal argument that we wanted him for ourselves before we worked things out with the Saudis would increase domestic pressure to execute him rather than ‘give in to our demands.’ Essentially, making the legal argument would by its nature make it moot as Mr. Abu Ali would be dead. Why the hell does this justify making secret arguments in a trial over whether or not the U.S. requested his arrest? Again, either they requested the Saudis took this action or they didn’t. If they didn’t, this argument is irrelevant to the civil trial anyway. If they did, then why are the Saudis hypothetically wanting to execute him? > [@](#): > > We were working out an agreement to trade Mr. Abu Ali for twelve F-15s and a terrorist suspect to be named later and disclosure of the deal would kill it, and perhaps Mr. Abu Ali. If the U.S. did not request that the Saudis arrest this man, then this argument is irrelevant to the civil trial. If the U.S. did request that the Saudis arrest this man, and offered the Saudis twelve F-15s and a terrorist suspect to be named later, then the government has apparently decided that it didn’t have enough evidence to just convince the Saudis to hand him over and decided the Saudis had to be bribed instead. Which is problematic enough in and of itself that it doesn’t justify such extraordinary measures as secret legal arguments to cover up that fact. > [@Bricker](#): > > Before you grow faint and swoon… I’ll try to keep my composure :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > In this example, not only would the evidence itself be secret, but the very existence of the pending indictment would be secret - because the legal argument that a pending indictment existed would reveal an underlying factual basis. Nope, no dice. You’re suggesting that merely saying “there is an indictment in the works” or “there is a grand jury investigation underway” might allow hypothetical terrorists to deduce (a) that evidence exists, (b) the nature of that evidence, and (c) the source of that evidence. (a) is plausible. But our hypothetical terrorists already know that Mr. Abu Ali was arrested. If the Saudi arrested Mr. Abu Ali for their own reasons…i.e. if the U.S. did not request his arrest, or if his arrest was independant of any U.S. request…then the argument is completely moot and doesn’t even need to be made. If the Saudis didn’t arrest him for their own reasons, then the hypothetical terrorists probably _already_ figure out that someone, somewhere, had evidence against him. But (b) and (c), on the other hand, are a giant leap. The only way someone could figure out the source and nature of evidence against Mr. Abu Ali merely from the existence of an investigation against him is if there is only possible source and nature of evidence. In which case they can figure that out, and probably will, even without the knowledge of the existence of an investigation. In short, your hypothetical argument doesn’t reveal sufficient information to endanger intelligence channels that would otherwise be unendangered. Try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/45 "2005-02-23T16:51:37Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Case law is quite muddled here, and while Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla have modified the precedent somewhat, my understanding is that ex parte Quirin still is enforceable law. How is ex parte Quirin ([linkity-link for the rest of us non-lawyers](http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Ex_parte_Quirin)) relevant to a civil trial between the _family_ of Mr. Abu Ali and the U.S. government? Mr. Abu Ali _may be_ an “enemy combatant”. But his family haven’t been charged with anything. What compelling concrete reason is there for the government to move to dismiss charges by Mr. Abu Ali’s family without even presenting their arguments in open court? Why shouldn’t the U.S. government have to answer to his family…presumably U.S. citizens as well…in a fair trial? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/46 "2005-02-23T17:04:46Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Nope, no dice. You’re suggesting that merely saying “there is an indictment in the works” or “there is a grand jury investigation underway” might allow hypothetical terrorists to deduce (a) that evidence exists, (b) the nature of that evidence, and (c) the source of that evidence. Not at all. But “there is a grand jury investigation underway,” is not likely to be a compelling legal argument. “There is a grand jury investigation underway, and it reveals Ahmed Abu Ali to be a conspirator in a plot, but the grand jury is not ready to indict,” is potentially a compelling legal argument. The defense could then claim, “No, the grand jury is not considering an indictment,” or “The grand jury doesn’t have enough evidence to indict,” which would put the GJ transcripts at issue. > [@This Year's Model](#): > > From the link in the OP: > > > [@](#): > > > > …as Judge Bates wrote in December, his lawyers “have presented some unrebutted evidence that [his] detention is at the behest and ongoing direction of United States officials.” The very point I’m making is that to rebut this claim requires the US to produce evidence which is classified. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/47 "2005-02-23T17:17:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The very point I’m making is that to rebut this claim requires the US to produce evidence which is classified. the crux of the biscuit as it were. as a lawyer in our system of jurisprudence, does it not fly in the face of all what you believe in to allow this “just trust me on this” type of strategy? