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.

Comments

Welcome to the Police State

[Dredd13]

Not to say "I told you so", because I'm preaching to the choir, but this is just another step towards ensuring that the citizens of this modern day Republic can become subjects of an oppressive government again.

This is completely useless against terrorists. Terrorists don't hire lawyers and chat about their actions beforehand. Terrorists plan long and quietly, and then without warning even their friends and roommates, they blow shit up.

The only excuse for policies such as this is to enable fishing expeditions where people "suspected" of something can have their rights and privacy stripped away from them without them even knowing it.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

That's an exaggeration to make the point, but I think we can be a little flexible and recognize when very practical problems need a resolution, like terrorists using lawyers to plan their next attack. If we ever caught bin Laden and put him in jail, does anyone doubt that is exactly what would happen?

Um, I doubt it. I think many sane people doubt it. Do you think that guys like that will ever assume they are not being bugged, no matter what constitutional guarantees are declared? The effect of this is to chill attorney-client privilege in all cases for no demonstrable gain. The power to monitor exists already... it's just locked behind that quaint, old-fashioned stumbling block, judicial oversight .

The DOJ is proposing limiting a time-honored and well-established right. It's doing so despite the existence of mechanisms to achieve the stated ends. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein this behavior has occured. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein the new rules would have prevented a terrorist act. I believe it's reasonable to ask for proof and evidence before sacrificing a constitutional guarantee, even in a small way.

This should not be that surprising

[peripatetic_bum]

I dont know if you know this, but the I remember the 'BAR' made a new resolution that if a lawyer knows his 'client' is actively breaking the law that he needs to report him. It seems that there seems to be a shift from the wildly permissive atitude of a lawyer-client privacy to a more balanced view, but if this CNN report is true, then who isnt safe from being 'listened' in on, without any due process.

Clarifications

[Debillitatus]

There are a few things in the article which are not mentioned, or perhaps even misrepresented, in the summary. When I first read the summary, I was both surprised and worried, because it sounds pretty rough.

But as the CNN article states, this monitoring has many restrictions. First, the detainee must be informed of it, so there is no potential for the type of abuse which would make all detainees afraid to speak to their attorney; everyone would know when they were subject to such monitoring. Second, and even more importantly, this monitoring cannot be used as evidence against the detainee. The summary doesn't mention this, and this is crucial. The monitoring can only be used for informational purposes, to stop other crimes. And it is common that detainees communicate with the outside world with their lawyers, and I'm sure we can all believe there are situations where the detainee is communicating details of future crimes to their associates.

I guess one thing is true is that this probably has less to do with terrorism than the administration would have us believe. It seems as though this is something which would be more effective against organized crime than terrorism.

But once you actually read the article, this isn't such a big deal, and, in the grand scheme of things, might even be a good idea.

SURE you can expect the gov't to keep their word..

[Sleepy]

... just ask any Native American how good the word of our government is.

Expect COMPLETE PARITY between the laws governing "terrorism" and the war on "drugs".

The irony is, the people pushing for these laws are the same people who screamed bloody murder about Ruby Ridge, or Waco Texas. Now it's their turn.

And since ANONYMOUS TIPS can be used to gain a search warrent, I sincerely doubt the claim "none of this is admissible". Just launder you ill-gained evidence through an anonymous tip, get a warrant, and use that evidence instead. There are enough loopholes to fit a fleet of 18-wheelers through.