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
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.
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.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Why oh why can we geeks never understand that the Justice Department is not the "Judicial Branch" that we all learned was a part of the system of checks and balances. This doesn't mean anything is going to happen. The Justice Department, which is part of the Executive branch, is lead by John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft is essentially a fascist. He will stop at nothing to snoop and pry into everyone's private affairs, using tax dollars to do it the whole time. He's basically our generation's version of J. Edgar Hoover, except he hasn't been successful yet.
I'm not worried. Congress would probably never think of allowing this, and the Supreme Court would basically be asking for a revolution if they allowed such a thing.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
upside down.
sulli
RTFJ.
I'm hazy on the subject, but I believe that there is no constitutional right to lawyer-client privacy. I'm under the impression that, like therapist confidentiality, it's mostly a matter of common consensus -- the bar association and the government have simply agreed to uphold this as a tradition. IIRC, there was some great contoversy last year when the bar association decided to relax its policy to allow lawyers to step forward with privileged information which presented a clear and direct threat to the safety of others.
Is my understanding correct? Is there any consitutional protection, or protection in federal law, of attorney-client privilege?
Is it time to propose a new consitutional amendment?
I would love to see how the right to counsel is being taken away. As far as I can tell, the only 'right' being taken away is that of privacy, which is automatically given up when you're a federal detainee. You should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Now, if you'd like to discuss how attorney-client privelege is being taken away, that'd be something different. But please don't spread FUD that civil rights to counsel are being taken away. That's absolutely ludicrous.
Please, also note how exactly the information is going to be used.
- "No information that is protected by attorney-client privilege may be used for prosecution," the statement said. "There is not protection however, for communications related to the client's ongoing or contemplated illegal acts."
There's massive differences between the two. Get them straight before you whine about terrorist's rights being taken away.they're=their
...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.
What happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
So now they abuse their power by changing the laws when its convient.
t
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"The Justice Department said less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal inmates are subject to the provision that allows such monitoring. It pointed out most inmates subject to special administrative measure have no relation to the terrorism investigation, spawned by the deadly September 11 hijackings and attacks."
I'm not saying I agree with this, but at least keep in mind that this is limited in scope. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all that, but while you're fighting against stuff it's important to realize what you're fighting against.
This is not "let's completely throw away client-attorney privilege", it's "let's recognize that sometimes national security takes precedence". You still may disagree with this, but at least fight the correct target.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
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.
So......what ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? They're prisoners during detainment, yes, but it's not certain that they've done anything. This is the equivalent of taking away someone's rights because "we think you've done something wrong".
I don't think this in any way violates right to counsel.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
I would think that to a great extent Attorney/Client privilege is one of the last true guarantors of a fair trial. If the prosecuting entity is aware of any and all possible defenses likely to be put forth by a defendant (regardless of actual guilt) they are likely to be able to counter in an effective manner. This will simply add to the public supposition that any one "guilty" enough to be indicted is guilty in fact.
True, the events of September 11 were tragic in scope beyond any most of us have seen before - but this is hardly a reason to let our basic human and legal rights slip so quickly. Only weeks ago I was decrying the "slippery slope" argument as reactionary - I'm sadly becoming somewhat of a believer.
Join the ACLU, write your congressman, speak out - before you're sitting in a glass walled booth with last years law school class listening in on your every word.
\Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
[Assuming optimistically that you're not a troll.]
Are you not familiar with the concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty"? I know it's a bit out of fashion these days, but still...
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Hello, former Attorney General Ed "by definition, all suspects are guilty" Meese!
We are not talking about people convicted of a crime. We are talking about people who have been DETAINED pending trial... possibly even without formal charges filed yet. These are people who can't make bail, who are considered flight risks, etc., but not convicted of any crime.
And while there are some practical reasons to support this change (esp. if the DoJ establishes a "wall" between the people who listen to these conversations for insight into future acts of terrorism and those who prosecute the individuals for any crimes previously committed), it has one huge constitutional drawback - it establishes two standards of treatment for defendants. If you're detained, the DoJ can eavesdrop on your conversations with your lawyer. If you can post bail, they can't. (Think they'll be able to bug lawyer's offices? ha ha ha ha!)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
99 civil rights on the wall, 99 civil rights, take on down, throw it away, 98 civil rights on the wall ....
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Umm. How the hell did this get a Score of 3? They are DETAINEES. They have yet to be convicted in a court of law. And most of the article went on about how preventing candid discussions between a lawyer and the SUSPECT might have implications on the defence.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Did you even read the article?
I guess I misunderstood the article. for some reason I was thinking about those who were tried & convicted. I believe that if it has been proven that you are indeed guilty of committing a crime, you have no rights.
I have always thought that it is immoral to keep those who are awaiting trial detained. Those who who have to withstand the sometimes lengthy trial process suffer for no reason. So please, disregard my parent post.. those who have not been proven guilty DESERVE their rights.
It seems apparent to me that you did not read the article or at least understand the full implications. This proclimation by Ashcroft allows the DoJ to listen in even on conversations between lawyers and detainees who have not even been charged with a crime yet. Its a fairly blatant threat to the 5th ammendment and our right to free counsel, and borders on entrapment. I'd say that it is fairly clear Ashcroft wants to turn the US into a police state.
-Klep
When will things have gone far enough to justify a revolution? We are taliking about basic rights and freedoms here! These are rights and freedoms that PEOPLE DIED FOR!!!!Earlier today there was an anouncement on slashdot that now even math can be patented. Governmnet and corperations can now TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS!!!Now we will be loosing our right to laywer clien confidentiality! This is argualby one of the most basic rights that we have! so when will the relolution come? how much longer can this go on? I say that a revolution would be moraly acceptable now. I do not think that that would be the most likely way to achieve the goal of getting our freedoms back. Nor do I think it would be the best way. I do however think that RIGHT NOW a revolution would be acceptable. That is scarry! If and when the revolution comes I suggest that the DOJ is the first against the wall. Then the Republicans. Then The Democrats. Then Microsoft! Wohoo! Just what I think.