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/48 "2005-02-23T17:18:25Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > How is ex parte Quirin ([linkity-link for the rest of us non-lawyers](http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Ex_parte_Quirin)) relevant to a civil trial between the _family_ of Mr. Abu Ali and the U.S. government? I apologize for the confusion. This post was an invitation to discuss further some of the points I raised back in post #34. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/49 "2005-02-23T17:42:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The very point I’m making is that to rebut this claim requires the US to produce evidence which is classified. I dunno, Rick. I’ve got to fall on the ‘civil liberties’ side of this. Secret arguments strike me as one of those ‘thin end of the wedge’ things that could easily be abused by the government. And I, for one, am not of the ‘trust the government to do right’ side of the ledger. Which **should** put me in line with the more conservative camp, shouldn’t it? Usually it’s lefties saying the ‘father knows best’ drill. If the government couldn’t indict or prosecute without using classified evidence then they’re faced with a difficult decision…blow the cover or don’t indict. I can’t get past the fact that for a fair judicial system the accused has the right to face his accuser and the evidence and arguments against him. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/50 "2005-02-23T18:13:40Z")
> [@wring](#): > > as a lawyer in our system of jurisprudence, does it not fly in the face of all what you believe in to allow this “just trust me on this” type of strategy? There’s no “just trust me on this” going on here. The evidence is being presented to an impartial judge, who gets to make the decision on the merits of the case. So there is some “just trust the judge on this” going on, but that goes on in every case. Again, I’m troubled by the presentation of evidence with no opportunity for rebuttal, but let’s not paint this as the government convicting someone totally without evidence. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/51 "2005-02-23T18:13:46Z")
Right now in Europe, hundreds of Al-Quaida operatives are being arrested, detained, tried, and either locked away or released in public trials and through the regular operation of the criminal justice system. You know, it is illegal to be a terrorist. Our own LEA’s had knowledge that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks, and this information was gathered prior to the proliferation of, “stop the terrorists at all costs,” attitudes. I have no interest in giving the government more power to summarily suspend legal rights which seem to have worked out okay for the past 200+ years. We can focus on more effecient and effective LEA’s if we choose, but we shouldn’t give up all our rights for the appearance of slightly more safety. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/52 "2005-02-23T19:01:05Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > There’s no “just trust me on this” going on here. The evidence is being presented to an impartial judge, who gets to make the decision on the merits of the case. So there is some “just trust the judge on this” going on, but that goes on in every case. “Just trust the judge _to make an informed decision based upon the argument of both parties_” goes on in every case. But this is different. A trial is a venue in which two disagreeing parties both present their arguments to an impartial third party, be it judge or jury. But now the government is suggesting that a judge is qualified to make a decision about the merits of an argument after hearing from only _one_ party. To decide whether or not the government’s arguments are valid without hearing rebutting argument is not the responsibility of judges. To decide between opposing arguments is. There’s irony in this, in our current “down with activist judges!” environment. Trusting judges to decide the constitutionality of laws after hearing arguments from both sides apparently is bad, but trusting them to decide the merit of government arguments on their own without the chance to hear a rebuttal from an opposing advocate is…hunky-dunky? > [@](#): > > Again, I’m troubled by the presentation of evidence with no opportunity for rebuttal, but let’s not paint this as the government convicting someone totally without evidence. Then let’s paint this as the government presenting evidence and arguments without the chance of rebuttal, which is bad enough. > [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. But “there is a grand jury investigation underway,” is not likely to be a compelling legal argument. “There is a grand jury investigation underway, and it reveals Ahmed Abu Ali to be a conspirator in a plot, but the grand jury is not ready to indict,” is potentially a compelling legal argument. Compelling legal argument for what? For saying “Yes, we told the Saudis to arrest this guy, but his family shouldn’t complain because we’re going to indict him eventually, we’re just not ready yet”? Again, did the Saudis arrest this guy at the request of the U.S., or not? We’ll probably never know. But if they didn’t, then this argument is irrelevant, and if they did, this argument just ignores the giant elephant in the room. Namely, why did the U.S. make the request before they were ready to indict, and when the grand jury still isn’t ready to indict by the time this comes up in civil court? Isn’t that called “arresting someone on insufficient