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.

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.

---

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. 

The rights of the defendant, and the desires of the government, indeed conflict.  The Justice department does not focus on national defense or spies. The Pentagon does not focus on punishing guilty people. But from a whole government perspective, national defense is more important than justice.  

As I've already said, these people were almost certainly guilty, but impossible to prosecute, and I am still surprised I got this far.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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. 

The rights of the defendant, and the desires of the government, indeed conflict.  The Justice department does not focus on national defense or spies. The Pentagon does not focus on punishing guilty people. But from a whole government perspective, national defense is more important than justice.  

As I've already said, these people were almost certainly guilty, but impossible to prosecute, and I am still surprised I got this far.

Regarding the part in bold.  Is it?  Who determines that and/or where is it written in our laws?

You flip and flop more than the fish that I caught today.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The rights of the defendant, and the desires of the government, indeed conflict.  The Justice department does not focus on national defense or spies. The Pentagon does not focus on punishing guilty people. But from a whole government perspective, national defense is more important than justice.  

As I've already said, these people were almost certainly guilty, but impossible to prosecute, and I am still surprised I got this far.

Regarding the part in bold.  Is it?  Who determines that and/or where is it written in our laws?

You flip and flop more than the fish that I caught today.

congratulations on catching the fish. I haven't gotten a chance to do that in a while.
I don't think I'm flip-flopping here, but I probably am not communicating well, and you are probably coming at each of my statements with some sort of presumption that I don't share.
To answer your question, no this is not written in our laws. It would be up to the president or the chief of staff to decide. But the principle that national defense is more important than criminal justice applies generally. A hypothetical scenario:
If there is a foreign army rolling tanks a few blocks away, I'm going to have a hard time caring whether the guy down the street gets punished for murdering his wife. Maybe we could run a murder trial in those circumstances, but it certainly would not be a priority. Don't you agree?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regarding the part in bold.  Is it?  Who determines that and/or where is it written in our laws?

You flip and flop more than the fish that I caught today.

congratulations on catching the fish. I haven't gotten a chance to do that in a while.
I don't think I'm flip-flopping here, but I probably am not communicating well, and you are probably coming at each of my statements with some sort of presumption that I don't share.
To answer your question, no this is not written in our laws. It would be up to the president or the chief of staff to decide. But the principle that national defense is more important than criminal justice applies generally. A hypothetical scenario:
If there is a foreign army rolling tanks a few blocks away, I'm going to have a hard time caring whether the guy down the street gets punished for murdering his wife. Maybe we could run a murder trial in those circumstances, but it certainly would not be a priority. Don't you agree?

Nope.  In your hypothetical case one is a national security scenario while the other is a state felony.

There is no right or duty in our Constitution that supersedes or "takes priority" over another.  In the case of the state felony of murder the accused is still afforded his/her constitutional rights.  Constitutional rights are just that and can not be taken away at any level of government.  The Sixth Amendment applies whether it's at the local, state or national levels of government.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

congratulations on catching the fish. I haven't gotten a chance to do that in a while.
I don't think I'm flip-flopping here, but I probably am not communicating well, and you are probably coming at each of my statements with some sort of presumption that I don't share.
To answer your question, no this is not written in our laws. It would be up to the president or the chief of staff to decide. But the principle that national defense is more important than criminal justice applies generally. A hypothetical scenario:
If there is a foreign army rolling tanks a few blocks away, I'm going to have a hard time caring whether the guy down the street gets punished for murdering his wife. Maybe we could run a murder trial in those circumstances, but it certainly would not be a priority. Don't you agree?

Nope.  In your hypothetical case one is a national security scenario while the other is a state felony.

There is no right or duty in our Constitution that supersedes or "takes priority" over another.  In the case of the state felony of murder the accused is still afforded his/her constitutional rights.  Constitutional rights are just that and can not be taken away at any level of government.  The Sixth Amendment applies whether it's at the local, state or national levels of government.

Bwwwahahaha, your measely Bill of Rights is about to take a pounding.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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. 

The rights of the defendant, and the desires of the government, indeed conflict.  The Justice department does not focus on national defense or spies. The Pentagon does not focus on punishing guilty people. But from a whole government perspective, national defense is more important than justice.  

As I've already said, these people were almost certainly guilty, but impossible to prosecute, and I am still surprised I got this far.

Once again you make this statement with nothing to back it up.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"