I don't reply to ACs but if I did I hope it would be as funny as yours..Dear Genius...hehe
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Come on, give it up, that's
A client of a lawyer has been arrested because he most probably broke the law. If the client somehow admits to breaking that law to his lawyer or to a jury, and because of that he gets punished for breaking the law, well, great. Justice being done. If client has a problem with that he should not have broken the law.
I do realise that statement is a little bit black and white. I think that some sort of rules would need to apply for this, e.g. only allowing it for really serious offenses, not for traffic violations.
I admit I haven't read the article yet, so maybe restrictions are already in place. If not, that is something that will probably be worked out later...
karma capped
If everyone makes a big stink, then they back down. If no one opposes them, then they win.
I cannot imagine it standing up well in court, unless it is one of those secret FISA courts.
Now is the time to keep vigilent and make a stink.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
... 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 are detainees, NOT convicted of anything, and in general NOT EVEN CHARGED with anything. One man was held for three weeks because he called the FBI and told them that he had rented a room to one of the hijackers for a while...
I guess landlords are automatically criminals, eh?
Yowza, I don't think I want to live in your world. Here's a clue, pal: not everyone in jail is guilty. Quite often, in fact, people are jailed only briefly and then released. Sometimes people are tried and (*gasp*) not convicted, which according to our system means that they weren't guilty in the first place.
Are you trolling, or do you really mean to suggest that every single person suspected of a crime should have all their rights stripped before they're convicted of a thing? That all citizens should, in effect, be judged guilty until proven innocent?
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Being suspected or charged with a crime does not mean that you are guilty!
What if YOU were wrongly charged with a crime, would YOU want to have no rights whatsoever?
Jeez.
That move...is necessary to help "prevent further terrorist acts,"
The article goes on to state
The Justice Department said less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal inmates are subject to the provision that allows such monitoring. It pointed out most inmates subject to special administrative measure have no relation to the terrorism investigation, spawned by the deadly September 11 hijackings and attacks.
That prevents further terrorist acts, how? By monitoring non-terrorists? I'm gonna go prevent terrorism by washing my car.
>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.
I realize they're saying that they are only going to use information about the person's "ongoing" crime or crime's they're considering committing, but who among us really believes them?
Granted, the person in prison really ought to NOT tell their lawyers other illicit plans (simply because it's a dumb idea) however they should NOT be listened to anyway.
I don't believe the article when it says that eavesdropped material in the current case wouldn't be used. Of course it would be used. People can't hear things that are pertinent to something their working on and not incorporate that extra information into what they're going to do somehow. It's human nature.
You're worried about terrorism? This won't stop terrorism one bit, because a real terrorist isn't going to trust their random court appointed lawyer. Even if he's their own lawyer, he's not going to go on about how he's going to kill people. It's dumb.
But I bet you the government says they will and they'll use that "admission" to keep them locked away for a good long time before a trial. Even besides that, they'll go to the public and say "This person confessed to being a murderer to his attorney, and he indicated persons X, Y and Z" they then arrest X Y and Z whether or not the person said it, and the government gets carte blanche . . .
Hooray abuse of power.
I can't see this going anywhere good . . .
All I can say is I'm glad I'm not an arab . . . and my prayers to all of the arabs to weather the propaganada storm.
K
Did you read the article or are you just posting inflamatory material for kicks. First, the Government never said Council was being denied. Second, they put up huge road blocks to insure that Government lawyers don't have access to privledged information. Third, they tell the prisoners that this particular action is being taken. All of this is safeguarded by a requirement that they have to show to a judge that there is a good chance the prisoner knows something about future terrorist attacks.
Not to mention that if a future terrorist attack did happen and they could have prevented it by listening in on the interviews, loss to life could be catastrophic.
Remember the life you save, could be your own.
Beware the wood elf!!!
Such as already-tapped cell phone conversations and the like. And it is limited to situations where a case was not yet existing, where the client was asking if it would be legal if they did something - but still, the chilling effect is quite evident.
Although slippery slope argunements are usually incomplete logic - this would mean that first clients would have to learn to stop asking for councel from their own attourneys, which should in itself damage the client-attourney relationship, damaging the very basis of the U.S. legal system. Just because a confession doesn't take place on sunday in a confessional, but instead takes place in a letter to a priest, does not mean that the priest has to hand over the letter if asked. Also similar though would be a client asking for advice from a psychologist over the phone - to take such conversations to court is chilling in many ways. What form of servailance is fair, what is not? Would it be legal to install transmitters into all defence attourneys?
Ryan Fenton
Its great that I have the right to say this isnt it? Well along the same lines, I have some other freedoms, that the government is supposed to protect (not provide mind you), as well. See these if nothing else:
This is a clear abuse of power against our rights.
Pull your head out of the police state cloud, a loss of freedom does not ensure greater safety in general for the populace.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
The amazing thing is how badly your arguement plays out in the real world.
Only a small percentage of those who commit crimes are arrested and prosecuted.
Those who are arrested are those the police make the decision it's worth arresting, i.e. those who it's damn well likely have committed a crime.
People know this. Ordinary people. They don't buy your BS about "oooh, think of the poor innnocent street thugs."
Better get a clue. There's a real world out there waiting.
IANAL (but I watch Law and Order) As criminals, any information gained from bugging conversations is inadmissable, as in anything gained from the illegally obtained information unless the prosecution can show that discovery was inevitable.
However, no such prohibition applys to POWS or espionage and many other countries do not have prohibitions against bugging conversations.
We can't convict you here in the US, but we can deport you to our allies in Turkey
or
We no longer consider you a criminal, but a foreign national spy. Welcome to Levenworth.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
First, note the link on the attached story: this is a *proposed* rule, not an accepted one.
Second, the attorney-client privilege is one of the most strongly-defended privacy rights. While it is true that attorney-client privilege does not protect prospective crimes, in order to break the privilege, the government must be able to convince a judge that there is a very strong likelihood of the commision of a crime in the near future. Being in jail, even for a heinous crime, is not grounds for a strong suspicion.
Bottom line: They may try this, but the first judge who sees it will throw it out.
