A secret score!
"British court rules terrorism trial can be partly secret" by Jill Lawless | Associated Press June 13, 2014
LONDON — A British court ruled Thursday that the bulk of a terrorism trial can be held in secret on national security grounds, but it rejected prosecutors’ attempt to impose secrecy on the entire case, from the selection of the jury to the identity of the defendants.
Media organizations had argued that would be a first in British legal history and a dangerous precedent.
The case concerns two men who were arrested last year and charged with terrorism offenses. Prosecutors argued they would have to abandon the case if the trial could not be held in private and without naming the defendants.
So what does the government have to hide?
Last month, a judge agreed to the restrictions, but the ruling was challenged by the BBC and other media organizations. Their lawyer, Anthony Hudson, called the secrecy bid a ‘‘totally unprecedented departure from the principle of open justice.’’
On Thursday, three appeals judges ruled the case was ‘‘exceptional’’ and the core of the trial should be heard without the public present. They said they were persuaded that ‘‘the administration of justice would be frustrated if the trial were to be held in open court.’’
But, in a victory for the media, they said some sections would be held in public, including the jury swearing-in, the reading of the charges, part of the prosecution’s opening statement, and the verdicts.
A small number of journalists will be allowed to attend most of the proceedings but not to report on them as they unfold. They will be subject to strict restrictions, including leaving their notebooks behind at the end of each day, and they will not be able to report on the trial until a new court order is given.
The judges expressed ‘‘grave concern’’ about combining closed hearings with anonymous defendants and ordered that the names of the suspects be released.
The defendants, previously named as AB and CD, were then identified as Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar. Incedal is charged with preparing an act of terrorism and possessing bomb-making instructions and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar with possessing the instructions and false identity documents. Details of their alleged crimes have not been made public.
Who were their MI-5 or MI-6 case officers?
British judges often impose reporting restrictions while trials are underway, usually to avoid prejudicing future proceedings, and portions of trials have previously been held without press or public present. But lawyers said an entire secret criminal trial was unprecedented.
Lord Justice Peter Gross, one of the appeal judges, said open justice was ‘‘a fundamental principle of the common law,’’ but restrictions were justified in some circumstances.
‘‘Exceptions are rare and must be justified on the facts,’’ he said.
Other democracies, including the United States, have grappled with balancing security and open trials in cases connected to terrorism or intelligence.
Several suspects in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are being tried before a military commission at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba after being declared ‘‘enemy combatants.’’
--more--"
I'm not sure if the press should feel aggrieved or not:
"British hacking trial goes to jury" by Katrin Bennhold | New York Times June 11, 2014
LONDON — As the judge concluded one of Britain’s most riveting trials — a seven-month courtroom marathon that exposed the inner workings of the tabloid press and personal lives of two friends of the prime minister — he had this reminder for the jury: “No one is so powerful they can ignore the law.”
Among those on trial are Rebekah Brooks, who ran Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire until 2011, and one of her former deputy editors, Andy Coulson, who went on to become the chief spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron. While the case centers on allegations of hacking into the mobile phones of people in the news, it has also become a guided tour through the precincts of wealth and power in London.
Related: Their Miss Brooks
Must be why we have not seen a lot of it.
The bigger question becomes ARE RUPE MURDOCH'S NEWS ORGANIZATIONS simply one large SPYING OUTFIT?
Since October, Brooks and Coulson, former lovers and onetime editors of Murdoch’s now defunct weekly News of The World, have been denounced by prosecutors, defended by lawyers, and dissected by the press. They became the subject of the kinds of salacious headlines they used to splash across their pages.
They face charges linked to the illegal interception of the voice mail messages of celebrities, royalty, and, most controversially, a kidnapped teenager, who was later found dead. They are also accused of condoning payments to public officials for information and, in the case of Brooks, of conspiring to conceal evidence from the police with the help of her husband, secretary, and security chief. A total of seven defendants are on trial, all of whom deny all charges.
On Wednesday, the 11 jurors (one has had to abandon her duty for personal reasons) are expected to retire to consider their verdict. They have up to a month to reach a decision, one that is expected to make its impact felt not just in newsrooms across the country but also on Downing Street. Cameron’s aides worry that conviction of a formerly trusted adviser could revive questions about his judgment ahead of next year’s general election.
The trial has also become a test of whether Britain’s infamously aggressive tabloid culture — the six-figure price tags paid for scoops, the scavenging in celebrity trash cans, the relentless invasion of privacy — can be tamed to prevent similar transgressions in the future.
Yeah, worry about those violations and not the wholesale violations of your own by governments.
It has exposed the cozy ties between the media, politicians, and the police, and in particular the influence of Murdoch’s newspapers, which have dominated the industry in Britain for many years.
And we have Fox News!
Many in the British establishment have been embarrassed by the investigation, including the former prime minister Tony Blair who, it emerged during the trial, offered to act as an “unofficial adviser” to Brooks and Murdoch. The case has involved the work of more than 160 Scotland Yard police officers and staff members and cited at least 1,000 people from politics, sports, and the media, including Prince William and his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, who probably had their phones hacked.
Remember Savile?
Indeed, “Hacking Gate,” as some here call it, has had all the ingredients of a juicy tabloid story: tales of Cameron inviting Brooks to his birthday party; computers hidden in trash bags; and a steamy love letter read in court documenting the on-an-off intimacy between Brooks and Coulson. Prosecutors asserted that because of their relationship, if one of them knew about phone hacking, both are likely to have.
That is what the whoreporate media of the 1% have presented to you add they cover their own asses.
Justice John Saunders offered jurors detailed instructions on how they should consider each count against the defendants. He also ordered them not to be “dazzled” by the couple’s glamour.
Shiny scitte doesn't dazzle me because of the stink, sorry.
--more--"
Here is something juicy for you:
"Rights groups say UK conducts mass cyber-snooping" Associated Press June 18, 2014
LONDON — Britain’s top counterterrorism official says the country’s espionage rules allow its electronic spy agency to routinely intercept online communications between Britons who use US-based platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
A witness statement by Office for Security and Counterterrorism chief Charles Farr, made public Tuesday, said data sent on those services is classed as ‘‘external’’ rather than ‘‘internal’’ communications because the companies are based outside Britain.
Britain’s Home Office confirmed the document was genuine. It was written in response to a legal action by civil liberties groups who are seeking to curb cyberspying, and was published by the groups on Tuesday.
Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, GCHQ, has broad powers to intercept communications outside the country, but needs a warrant and suspicion of wrongdoing to monitor Britons.
In the document, Farr said some internal communications are intercepted under the external rules, but they ‘‘cannot be read, looked at, or listened to’’ except in very limited circumstances. He said that was a ‘‘significant distinction.’’
Civil liberties organizations say the rules are too vague and allow for mass surveillance.
‘‘The security services consider that they’re entitled to read, listen, and analyze all our communications on Facebook, Google, and other US-based platforms,’’ said James Welch, legal director of Liberty, one of the groups involved in the legal action. ‘‘If there was any remaining doubt that our snooping laws need a radical overhaul, there can be no longer.’’
--more--"
Yesterday's results:
Australia Joins With Japan
Australia lost yesterday in what was a very enjoyable match, and the question about Spain was answered.
Japan bans possession of child pornography after years of pressure
They may be out of it after this evening.
