Slashdot Mirror
Government to Eavesdrop on Lawyer-Client Conversations
An Anonymous Coward writes: "This CNN article outlines the justice department's plans to start monitoring lawyer-client communications of detainees. The decision was made by the justice department without any public debate or the involvement of the Senate or Congress. It's astonishing how easily a basic civil right such as the right to counsel is taken away!" The ACLU is, predictably, opposed.
...taking away the right to council? Just becuase it is being monitored you are still granted the right to have council.
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
...innocent until proven guilty. sure, most might very well be guilty, but you can't generalize like that. prisoners deserve rights while they're going through the judicial process, because they're not yet guilty.
I'm not here. This isn't happening.
The biggest problem I see with this is that even if the DOJ followed the rules and didn't misuse the information, there's no way for a defendant in criminal prosecution to be sure. If you are being prosecuted and you know that your every conversation with your attorney is being listened too, how forthcoming will you be with them? You can't assume that the DOJ isn't breaking their own rules, so you clam up. The end result is that defense attorneys may have less information to work with and will be unable to build a proper defense for their clients. Eventually the courts will probably tell the DOJ they can't do this but in the mean time, how many people's legal cases will be effected by this new policy.
I find it bitterly ironic that we here Bush and crew saying that we are fighting for our way of life and for civilization, yet at the same time, they are doing their best to damage the freedoms that are key to that way of life. They say we need to go on with life as usual and not let the terrorists effect us, but it's not like they are leading by example here.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This only applys to people who are granted a special administrative measure which applys to less than a tenth of a percent of people. And only to people who the AG says "reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a particular inmate may use communication with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of terrorism".
/. sensationalism at work.
I don't agree that they should be doing this in the first place, but it's not for everyone. I guess this is just more
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
So now they abuse their power by changing the laws when its convient.
t
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Everyone is still a bit wobbly after the 911 attacks. In this wobbly state the majority of people have bought the fallacious idea that decreased freedom leads to increased security. Even though we have not had any significant attacks since the anthrax mailings those who have made this massive power-grab ( Ashcroft et al ) via the USA PATRIOT act and this recent little addendum have done their best to keep everyone in a wobbly state so that few people would dare to criticize their coup-in-the-works. There will come a time when their crying wolf no longer inspires the fear it has recently and the climate for questioning their overreaching and reversing it will improve. My worry is that a Republican stacked Supreme court could put us in a horrible position as regards rocovering ou lost civil rights. Therein lies the real danger.
sPh
>I have no opposition to this at all... because they're PRISONERS. As far as I'm concerned, they have no rights whatsoever. They are the ones that violated OUR rights in one way or another... they're punishment is they're rights stripped from them. Privacy & Liberty... two rights I don't think prisoners should have at all.
I have to believe you don't understand what you are wishing for, or you are insane.
Do "any" prisoners deserve the right to a fair trial BEFORE being convicted? If you say yes, you've convicted yourself... these "prisoners" are not yet convicted. Of course, anyone the government arrests must be guilty, and the government is not prone to overstepping their bounds. Just ask Leonard Peltier.
If you say no, and you don't believe in presumed innocence... PLEASE get your ass out of the USA (if that's where you are) and move to Japan, where they have a nice "tidy and efficent" legal system that presumes guilt. Most people CONFESS there because the courts find people guilty 99% of the time.
Better yet, move to one of those middle eastern countries, where conservative men with guns and a narrow mind have the most say.
I hope you have children, that they someday take a puff of a joint, and the very government abuses you helped open the door on are used to put them into jail (or make them an informant even).
I have no sympathy for the terrorists -- but I'm not about to willingly live under a government that "destroys freedom to save freedom".
Ignorance is Freedom.
Ahmed joins a radical Islamic group, comes to USofA, finds he likes the people here, changes his name and his ways, gets caught up in a sweep and needs to talk to his lawyer about it. Oh yeah, he'll get a fair hearing. No doubt about it.
AC
People have rights because they are human, not because they have been found not guilty. Humans have rights as defined per the bill of rights or other wonderful US declarations that are for everyone as humans. As rights. So fuck you for supporting this police state to come. This isnt america anymore this is America (TM) thanks to dickheads like you.
how different is this from the terrorists view; in that they also feel that the end justifies ANY means?
does the end really justify ANY means? isn't how you get there just as important as the end result, itself?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
i.e. those who it's damn well likely have committed a crime.
You misspelled 'those who it's damn well likely the police can make a profit from the arrest of.'
HTH
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
So you want to throw the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption out the window then, huh? Why do we even bother to pretend we're a democracy anymore? Assholes like you want to give all authority over to the government without assigning any accountability or oversight. We'll just trust them to always do what's right? You're ignorant and more of a danger to the American way of life than any terrorist out there.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Who's at war? The US isn't. There has been no declaration of war, so the government cannot take on wartime powers. Truman found that out when he tried to force striking miners back to work during Korea.