* 2001-11-09 00:37:56 Att Gen Further Destroys Rights (articles,usa) (rejected)
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Keep repeating that to yourself until you get wrongfully busted. When someone then says that you probably belong to the huge intercept and they throw your ass in jail just wait for the goatse.cx:iation of uranus.
Come talk to us again when you stop being 15, and stop seeing the world in such stark contrast.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
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.
In this war that is being waged with such religous fervour by both sides, nothing seems to be holy anymore. Such bitter irony. And Bush still talks about fighting for freedom... yeah, right...
There is a more in depth Associated Press article on the subject here.
Also, in related news, the ancient and extremely dangerous sedition laws are being expanded and rehabilitated. These are the laws that were used to jail anarchists and communists for their opinions during the McCarthy era.
Please see this post, I reneged what I had said in total error. I was speaking out of ignorance.
5 46 469 for the goatsex weary
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23590&cid=2
To put your mind at ease if you're too lazy to click the link in the article, I'll reproduce the most relevant part here:
If you don't get it, read that again. Now, what is there to whine about? I'm all for Civil Liberties, but this case has absolutely nothing to do with Civil Liberties. Terrorists, especially foreign terrorists, have no Civil Liberties to be concerned with, as far as I and 99.9% of Americans are concerned.
From my experience, conservatives are rather unhappy with the ACLU. This might seem counterintuitive but the very act of supporting a cause, by a despised entity, can significantly harm it. If the ACLU were to stay out of these civil liberties issues, I don't care about rather they defend other issues though, maybe more conservatives would put more thought into rather we should abolish certain liberties.
Dept. of John goes soft on big business.
"Quick, while they're all watching the war in Afghanistan, let's slip these things under their noses..."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So we are just going to skip the trial part? Dear God, have you lost your mind? Remember when we kept getting told this whole thing was a struggle between civilization and barbarism? Well, holding prisoners indefinately and denying them attorney/client privelege takes us back about to the dark ages.
If this their answer, the terrorists can stay home from now on. We took care of that whole civilization thing.
Anything "they" learn would never make it into court. If the public is asking for protection then they should probably be interested in what a terrorism suspect would communicate to the outside world, at this time. Even if done so through his/her lawyer.
Lets roll! Steamroll!
This is a hard area to get right. The problem is that about 95% of the time (just a straw poll figure from a defence lawyer I know) the government got it right, and the person charged is guilty. So there is alot of effort in keeping (mostly) the 5% of non offenders out of jail.
Its always been considered that it was better to let alot of guilty people go free than to convict one innocent - and that is the principal which gives the accused so many rights (in the first world, at least).
The disadvantage of this approach is that it means that you will let some guilty people go free. Its an acknowledgement of lack of sensitivity and specificity of the legal process as a tool for justice.
In the context of the recent terrorist attacks, society has become alot more afraid or letting a few guilty people go free, and there is a big push to strengthen laws and reduce certain freedoms.
How you feel on this is your own business.
The problem I see is that the justice system and the law remain lacking in sensitivity and specifity. They tend to pick up people after the fact. Many things are being pushed forward here in the name of improving safety and security for all, but when you think it through few if any of them really have any relevance to what happened, or would have prevented it.
Countries around the world are tightening their legislation in response to September 11. The people expect something done, and the government will do.
Removing someones right to counsel isn't really going to help the situation. It isn't going to prevent terrorist attacks. It will mean that the small percentage of those detained will be reluctant to get advice, and therefore may not defend themselves properly. Ultimately, innocent people may well be imprisoned because of this loss of confidential advice. Certainly, guilty people may end up convicted of far worse crimes than they actually did.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
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 agree! However, after they have served their time and gotten out, I think they should be given every single right back. While in prison you should be under constant control by the government. This is assuming they haven't commited such a heinous crime that disqualifies them from parole or release.
NT I said!..
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
If you think this stinks, do something about it. Write your congressmen. Today. Tomorrow is way too late.
This site will send your senators and representatives a fax for free.
If you really care about this, then write. All it takes is time and will. Keep it short, polite, on topic, just 2 or 3 points and tell them you are a constituent.
=brian
"Drop a frog in boiling water and it will jump out. Heat the water slowly and it will die."
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?
"...help, help, I'm being repressed!" "Bloody peasant!" :)
... unless you're unpatriotic of course, in that case, I hope the NSA throws you in jail, you worthless commie!!"
What began as a disaster has turned into a blessing for the government! Under the guise of ridding our world of terrorism; they've simply pulled the constitution out from under us. "Well, we won't be needing THIS anymore, now will we?", they say, tearing it several times and discarding it. "Now, where was that self-help book on building a better government?" Looking around briefly, they spot a book entitled "1984" lying on a table. "AH! There it is!"
Patriot talk: "I'm willing to sacrifice ALL my civil rights, if it will keep America the land of the FREE!"
Patriot talk: "America means FREEDOM! And that means you can be whoever you want to be, you can say whatever you want to say, without fear
Seriously, who here has the balls to put a sticker that says "Proud to be unpatriotic" on their brand new car?? I dare you! In this country, where people are supposed to be free, the patriots are the ones who are the most oppressive.
Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
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
A number of the detainees aren't being held on any sort of charge, but rather are being held as material witnesses. so much for innocent people and their rights...
What's even worse is that no one really knows how many people are still being detained in this manner.
Actually, you don't know that.
They should have the presumption of innocence.
Those who feel otherwise should try living in a police state.
Those who feel a police state is an improvement should stay there.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Must we whisper to each other in shadowed alleyways?
Actually, that kind of behavior can get a Lawyer disbarred. The court expects attorneys to give their clients the best defense possible. Furthermore, attorneys have it in their career interest to not reveal that information. I mean who wants to hire a lawyer who loses?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Assholz like you are the reason why our government must be constrained. Kevin Mitnick was a prisoner too. In what way did his freedom pose a threat to society?
What if anybody who is a "hacker" as the press misuse the word were accused and then jailed based on some non-crime. Yeah, by the simple act of downloading a copyrighted MP3 and being traced, you could be jailed first for an indeterminate period of time. I don't care what you think. It's about what is the law and how do you make sure that law enforcement (The Executive Branch) abides by the law when arresting you?
