Guardian Explains US Secret Courts Asks "What do they mean for United Kingdom Justice ?"

What are secret courts and what do they mean for UK justice? The Justice and Security Act has extended closed material procedures into the main civil courts Share61 inShare8 Email Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 June 2013 09.47 EDT Ken Clarke, who says the government has in the past paid compensation because it could not disclose evidence in court. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters The Justice and Security Act was given parliamentary approval on 25 April this year. One of the main justifications for expanding so-called secret courts was to prevent intelligence provided by US sources being exposed in British courts. The Guardian's revelation that GCHQ, the UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, received material obtained by America's National Security Agency (NSA) through Prism, the online surveillance operation, will reinforce fears about what is being withheld from open court hearings. What is a secret court? The legal mechanism is known as closed material procedures (CMP). Secret intelligence can be introduced by the government but will only be seen by the judge and security-cleared "special advocates". The special advocate who represents the interest of an individual claimant cannot reveal precise details of the evidence and may only provide a "gist" or loose summary. Claimants may not, therefore, be aware of all the allegations made against them. Critics say this results in parties no longer being on an equal footing, tilting the advantage in the government's favour. Haven't some hearings always been held behind closed doors? Closed hearings are not unprecedented. Cases in the family division of the high court relating to child custody and divorce issues are regularly held in camera to protect privacy. CMPs are already used in employment tribunals, special immigration appeals commission hearings and the investigatory powers tribunal, which handles complaints about the intelligence services. The Justice and Security Act has now extended them into the main civil courts, allowing the government to exploit intelligence material to defend itself against claims for damages over alleged mistreatment such as rendition and torture. Why does the government want more secret courts? One rationale for the change was to preserve the integrity of the UK's secret intelligence exchanges with the US and other allies. Dismissing legal attempts to disclose such information, Ken Clarke, the cabinet minister without portfolio, said: "No other country in the world allows this kind of legal tourism to happen – for the good reason that it undermines confidence among other countries that might otherwise share vital intelligence with us." What will be the effect of more secret courts? Ken Clarke believes that more intelligence-related cases will come to court in future. In the past, he has said, the government was forced to settle and pay out compensation because it could not disclose evidence in court. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has described secret courts as "tolerable" as a last resort. There is "a small but indeterminate category of national-security-related claims, both for judicial review of executive decisions and for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP – for all its inadequacies – should exist", he has said. A first indication of how senior judges assess the process will come next Wednesday when the supreme court, which has held its first closed session, gives judgment in the case of Bank Mellat. The justices heard secret evidence about the Tehran finance house, which is challenging a Treasury-imposed trading ban, and its alleged involvement in transactions relating to Iran's nuclear programme.

Harvard Professor says Internet is bringing us closer politically

According to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government progessor Daniel Holdman , the Internet is bringing us closer politically. If Holdman is correct and this trend continues it could actually be time for a Moderate Party.

Moderate party To Compete With Republicans , Democrats

Moderate Party needs 17,000 signatures to become recognized Wichita State student hopes party will join Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties in 2014 election Posted: June 14, 2013 - 8:40pm Related Links The petition to recognize the Moderate Party as an official political party The Moderate Party's website ADVERTISEMENT By The Associated Press MANHATTAN — A Manhattan man who has been both a Democrat and a Republican is working to form a third political party in Kansas to provide moderates a platform in the political process. Aaron Estabrook early this year filed political action committee finance papers for the Moderate Party of Kansas. The fledgling PAC has little money but has named executive officers and is targeting the 2014 elections, The Hutchinson News reported Friday. Estabrook said he hopes the Moderate Party of Kansas can bring moderate Republicans and Democrats together “to find common ground in the face of extremism.” Nick Hoheisel, who is pursuing a political science degree at Wichita State University, is the party’s vice president. He has been a registered Republican since 2004. The party’s communications director, Dave Warren of Leawood, worked in Republican Gov. Bill Graves’ administration. And its deputy communications director, Kelly Schodorf of Wichita, is the daughter of former State Sen. Jean Schodorf, a moderate. Since she was targeted by conservatives in her own party and defeated in the 2012 elections, Sen. Schodorf has dropped her Republican affiliation. Hoheisel said he believes in small government, secure national borders and the right to carry concealed handguns, and thinks some social programs should be dropped. But he also said in an email to The News that he believes government should “protect the most vulnerable amongst us” and that he supports expanding background checks for gun purchases, giving a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and providing equal protection for gays. To become a recognized party in Kansas, the Moderate Party would need to collect nearly 17,000 signatures on petitions by June 1, 2014, in order to be involved in the 2014 elections. “I’m not sure it’s possible in a year’s time, but it’s also not impossible,” Hoheisel said, adding that if the signatures aren’t collected, the group’s members “will still fully support moderate candidates” in the 2014 election. Estabrook worked for conservative Republican Tim Huelskamp when he served in the Kansas Legislature before being elected to Congress. In 2006, Estabrook registered as a Democrat, citing the Iraq War as one reason. He served with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. “Upon returning to Kansas in 2011, I could not believe the radical nature that conservatism had taken the shape of,” Estabrook wrote in the email to the newspaper. “Our legislators were spending so much time restricting rights that it almost felt like they envied Afghans.” Estabrook lost a bid for the Kansas House in November 2012, running as a Democrat. Kansas currently recognizes only the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties. The Reform and the Americans Elect parties were once official parties in Kansas, but they have lost that status. Strict requirements for becoming a political party means The Moderate Party of Kansas has a “slim” chance of being recognized, especially in time for the 2014 elections, Kansas State University political science professor Joe Aistrup said.