Does national security trump the right to a fair trial?

That is where this is going. The government will claim national security, the defense attorney (as he must) will protest that his client will not be able to have a fair trial and it will all go before a secret court.

Embedded Link

Lawyer says U.S. blocks investigation of Afghan massacre
SEATTLE (Reuters) – The lawyer defending the U.S. soldier accused of murdering 17 Afghan civilians claims U.S. authorities are blocking his ability to investigate the incident.John Henry Browne, the l…

Google+: View post on Google+


  1. Lee Van Horn says:

    EVERYTHING trumps the right to a fair trial!

  2. Coyote Prophet says:

    And it will be exceptable to Americans. As is all the other insanity's.

  3. Ryan Moon says:

    We need to revisit the Espionage Act of 1917. Yes, we still use this 100 year old document to define terms like national security. I do not believe we need a nationalized secrecy regime, but I do not see any reason why we are invading a new country every 30 months for the past 30 years either. Each state operating it's own secrecy would reduce the number of secrets and at the same time enhance our control of those secrets.

    Europe operates like this and you don't see them being invaded (since 1944).

  4. J. R. Nova says:

    Nothing trumps the right to a fair trial….unless everyone saw you do it, in which case you're screwed 😀

  5. J. R. Nova says:

    I fixed my typo….makes much more sense now.

  6. Cod Codliness says:

    "My gut is the reason is they don't have much of a case," said Browne at a press conference at his downtown Seattle office on Friday.

    Yeah. Someone else did it, and they just arrested Bales for the lulz.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>