You sir, are an idiot and your opinion is not fit for public consumption. You display a unique short-sightedness and selfishness I have not seen
since a blind sow sat in the middle of the interstate interrupting traffic until the semi tagged her.
Moron.
Slashdot is doing some screwy things lately. I've had entire posts turned into links because /. removed a closing anchor tag somehow. I repasted my post (i always copy a post before submitting now since it fails so often) into notepad, so I know that it wasn't my mistake.
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.
I'm not trolling here, it's an honest question.
What is the logic behind ACP? After all, under the law, an attorney is not allowed to silently watch his client tell a lie to the court. (As an officer of the court, (s)he's obligated to not allow a 'fraud on the court'.) A lawyer friend of mine said that this means that OJ's attorneys probably never asked him if killed Ron and Nicole.
So, it's not to allow the client to honestly discuss his or her case with an attorney. What is it for?
... 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.
But this is surely good - everyone knows that American police stations come with microphones builtin, now they just have to admit it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
At least, that's the way it used to be...
sPh
Conservatives love or hate them often because the ACLU often defends the technical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, sometimes the spirit of it. Frequently well-intentioned politicians try to get laws on the books that fly in the face of constititional rights, and conservatives, as well as liberals, are no strangers to conflict with the ACLU. After all, the ACLU opposes any manifestation of religion in public schools and has defended the rights of Klansmen and Nazis to speak their minds.
It's a double edged sword, to be sure, but last time I looked at the characterization of justice, she wields a double-edged sword, not a cutlass.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Personally, I just think it's funny that they insist on calling it the "Justice Department".
Amen.
It's not often that I find myself agreeing so strongly with an AC, but now is one of those times! The concept of Human rights is one of those crucial ideas that practically all of modern civilization is based on. I just assume that everyone understands this and then get shocked (with disturbing frequently) when someone in a developed nation (with internet access even!) clearly has yet to grasp it.
What hope have we for the Taliban to understand human rights when there are slashdotters that don't even understand them.
/joeyo
2^5
What makes you think the police, Federal or otherwise, don't already try and listen in on lawyer-client communications? I'm sure they get all sorts of hints and tidbits. They can't use the recordings in court, of course; all they have to do is make up a new train of investigation that (re)leads them to the evidence.
The only difference now is that they no longer have to go to the trouble.
</paranoia>
Nitpick: It's innocent unless proven guilty...
</pet peeve>
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
or some reason I was thinking about those who were tried & convicted. I believe that if it has been proven that you are indeed guilty of committing a crime, you have no rights.
That's a load of crap, for two reasons.
1) Wrongful convictions. If you look here you will see several cases of people jailed for murder, and released years later when they were found to have been innocent of that crime (thanks to advances like DNA testing). These are Canadian cases, but I'm sure there are American examples as well; hopefully they all lived long enough to take advantage of their overturned conviction.
2) Bad or arbitrary laws. People can be locked up in one area for behaviour that is perfectly acceptable in another area (e.g. drug and alcohol laws in Netherlands vs. USA vs. Saudi Arabia, the Dmitry/DMCA thing, or those quaint areas where certain sexual acts between consenting adults are illegal).
In both cases, I believe the person involved does NOT automatically lose all of his rights once he's convicted. The person in the first case has a right to say "I didn't commit this crime", and the person in the second case has a right to say "What I did shouldn't be a crime". Take those rights away, and you're heading down a *very* slippery slope. [rather than invoke Godwin's law, I'll stop here]
Somebody mod this to Troll, PLEASE!!!!!!
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
The Attorney-Client Privelege is not "everything between lawyer and client is secret", there are exceptions. One expection that's been around for awhile is that the client can't use the the lawyer to do other crimes- one of which might be with holding knowledge of a future terrorist act.
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?
Even if you are convicted, you have rights.
The priciple here is that even if you do something wrong, you generally are and could be again a useful member of society.
Most crimes are pretty low level, inconsequential stuff. A few are major.
Even if the person is guilty of somthing serious, eg., major theft, doesn't mean that they should lose all their rights.
I'm sure you understand this too. You aren't seriously suggesting that it would be ok to, for example, break the arms and legs of someone because they stole some money, are you?
Really, only the worst of offences deserve the worst of punishments.
Very few people have never broken the law. Probably no one by the time they become adult. I mean, you have never run a red light? Always returned the extra money back when you were given too much change back from a purchase? (If you did this knowingly, its pretty close to theft!).
But these are MINOR crimes, and we would have to lock up everyone to deal with them. For which there is no need, and no real threat to society. Except if you try and introduce a police state to deal with it.
Think it through.
Even if you commit a crime, you should still have rights.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
The ACLU protects civil liberties in name only.
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!)
I don't care what you think about school prayer. Get rid of your preconceptions, and think about it. Should a group with the name "American Civil Liberties Union" be for or against allowing children to worship as they wish?
Free unix account: freeshell.org
There is a difference between actively breaking the law and having broken a law. There is nothing that a defendent should be able to say to her attorney that can incriminate them further or hurt their chances. Basically, if you can not trust your attorney, who can you trust?
If you are breaking the law, being a lawyer does not give you a license to be a consigliere.
So basically, in my opinion what you cited is a good point, but not necessarily related to bugging attorney-client conversations.
www.nedyah.org
Troll Like a Champion Today
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!")
This is an EXTREMELY limited provision. It appears to be intended to be used when there is a good possibility of the client-attorney privelege being abused to create more terrorism.
Put it this way: If Osama bin Laden wanted to talk to someone he claimed was his "lawyer", yet we had good intelligence that this "lawyer" was actually a head of a terrorist cell, then it might be a good idea to not allow lives to be endangered in that way.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I guess my beef is that if we are going to run out and claim we are fighting for our way of life it seems seriously hypocritical to then go and make laws that destroy that way of life.
But you want me to pony up, fine.