grounds”? So, what is our hypothetical situation now? That some grand jury was investigating Mr. Abu Ali, wasn’t ready to indict, but had the Saudis arrest him anyway, and now they _still_ aren’t ready to indict but they want the district judge to dismiss his family’s complaint because they _were_ investigating him, really they were, and if they said in court that they were investigating him but weren’t ready to indict then the opposing counsel might ask to see the evidence they _did_ have (which presumably wasn’t enough to indict with then, because they still aren’t ready to indict now), and that would endanger intelligence channels? If _that’s_ the government’s secret argument, then I think the judge should decide in favour of Mr. Abu Ali’s family. And I sincerely hope we never throw out the principles of open trials just to protect the government’s abilities to have people taken into custody before they’re ready to charge them with anything. > [@manhattan](#): > > I don’t think anybody here has alleged that it’s impossible that the government was up to no good here, rather that a reasoned best guess on the available evidence indicates a probable motive much less sinister than it would seem to some on first glance. I, personally, don’t give much of a rat’s ass whether their motive was “sinister” or not, I give a rat’s ass about the fact that I don’t know what their motive is. Because it’s the _possibility_ of any administration, now or in the future, to use such a precedent for whatever damn motives they feel like that’s my concern. Before I trust any government to knock out a significant check on executive power like this, I want to see a damned good reason. “Just trust us” doesn’t cut it for me either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/53 "2005-02-23T19:41:42Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > “Just trust the judge _to make an informed decision based upon the argument of both parties_” goes on in every case. But this is different. A trial is a venue in which two disagreeing parties both present their arguments to an impartial third party, be it judge or jury. But now the government is suggesting that a judge is qualified to make a decision about the merits of an argument after hearing from only _one_ party. To decide whether or not the government’s arguments are valid without hearing rebutting argument is not the responsibility of judges. To decide between opposing arguments is. You are aware, are you not, of the procedural class _ex parte_? What does it mean? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/54 "2005-02-23T19:52:26Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Right now in Europe, hundreds of Al-Quaida operatives are being arrested, detained, tried, and either locked away or released in public trials and through the regular operation of the criminal justice system. Well, of course. And they’re being arrested, detained, tried and either locked away or releaesed in public trials through the operation of the criminal justice system here in America, too. But European countries have also used the methods being criticised here. [For example](http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/27/spain10066.htm) (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > The 65-page report, “Setting an Example?: Counter-Terrorism Measures in Spain,” analyzes aspects of Spain’s criminal law and procedures that fall short of its commitments under international human rights law. Problematic practices include the use of **incommunicado detention and secret legal proceedings** , limitations on the right to a lawyer during the initial period of detention, and lengthy periods of pre-trial detention. [And here:](http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/16/uk9890.htm) > [@](#): > > The appeal concerned government powers under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) to detain indefinitely without trial foreign nationals suspected of involvement in international terrorism. The U.K. parliament approved the law in the wake of the September 11 attacks. In October 2002, the Court of Appeal ruled that indefinite detention was compatible with the U.K.’s human rights obligations. [However, 3 months ago, the UK Law Lords recently ruled that such indefinite detention is incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.] [And here:](http://hrw.org/reports/2004/un0404/5.htm#_Toc69269474) > [@](#): > > A German court also recently rejected as insufficient diplomatic assurances offered by a government that used evidence procured by the torture of codefendants or witnesses in related criminal proceedings. In a 2003 decision, a German court ruled that a request from the Turkish government for the extradition of Metin Kaplan, the leader of a banned Islamic fundamentalist group, “Caliphate State,” was politically motivated. The court determined that the evidence on which the extradition warrant was based had been procured by the torture in detention of a group of Kaplan’s followers, in violation of Article 15 of the Convention against Torture. The court held that diplomatic assurances from the Turkish government that Kaplan’s treatment and prosecution would conform with Turkey’s human rights obligations would not provide Kaplan with “sufficient protection” against such violations. > \ > German authorities claimed that the decision not to extradite Kaplan was “regrettable” and pointed to “the repeated expressly confirmed promises of the Turkish government regarding the adherence to principles of the rule of law.” In a disturbing development, the government claimed that the