The main contradiction is: the court's seriousness about illegal evidence and the intelligence department's willingness to create perjury in order to control the crime. Separately, these questions are clear: Should courts strictly "exclude"? certainly. Should intelligence services control crime? yes. Can intelligence agencies and other investigative agencies create perjury? Of course not. But problems often become unclear because they are superimposed. The intelligence department can learn from the wiretapping that the terrorists planned to bomb the mall, and fabricate an irrefutable, court-approved real-time cctv, and fabricate its trading bomb ingredients? In order to prevent crimes, can we fabricate crimes in advance and send suspects to prison in advance? If anti-terrorism or other national security crimes can be carried out so early, although the occurrence of terrorist attacks can be greatly reduced, how can we ensure that the attack will always be correct? After all, even the evidence is fake. Maybe the people in the investigation department always feel that the trial people are pedantic and conservative, saying that the law is always lagging behind, but the investigators are indeed rushing ahead, and their consideration is more inclined to how to combat and prevent crimes. Judges not only consider these, but also consider whether the evidence is clean and whether a good person will be wronged. The different focuses of their work lead to natural differences in the propensity to look at evidence. However, lawyers think more long-term. If we are vague on the issue of illegal evidence, then the wheel of illegal evidence will one day roll over us. Now, people from the Intelligence Bureau use such high-end perjury methods to deal with terrorists. Some people don't talk about it, and some people applaud, because terrorists are always the public enemies of everyone. But will there come a day when they can do the same with political prisoners, with people who say things they shouldn't, with any crime they want to fight but can't fight? The court is the last line of defense, and you will understand this better when you are in the dock.
There is a conflict between national security and individual freedom and natural justice. I flipped through Lord Denning's "Boundaries of the Law". In the 1970s, the strategy for dealing with terrorists in the United Kingdom (after various debates, the final principle was determined) was:
When a person is suspected of being a terrorist, the Secretary of State can issue a deportation order against him without trial. A deportation order can be issued based on evidence provided by intelligence officials with whom the suspect knows nothing and has no chance of confrontation. An expulsion order could even be issued without telling him the substance of the intelligence against him. All of these are inconsistent with the basic principles of natural justice. But in special cases concerning national security, natural justice must come second. What I mean by this is that natural justice must be secondary to the state's responsibility to protect the lives of ordinary people. (Lord Denning: The Boundaries of the Law, Law Press 1999, p. 276)
That being the case, now we are making fake evidence, using the court's hand, as if it is in line with natural justice, and fighting terrorism. The intelligence agencies of the 21st century are not as magnanimous as those of the last century.
View more about The Capture reviews