Did I say no eavesdropping? No. Honestly the problem with the DOJ's plan isn't that what they want to achieve but the way they are going about it. I can see their concerns and I think what they want to do may be necessary but there's absolutely no oversight in it outside of the DOJ. How about a congressional oversight commitee? How about a special judicial warrant? Yes these things would take time to set up, but if we really care about that way of life I think we need to show a little patience.
How do you deal with hijacking planes? Put armed police officers on board. Simple. It's clear how hard it is to sneak something more than knife on board an airplance because I'm sure they'd have prefered better firepower. So if we just have them outgunned by secret people on the plane, that's fine. Might be pricey but well worth it in my mind.
How do you stop car bombs, etc, you do it the same way that they always have. You use human intelligence. Any operation involving more than one person is prone to information leaks that can be picked up on. How many terrorist attacks don't happen for every one that does? Overall their methods are actually pretty effective. Yes, every so often something does go wrong, and on 9/11 something VERY big went wrong. It happens, and giveing the DOJ the keys to the kingdom doesn't solve that.
Let's remember here that the leader of this terrorist operation was a known suspected terrorist. I think there was a lot that could have been done to watch him better that wasn't. He could have been stopped with a proper investment in the legal tools that were at the DOJ's disposal before 9/11 happened. But it didn't stop him, so what makes us think giving all these more powers will make any greater difference.
Personally, and I'm sure many will find this controversial, nay abhorrent, but I think that the freedoms we have fought for in this country are worth sacrifice. That if every so often people have to die because we choose to live in a free society, then I think that's okay. I'd rather live free and die at the hands of a terrorist than turn this country into a police state. I grant you, I lost nobody I was close to on 9/11, so maybe I might feel different if that was the case, but from where I stand now, I feel that the people who died were some of the greatest patriots and that to throw away our rights to seek vengeance for them is a dishonors their memory.
But I digress. What it boils down to is that if we funded the DOJ better and the intelligence departments better and they did a better job of using the tools they have at their disposal, I think we could go a long way to stopping these terrorists without having to throw a bunch of liberty infringing laws on the books.
I could go into trying to create a better balanced world economy and ceasing to support opressive governments, but that's an entirely different story.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Scuse me...
They might be prisoners, but as long as they are not convicted they're only *suspected* of commiting a crime. That's what they employ those lawyers for in the first place, to defend them in a court of law. Now of course, lawyers being what they often are (for sale), it will be interesting for the prosecution to know what is discussed between the lawyers and their clients.
But what now if the person in jail is really not guilty of any crime you and I would label as such, and is just 'guilty' of opposing (someone in) government, or someone who has power over said government? Would you label such a prisoner a 'criminal'? And would you want the government to have these means to convict said person? Remember, if you want to beat a dog, you'll always be able to find a stick somewhere...
--frank[at]unternet.org
So at least they are having the decency to call this out into the open rather than doing it secretly. I think what they are wanting to do here isn't entirely wrong but the way they are going about it is really bad. If this had strict judicial or congressional oversight I could probably be convinced that this is okay, but that they are just saying "trust us" seems risky.
When the DOJ brought this idea up it reminded me of the scandal that unfolded in LA over wiretaps. The LA police were taking wiretaps on a specific individual and then using information about other individuals, outside the scope of the warrant, to launch other investigations. The way they did this was by passing "anonymous tips" internally.
If a judge or congress was privy to all of the information that was being collected, then they would have the capability to smell out foul play by the DOJ. What i'm imagining is that somebody at the DOJ refers to an anonymous tip, so then the judge searches through a little database for that information and finds out it was in a transcript from a conversation that was supposed to be subject to attorney-client privilege.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
>
> Those who feel otherwise should try living in a police state.
>
> Those who feel a police state is an improvement should stay there.
And if 200 million out of 300 million Americans are already convinced that a police state is an improvement, then what?
Easier by far, methinks, to relocate or re-educate the 100 million in the minority.
Of the minority, I would suspect that 90% or more can be trivially pacified by just waiting a year or two (c'mon, how many of you American Slashdotters left the country due to Clipper, CDA, COPPA, DMCA, and of the 99% of you still here, how many will leave due to the upcoming SSSCA?).
This leaves only a hard core of, at most, million or so unreliable elements for increased surveillance to identify and eliminate the few thousand who actually present any threat.
Not pretty, but considering the body count racked up by states which tried it achieved before the availability of widespread high-tech surveillance, nowhere near as ugly, nor as disruptive to the economy, as it would have been even in the J. Edgar Hoover era.
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.
If a suspected terrorist's attorney is suspected of assisting the detainee in the plotting of more terrorist acts, why are we not detaining the attorney too? Give him a cell and a wall full of law books, or whatever else he needs to research his case, and let them consult in private. There is no need to listen in.
Edith Keeler Must Die
If the lawyer is suspected to be relaying instructions, then it would actually be of benefit to NOT eavesdrop. Why? Because then the FBI can tail the attorney (based on a court order) and hopefully reveal the entire network. The big advantage to this is that you end up more readily finding out who the rest of the network is AND you can still prosecute.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
Troll alert: Please remain calm. The Slashdot emergency response system would like to remind you that trolls feed on fire and recommends that you put away your flamethrowers and move along.
I read the internet for the articles.
I would have agreed with you once, long ago.. but consider this:
If you let the rights of a "detainee" or "prisoner" decay, under the rationalization that,"Hey, they're prisoners - they broke the law, they forfiet their rights!", you'll regret it when one day the United States has slowly broadened their definition of "illegal" or even "questionable" to include things you do in everyday life; at which point you'll be arrested and YOU will be the very prisoner that you spoke out against.
For instance, look at the story of Brian West - He did NOTHING illegal, but was picked up by the FBI.
In the late dawn of the computer age; our judicial system is STILL very illiterate in the ways of the Internet; and could easily be persuaded by our "honorable" federal agencies that Brian's was an act of TERROR; therefore opening him up to all sorts of violations of his rights under our new laws.
This is why, unfortunately, prisoners must have rights - because they might have broken no laws; but they did something that left a bad taste in the government's mouth.