And even if we were at war, what make you believe that they'd repeal these repressive laws and civil rights violations after the war?
The federal government is using this as an excuse to move one more step towards the police state.
Then read news accounts from 2000 about how the government of the PRC selects prisoners' execution dates based on the need for transplant organs.
Then read your post and its parent again.
sPh
Huh? We just passed the laws that would let us bug the lawyers' offices. (Think about the implication of "roving wiretap" on a suspect - and the idea that you might want to "wiretap" the things he says using vocal cords and air as a transmission medium. In order to minimize the risk of accidentally infringing upon the lawyer's right not to be wiretapped, you use some sort of voiceprint tech to record only the criminal's voice, not the voice of his lawyer, or the voices of the lawyer's other clients.)
Or did all landsharks suddently become counterintelligence experts, equipped with s00per-s33kr1t goggles of bug-detection?
No, it means they would have been convicted, had the prosecution been aware of the defence's legal strategy in advance.
("Your Honor, we present this tape, during which the defendant admits responsibility for the crime to his landshark, and proposes an insanity defence. We're filing charges against the lawyer for harboring a fugitive, on the grounds that a lawyer, once he becomes aware of the guilt of his client, must either withdraw from the case or turn the fucker in!")
There's also a thing like political prisoners. That's the kind of prisoners with no rights at all. You don't actually have to do anything wrong (in a legal sense) to become one. And yes, there will be lots of political prisoners in the USA shortly. They can be held indefinately on vague accusation of terroristic acts. I should point out that this is also the kind of terminology used in countries like China.
Idiots like you are actually cheering while the last remains of what once was a free country are erased from history. The new laws are for your protection. Uncle Sam knows what's best for you. If you say otherwise, you are being politically incorrect. We can't have that, can we? Maybe we should lock you up! Anything you say (even to your lawyer) will be used against you. Of course your lawyer has the legal obligation to actually tell if they actually miss part of the conversation and you guessed it, anything he sais, can be used against you.
More innocent afghans have died because of US military actions than were killed on 11 september. The current military situation is way out of control and Bin Laden is laughing his ass of. Saying so is unpatriotic and politically incorrect. You won't see it broadcasted on CNN but that doesn't change anything about reality. B52's are an excellent means for precision bombardments: nothing survives in few hundred meter radius from where the bombd fall, saying otherwise is politically incorrect. Who will miss a few 100K afghans? Right: nobody gives a shit. George Bush saves the day, gets reelected walks away as a hero. A true american hero. It makes me sick.
The dead kennedies said it nicely on one of their records: "bedtime for democracy". Privacy and liberty, a right no american currently has. Glad I'm not one of them. I can still say this out loud in europe. I won't lose my job over it, some people will actually agree with me in public. However times are changing here too and I'm posting anonymously.
There's been quite a few cases already where they have been against allowing kids to pray in schools (which kind of seems like a civil liberty to me!)
Should a group with the name "American Civil Liberties Union" be for or against allowing children to worship as they wish?
It seems to me that a reading of the ACLU position on school prayer gives you the answer - the ACLU is very much in favor of letting children worship as they wish. Or not, if they don't wish to.
Here is the ACLU position:
If a child in public school wishes to say grace before eating a meal in the school cafeteria, or carry a bible to school to read in between classes, she has the right now under the First Amendment to do so. That is religious freedom.
But if the school conducts an official grace before meals so that every student in the cafeteria is subjected to it whether she believes in it or not, that is not permitted by the First Amendment because it reflects official government endorsement or sponsorship of religion, and imposes religious beliefs on children whose families may not share them. This is true even if the grace ceremony is "student initiated." Individual rights means that any student can say grace, but no student can be subjected to a religious ceremony because the majority outvotes her. That is not religious freedom.
So you think it's reasonable for a guy who stole an apple because he was homeless and starving to get thrown into jail with convicted murderers, ass-raped at their leisure, beaten up and left dying or dead. Right. Perhaps we should remove judges and sentencing entirely, and simply throw anyone convicted of anything out on the street with a sign saying "Do with me whatever you feel like, I'm a criminal" on their back?
It is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. But hey, this is what the concept of bail is all about, right? In most western legal systems, I believe that bail is usually granted reasonably swiftly unless the accused poses a potential danger in some way. At least here in the UK, there are very strict limits on how long the police can keep you detained without charging you, too, and plenty of lawyers around to remind them of the fact.
The thing that really annoys me is the way people are treated when they are tried and then found not guilty. As far as I'm concerned, at that point, they are as innocent as if the charge had never been brought. And yet still, accused rapists (who are found not guilty in a trial) have their names published, while the accusers (whose accusations have been shown to be false) have hidden behind a mask of anonymity.
It even happens in minor cases, too. I was a witness in a trial about a road accident a while back. The defendant was found not guilty of a driving offence, and was able to claim some expenses from the court, but could not claim any lost income (in spite of having missed several days of work to attend court, partly due to the court's own incompetence at scheduling the case, and consequent postponements).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
How to overturn a free society:
1) Take away the rights of criminals.
