We may not be able to fully answer that question, but I think Scott Greenfield has a good case for what isn’t justice:
Whenever a motion is made for a bill of particulars in the Southern District of New York, the government’s response is the same: It would unduly prejudice the government to be required to disclose allegations of fact that would enable the defendant to know the specific conduct that forms the basis of the charge against him. And the court agrees.
You know, telling the defense what exactly it says the defendant did that was criminal would indeed prejudice the government. It would give the defense half a chance to prepare its defense. Well, maybe only a third of a chance, but at least a chance. Level the playing field, if only a bit? Prejudice.
But when it comes to prosecuting “enemy combatants,” the ante is upped. Way upped. Not only is the risk of individual failure at stake, but the reputation of a government that’s come to depend on a population who believes, with their every breath, that it can be trusted to ignore every safeguard around which are concept of a legal system is based, and still be fair. The integrity of the outcome must be trusted, and yet the conviction of those denied their rights must be assured.
What to do? It’s not enough to deny the defense access to the evidence against the defendant. No, not the puny refusal to provide a bill of particulars, but wholesale denial of “state secrets.” Still, a criminal defense lawyer gets used to thinking fast, working on the fly. We don’t enjoy the luxury of depositions, document demands, the absolute necessities of civil practice where lawyers whine about not being allowed to use a proctoscope at least five years in advance of trial. We prepare for surprises because we have no choice. We deal with the unknowns, because that’s our job.
Bad enough? Nope, read the rest of the post to find out just what little similarity to actual justice is in operation for those accused of being “enemy combatants”.