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Any lawyer that got from his client infomation of pending terrorist attacts and DIDN'T turn such infomation over to the FBI should be DISBARED AT ONCE!!!! Lawyer/client privilage goes about as far as the right to free speech, and not disclosing information like this is about on par with shouting fire in a theatre. If lawyers weren't such assholes this wouldn't be necessary.
Yeah, I say give them a fair trial, and then shoot them.
Mr. Ballz: Useful Idiot for the State.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
America is headed for rainbow fascism. We all drive SUV's and have little american flags. You can be a part of it as long as you blindly follow our countrys idiot leaders.
You don't follow because you agree with what the laws say, but you agree because it was said by the leaders.
To quote the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket: "I am here to weed out all non-hackers" Ie: Get with the program and get in line.
Dont't be fooled, this is abuse. Its time to revolt against oppression. All the things that are in the Declaration Of Independence are true today, except we are more taxed today (on a % basis) then anyone was under the king! Our founding fathers said that we should violently revolt, so its certianly time TO SPEAK UP if nothing else.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Hey so does anyone who voted for this band of criminals feel like they might have fscked up yet?
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.
And now we're resurrecting the Sedition Act. Read about it here. Yup, those were fine times in the uncivil war under Abe "Let's shut down 3000 papers, and to hell with Habeus Corpus and civil justice" Lincoln.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
And if 200 million out of 300 million Americans are already convinced that a police state is an improvement, then what?
Well, I guess you will have to wait for the rebound on all the abuses. I think that the Fed already gets the odd wrong person with fairly disasterous consequences (for the person, not the Fed).
Unless of course they get the press to stop reporting these little problems also.
I hope for everyones sake that people realise how futile alot of this sort of legislation would be - none of it would actually have stopped 9/11 or the anthrax stuff either.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Perhaps what they are concerned about is kids being coerced into praying to a christian God who aren't Christians?
The law protects religious activities that are genuinely student led. What it prohibits is the various subterfuges that have been used in the south to introduce coerced prayer. The courts did nothing to stop student prayer activities until the school boards started to create bogus 'student activities' to give cover for compulsory prayers.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
How to overturn a free society:
1) Take away the rights of criminals.
2) Make everyone criminals.
The amazing thing is how well your argument plays out in a totalitarian state.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I have no opposition to this at all... because they're PRISONERS.
Ever heard of a legal principal called, "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Part of proving someone guilty involves ensuring they can discuss their case freely with their legal counsel. I cannot mount an effective defense if every word I say can be monitored and brought out in court (and out of context, to boot).
Time to put the second amendment to good use before they get rid of that, too.
Liberty in your lifetime
Why are you astonished, or even surprised at this act? It's only been a few days since the current head of what is supposed to be the executive branch of your government issued an executive order that essentially turns the work of the legislative branch on its head, i.e. the law passed in 1978 mandating the release of Presidential records after 12 years. Bush issued an order saying that if the former or sitting president wants those records secret, tough luck, that will be the default and anybody saying otherwise gets to go to court. Precisely the opposite of the law. So why should Ashcroft care two figs about your laws?
Thank You for so clearly pointing out the new policy of the United States Government.
Mindless "Rah, rah, rah, kill 'em all" American sheep such as yourself believe that all people who are arrested are guilty.
Due process is now dead. We just need to rename the country to something with "Democratic" or "People's" in front of it (a la DDR,PROC).
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Everybody here seems to be entirely concerned about privacy, and yet expects people to be open about what they're doing. Why can't we be consistent? Unless you're guilty of a felony type crime, the government wouldn't nail you if they had a 24/7 videofeed, and if you are, punishment will help you change. If your prosecutor was listening in on your conversations with your lawyer, then that would be bad- he'd be able to know how you were going to argue your case before you did it, and he'd have his counterattacks all mapped out. However, if an impartial person listens in, what has an innocent person to fear? Nothing. Unless, of course, the laws are unfair, which should be fixable without tremendous hassle in any nation in the free world.
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
Trivia question: Name the man who was arrested, tried, and convicted for a bus bombing in Israel in 1986, and subsequently released (after much arm-twisting by the US!) as a "political prisoner" as part of the Oslo Accords.
Hint: He capped off a lifelong career of "political protest" by piloting a planeload of civilians into the World Trade Center.
The terrorists didn't use encryption. Perhaps had we "abused" Mr. Atta's rights earlier -- or better yet, realized that "political prisoners" aren't always innocent -- there would be at least 3,000 people still alive, and one tower standing.
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
From the front page of today's (11/9) New York Times:
.. in the last days of his presidential campaign ... complained that ... Gore, 'trusts government, which stands in stark contrast to our view.'"
"... Bush
Is this better than "Read my lips, no new taxes," or what?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Dude - your writing sucks.
But that's not why I'm writing - one of the letters says something to the effect of,"You can't stop us now, we have this anthrax"; then it goes on to say like,"Allah is great" and "USA sucks" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)
This doesn't sound like the anti-abortionists to me.
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Having this sort of thing in place is antethical to the entire concept of freedom and the dream that is America. Also exactly what I was afraid of.
Allow me to paint a new nightmare scenario for you: We catch 50 guys in the al Qaeda network. They ran the operation for bin Laden. We tape priveleged conversations between the accused and their attorneys. After this information is used in the trial, they are convicted.
On appeal, their convictions are overturned because of this foolish behavior.
Get ready, it will happen.
Who did what now?
The ability to wiretap is stated to be slightly more restrictive than the headlines suggest. The enabling act (aka PATRIOT bill) does not require the restrictions stated and the administration has made no commitment to observe the restrictions. All the administration has said is that it will wiretap in certain additional circumstances, it has not said it will not use the unlimited wiretap powers in the bill. So if you are a civil rights activist don't rely on the non-promises.
All in all the administration is making a pigs ear of the war so far. The Brits are pissed off because they can't land their SAS troops and start shooting some Taleban. The French, Germans and Italians are scarred that Bush will listen to the administration hawks calling for bombs to be dropped on Iraq, thus opening up a second front forcing the deployment of toops to protect Saud before the war in Afghanistan has even properly started.