court decision “does not stand in the way of expulsion, especially since the declarations of the Turkish government adequately guarantee that, after his expulsion to Turkey, Kaplan will not be subjected to treatment that violates the rule of law.” Minister of Interior Otto Schily claimed that “the right of a state to expel a foreigner in order to protect national security” should be the priority. [And here:](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3031640.stm) > [@](#): > > In recent years, [French anti-terror magistrate] Mr Bruguiere has rounded up hundreds of suspected militants at home, and earned a global reputation as a key player in the fight against al-Qaeda. > > But although his effectiveness is widely admired, his methods - illustrated by the recent clampdown on Iranian exiles - have been questioned by human rights groups. > [@threemae](#): > > Our own LEA’s had knowledge that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks, and this information was gathered prior to the proliferation of, “stop the terrorists at all costs,” attitudes. [Inigo Montoya]“The 9/11 Report … I do not-a think it means what you-a think it means.”[/IM] ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/55 "2005-02-23T20:03:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You are aware, are you not, of the procedural class _ex parte_? What does it mean? A valid point. We do trust judges currently to make decisions after hearing only one set of arguments in certain circumstances such as the issuing of warrants and the issuing of restraining orders. It was incorrect of me to imply that we don’t currently trust judges to _ever_ make decisions based on only one set of arguments. Now, convince me that we should trust judges to make decisions on the merits of an argument without rebuttal in _these_ circumstances, namely where the party being kicked out of the room is the party that brought the suit in the first place. 'Cause you sure haven’t convinced me yet. (Oh, and for those who don’t want to play “Mr. **Bricker** ’s Latin Class”, ex parte in a legal context means “for one party only”. Why **Bricker** didn’t just say “We already trust judges to make decisions after hearing only one set of arguments, such as in the issuing of warrants” is beyond me.) ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/56 "2005-02-23T20:06:13Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > I have no interest in giving the government more power to summarily suspend legal rights which seem to have worked out okay for the past 200+ years. We can focus on more effecient and effective LEA’s if we choose, but we shouldn’t give up all our rights for the appearance of slightly more safety. \*\*threemae, don’t overreact. Take a chill pill. Remember, _it’s just one guy_. And he’s probably guilty of something, anyway. Try to consider the issue with the cool detachment that wiser heads have adopted: > [@manhattan](#): > > We don’t have enough information to say whether the particular (non)argument given by the government in this case is or would have been justified, but we do know that this is already an “exceptional circumstance.” You see? It’s an _exceptional circumstance_. Such a precedent wouldn’t _really_ count, since it’s so vanishingly unlikely that the opportunity to claim “secret arguments” would ever occur again. It’s really remarkably cynical of you to imply that the government would ever abuse this principle, since this has never happened before in recorded history. Where’s your sense of trust? For now, it’s really far too early to form an opinion. We should wait and see if the government attempts to secretly indict another citizen, or several, before we consider our course of action. A few dozen at most. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/57 "2005-02-23T20:16:04Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > (Oh, and for those who don’t want to play “Mr. **Bricker** ’s Latin Class”, ex parte in a legal context means “for one party only”. Why **Bricker** didn’t just say “We already trust judges to make decisions after hearing only one set of arguments, such as in the issuing of warrants” is beyond me.) 'Cause _ex parte_ has only seven letters. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/58 "2005-02-23T20:24:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 'Cause _ex parte_ has only seven letters. Ah, economy of presentation. I prefer clarity, but maybe that’s just me. But hey, as long as you feel like slingin’ Latin around, is there a class of procedures where only one party makes arguments and the other party never even gets to hear them? 'Cause it occurs to me that even in the case of issuing a warrant, the other party (namely the person getting arrested) eventually gets to know why the warrant was issued. Ex parte doesn’t seem to cover that particular angle. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/59 "2005-02-23T20:56:49Z")
I find it fascinating that the people who insist the government can and must be trusted to prosecute the war on terror without legal or procedural oversight are the same people who begrudge the same government every penny of tax revenue because said government cannot be trusted to spend the money effectively. Most odd. ---
**Author:** ![Humble\_Servant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/47e85d/32.png) [@Humble\_Servant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Humble_Servant)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/60 "2005-02-23T21:50:50Z")
And, if convicted, Secret Probation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447.md?page=4)