(03-21-2020, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-21-2020, 05:13 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Please explain how charging someone can be justified while simultaneously not wanting the defense to see the evidence you have against them? Anyone that doesn’t want you to see the evidence is hiding it for nefarious purposes. 

I know I’m wasting my time because you never actually answer the questions that prove your points wrong; you just deflect until the attention is off the original topic.

It's a problem because the military considers the facts that might be discovered to be secrets. They're classified. I can't explain it, but maybe the prosecutors at Gitmo can.

The defendants’ right to see the evidence against him supersedes the privilege of keeping sensitive information secret. The prosecutors know this and charged them anyway. If you have a different answer, then stop eluding to Gitmo as a defense for your opinion.

(03-22-2020, 10:41 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(03-21-2020, 03:23 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: How is it a problem when the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them? And how does that have anything to do with prosecutors dropping the case they made against them?

I’ve never once heard of an instance where prosecutors dropped a case because they didn’t want the defense to know what evidence they had.

It probably has something to do with not wanting to reveal our sources and methods.  If the thing went to open court, the defense would have all kinds of questions about the source of the evidence and how the evidence was gathered, and maybe we just don't want to get into that.

I’m not disputing that there is sensitive information that may be present in these cases. However, the defendant has the right to see the evidence against him, and if they relied on evidence they had no intention on revealing then they shouldn’t have charged him. What other response would they expect from the accused?

The prosecutors know they’re entitled to this evidence. They never intended to go to trial or else they wouldn’t have throw out the case. And that should be enough to understand the prosecutors’ motive.

---