Bush appears to be driven more by the need to win the election than the need to win the war. To win the war he needs to have the help of the muslim countries bordering Afghanistan. Israel is doing its best to force Bush to choose between support for Israel and support from Pakistan. Instead of slapping Sharon down for his trecherous behavior, Bush is dithering in the hope he can pick up the votes of the six members of the Israeli lobby who did not vote for Lieberman.
What we need to see is a bold stroke of leadership. Bush has a perfect opportunity to go for a raprochement with Iran, boosting the democratically elected moderates against the unelected mulahs. Offer to lift the sanctions in return for Iran opening its borders to the refugees. Get the Europeans to supply the necessary food from their EEC grain mountains.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Although I don't know the particulars of these cases involving prayer and the ACLU (I'm Canadian), I will make a personal comment here.
Just as you have the right to pray in school, I have the right to not have to listen to it/participate in it due to my beliefs.
In the schools in Ontario (which is where I'm from), it was the public school that I went to (which is supposed to be religion agnostic) that forced us to say the Lord's Prayer every morning. You didn't like it, you had to leave the classroom until the prayer was finished. In other words, you say the prayer, or you're ostracised.
Luckily by the time I was in grade three, the schools were no longer permitted to do this. However, by grade six, they were back at it.
Personally, I was baptised a Roman Cathlolic, but by faith, I'm an Atheist. I believe that public school is not a place for prayer - if you want to pray, pray at home.
Note that in the case of a private school, it is completely different. In that case, it's put up and shut up.
-- Joe
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Everyone should take a deep breath and remember these points:
1. The fifth amendment will protect you if you committed a crime and told a lawyer about it while somebody was recording, as you cannot be "forced" to incriminate yourself.
2. Such "testimony" will greatly aid the search for accomplices when lawyers cannot divulge such information.
3. Priveleges are not rights. The ACLU is currently inventing the constitutional right of Lawyer-Client privelege when non-such right or privelege is given by the Constitution of the US.
4. Many of those detained in this current action, are not citizens of the US, and do not have the same rights.
5. In almost all true professions, Law and Clergy being the exceptions, practitioners are bound by codes of ethics that demand action when the safety or welfare of other human beings is at stake. Coincidently, this exception drives many lawyers and Priests to alcoholism, and other vices, but that's another post.
-- Len
Lawyers for accused terrorists are on the side of the (accused) terrorists. Since that is so, doesn't it make the lawyers "terrorists"?
Royalty have their bloodlines - control of the state depends on the control of the body of the King or his hiers (or other relatives) - and usually the bloodline is considered anointed/blessed by God: "divine right of Kings".
Dictators have a harder time of it, and must scrabble for what legitimacy they can find. Usually, various pretences of "national emergency" or "the current crisis" is invoked (this worked for the Roman Emperors, plus many 3rd-world tinpot types).
The Communists derived thier legitimacy directly from their ideology: "dictatorship of the proletariat" - it's for the workers (heh).
Western nations generally use voting: "the will of the people". Never mind that not all people can vote, or that the choices provided are very limited, or the popular methods of combining votes (winner take all instead of weighted voting, etc.) tend to reduce choices; because people voted, the results must be "the will of the people".
This is sort of like when you were young and Mom took you out to buy clothes: she chooses the store and pulls a couple of items from the rack that she considers to be acceptable, then you get to pick between the two shades in the same style - not much of a real choice.
Of course, there raises the question as to how much real choice and freedom Americans (or anybody else) can handle - generally anything resembling it is labeled "anarchy" or "chaos" and is "fixed" as soon as possible (like the Net right now, hmmm?).
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
We are turning our society into that which the terrorists originally perceived us to be.
Sad.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
If I had mod points, I would give you all of them. Well said.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
If lawyers are illegal, will only criminals have lawyers?
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
In this New World Order, we will have world governement. Treaties such as NAAFTA and GATT and organizations such as the WTO, WIPO, the Bilderberg group, the European Union have made voting a pointless and futile exercise.
The media under control of a few hyper-rich right-wing barons tells us only what the corporate and governement masters want us to hear.
In short, we are fucked. Democracy if it ever lived is now well and truly dead and buried.
In the next ten years, you will see the number of currencies in the world reduced to three: The US dollar. The Euro. And the Yen.
Eventually these three currencies will be merged, and at that point, World Government will be a reality.
Now, you may think I am a paranoid lunatic, or some deranged black-helicopter spotting wacko, but think about it. In the recent UK general election, the turnout was less than the turnout for the 'Big Brother' TV program. The public has given up and is letting Corporate and Govt/Military interests run things.
Few people are prepared to make a stand on this issue, but the interested reader is referred to David Icke's excellent website, which will explain the global conspiracy in more detail.
thank you
1) If the detainee is told that he is being monitored than he will say nothing to incriminate himself, thus defeating the purpose of monitoring.
1A) But the detainee will also not be able to communicate effectively with his coconspiritors on the outside. Maybe you don't find out as much about the crimes he and his friends are planning but at least you disrupt his ability to commit them.
1B) It's not even true. Many prisoners already have their phone calls (other than to their lawyer) monitored WITH their knowledge and STILL slip up during the flow of conversation.
2) This cant be strictly legal, any information garnered in this way may be challenged and thrown out, again defeating the purpose.
2A) I don't think the law is as clear as you think on this matter.
2B) You may be right though about the legal issue, but the FBI has two tasks which in this case potentially conflict. Their traditional law enforcement task is to bring the guilty to justice which means they have to follow all the niceties of protecting the accused's civil liberties or lose their case because of the exclusionary rule. The other task is to act as a domestic intelligence (or counterintelligence) agency which involves gathering intelligence (in this case to prevent future attacks) regardless of whether or not that intelligence is gathered in a way that will be admissable in court. (sort of like MI6 in the UK which is NOT a law enforcement agency and so has no defacto restrictions on it's methods but also no dejure authority - thus their number one rule is: Thou shalt not get caught) After 9/11 the FBI had a new mandate to put more emphasis on the intelligence gathering rather than only on law enforcement.
3) Assuming the Govt. has arrested over 1000 people so far, and that rate of arrest continues, how many man hours are going to be used up carrying this out. Hours which could be better used in other ways assuming that monitoring will achieve nothing.