2) Make everyone criminals.
Three things...
1) Anyone who is not a federal inmate is safe. For now.
2) "inmates being held must be told of the monitoring"
3) "Such monitoring...has been allowed in the past through court order."
This is not the giant sweeping step torwards a police state that many are making it out to be. More it's a baby-step, or even a subtle side step torwards said police state. Incremental changes do need attention brought against them, but incremental changes call for moderate reaction. If you go shouting "Ahhhhh! Police state! Police state!" at every little reduction of liberty, most people will become desensitized to the reaction.
Such intelligence could not be admissible in court, but it just might stop the next attack.
There is no forfeiture of rights here.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Cannot be used as evidence?
Those wiretaps J. Edgar Hoover had done on "suspected communists" weren't admissable in court either. I'm sure he never had any intention of using them that way...
That shouldn't matter.
Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives.
Do we really have any evidence that such a thing has actually occurred, or is even likely to occur? Seems to me that occam's razor would indicate that Ashcroft is using 9/11 cynically to get an agenda across that has not one damn thing to do with terrorism.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives.
The above comment couldn't be more true. In 1814 the British (yes, those of the same country of Tony Blair, the Queen Mum, and the egghead Prince Charles) entered Washington and burned the White House to the ground. The White House. Did we panic? No. Did we run? No. We stood our ground. And we did nothing to undermine the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the bullshit being signed into law after the WTC Attacks.
Why did we do no such thing? Because our fore fathers, unlike us, knew that fear was our only enemy. Fear was the only thing that could do us in. They knew that if we recieved enough "attacks" and we kept signing in new bills, eventually we would end up right where we were when we lived under british law.
Thus, the just rebuilt the White House. Now, what would happen if the White House was burned down today? Obvioulsy massive legislation would be passed faster than you could say 'what the fuck?!?'.
How much longer till our laws start to mirror the actions of our enemies? Now look at us. The very country that our fore fathers broke us off from is now in bed with our president. Fuck the Queen and brush her teeth!
We have swapped the 'God, Guns, Guts' for 'Nintendo, MTV, Mcdonalds' to keep us free. Until we realize what is truly important, nobody will give a shit. And it never matters until everything you have is taken away.
We once had something great. Not anymore. This is the type of shit that happens when a person's bubble is burst. They refuse to look at events leading up to what happened, and react without thinking when their bubble is burst.
The Constitution was once there to protect us. Now nobody cares. But in the end, apathy will kill you.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Removing judicial oversight is a *huge* step.
Think about it. Justice will have no problem getting a federal judge to grant them that right in today's climate for today's terrorist suspects. They can get it in a matter of hours, and the suspect's in custody and ain't going anywhere for a bit anyway.
The AG has given us no evidence that the courts have hindered them in any way in their efforts to investigate this act of terrorism, past acts of terrorism, or any acts that may lead to future terrorism.
Ashcraft's taking advantage of the situation to remove judicial oversight because he knows that he can get away with it in today's climate. And can then proceed to use it in those cases where a federal judge is likely to say "no". Cases where it is unwarranted, in other words, and cases not connected to recent terrorist events...
If you don't think the goal is to eventually gain the right to monitor client-attorney communications for *all* suspects in jail, you're smokin' something far too strong to be good for your mental health...
Wonder how long before lawers start using encrypted phones...
No one is talking about throwing the constitution out the window. No, not even Bush et al. But sometimes you have to live in the real world, not this ivory tower world where the police have no surveillance powers at all and must catch all criminals in the act with a full video record.
It's amazing how many people lately aren't able to read between the lines. If tons of unreasonable surveillance laws that ignore the fourth amendment are passed, then the fourth amendment is abolished. Do you really need to hear George Bush publicly say, "I'm abolishing the fourth amendment" before you believe that it's been ignored, tread upon, and fully abolished?
This reminds me of all of those gun control people that actually try to argue that "We're not trying to abolish the second amendment. We're just trying to outlaw guns in America". The theft of your constitutional liberties will not come in an open statement by the President of the United States. It will come in a horde of small laws written by Congress and endorsed by the President and Attorney General that chip away at it until it's completely ignored in contemporary law.
If it makes you feel better to mod me down for stating this fact, fine. But be aware governments are not benign entities. There are some truly evil people out there, and they don't all live in the deserts of Afghanistan.
Show me where, in the Constitution, one has a right to private communication with one's lawyer.
Show me where, in the Constitution, the government has the right to eavedrop on a person "presumed innocent" without a warrant.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
The constitution is not worth a damn if our freedom and liberty is taken away by external enemies.
Is the constitution worth any more if our freedom and liberty is taken away by internal enemies?
While works of fiction are useful to show us how things might turn out, they are not good basis for law.
And truth is always stranger than fiction.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.