Do you have a better way for them to spend their time? Honestly if you know of any more promising leads I would hope that you have already informed the FBI about them. A lot of investigative work is following up every lead or *possiblity of developing a lead* no matter how unpromising it may be. Monitoring the conversations of people you are already suspicious enough to detain is a pretty promising source of future leads.
4) If this does go ahead, how long will it be before its extended out to other cases.
A fair concern but then again the "slippery slope" argument could as easily by used to prevent ANY action by police. "If they put murderers in jail it's only a matter of time before they put jaywalkers in jail! We must protest to stop the jailing of murderers"
5) And if there is no lawyer/client privledge than how can lawyers give clients the best defence possible, which even guilty people deserve, never mind those that have been wrongly accused.
5A) From what I understand this only applies to phone conversations so their right to have confidential conversations with their lawyers is not being denied only the privilege of having private phone conversations which does not seem that unreasonable a restriction considering the number of organised crime figures that manage to run criminal enterprises from jail.
5B) Just a niggling point - the guilty DO NOT deserve the best defence possible. They only thing they deserve is to be punished for their crimes. They have a RIGHT to the best defense possible because we don't know whether they are the guilty or the wrongfully accused. If we KNEW they were guilty we would not need the whole complication of the judicial process.
The "government" is not some anthropomorphic entity that was born in 1776 and lives to the present day, directing the actions of bureaucrats. It is, rather, the combined decisions of thousands upon thousands of individual people, none of whom were even alive when the US pushed westward, conquering Native Americans who were in the way. To think that the actions of a government 150 years ago translate into an accurate barometer of how it will behave today is way off base. If a Jew were imprisoned for robbery in Germany today, it certainly would not make sense to go around screaming "He's going to be put into forced labor camps and eventually executed!"
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Here is an interesting point. When we send soldiers off to war we know there is a chance that they might die for our freedom. Ashcroft is taking away this freedom so that some of us won't have to die in a possible terrorist attack. I suppose his heart is in the right place but personally I would rather take the chance of dieing before letting my freedoms be eroded away. I would rather be killed today than see this country become what it despises tomorrow.
In Republican America phones tap you.
Lets' see now:
First change the laws of physics.
Then Patent what was before defined as the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of how we use abstractions
(I.E., math and software) and then arrest anyone who infringes on it (anyone who thinks for themselves.) Then
spy on their communications with their lawyers (so to insure they don't further infringe of the patents....
When do we build the crosses and who gathers the firewood.
inqusition and witch killings for anyone who thinks and therefore is, a witch..
Unless they have a license to think for themselves.
.
I am not sure what the discussion is about. The US ended on October 26, 2001. There is no US Constitution in effect as of October 26. Get over it. Welcome to the police state (And you thought that everything would grow dark and be reduced to somber sepiatone and monochrome just like the movies. This is real life folks.)
Note: The article (and we only know from the article) does NOT preclude expansion of nor limitations to this new "power." Only an example is provided. I, for one, am fully willing to give up my "safety," even in a case where a "terrorist" may be plotting new actions via an "attorney," to protect the rights of the accused. That is a republic and that is the price we pay for freedom. Unfortunately, the opposit is now true -- the government decides how much power it will take to "assure protection." Thus, we have descended to totalitarianism where others are claiming to protect us (tell that to the families of the 5400+ that died under "protection" of the federal government). This action has further abrogated our former rights as a republic -- thus, by definition, a state of totalitarianism exists. Arguing otherwise is simple ignorance (but, entertaining, nevertheless).
Wonder how long before lawers start using encrypted phones...
A very good reason to actually declare war on Al Queada as an organisation and the Taliban regime. Lately we don't declare wars because there are dipolomatic and sometimes legal advantages to the ambiguity of not declaring war. But that ambiguity is exactly what makes these legal contortions (which to be fair may indeed be necessary to meet the threat) an enduring threat to everyone elses civil liberties.
If we declared war though these guys would be in the worst of all possible worlds before the law. They are out of uniform behind our lines so they would NOT be POW's with the protections of the geneva convention and international law. But they would not be mere criminals either but enemy agents with far fewer legal protections. They get the worst of both worlds and possibly the threat of the death penalty to boot even if the crimes are seemingly trivial - enemy spies during war time are not treated very well by the law. If they are naturalised citizens they would still have the legal protections afforded criminalsm, but they would not be merely guilty of whatever petty crimes they may have commited to aid the actual attack. They would not even be *merely* guilty of conspiracy to commit murder - they WOULD be guilty of treason, which carries the death penalty. And is probably easier to prove in court than conspiracy to commit murder given the compartmentalised nature of the cells. Some little drone who only knows he was to provide money and a fake drivers licence to someone else didn't know he was part of a conspiracy to murder thousands of people. But he DID know he was "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy which is the constitutional definition of treason. Actually since al Quaeda declared war on us when they issued their Fatwa before the law a US citizen IS probably guilty of treason even without a declaration of war from congress.
You're not really up on modern violations of Treaty Rights, are you?
True, genocide is "out" these days, but anyone who pays attention and lives in the West knows that Treaty Rights are frequently under attack and frequently undermined.
It's gotten better in the last three decades, mostly because the tribes have learned to get decent legal help.
Of course, if my religious beliefs dictate abstention from the religious ceremonies of another faith, then by enforcing prayer in a public school you are prohibiting the free exercise of my religion. Or rather, the school board, and by extension, the government, has prohibited it.
On the other hand, you were always free, of your own volition, to pray in school. By forcing me to pray with you, you've violated my right to exercise religion in favour of yours.
Clearly, you haven't thought this through. (Or, you're being wilfully ignorant.)
BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
Actually, from my experience, this may be accurate. :-)
Come on, give it up, that's
Would the real Senator McCarthy please stand up? We've already lost our privacy after passing the almighty PATRIOT act, where law enforcement officials, CIA, FBI, and God knows who else now has the right to obtain information on all your private phone conversations and email if they even suspect that you're sneezing the wrong way. What better way to cap it all off than by completely hammering the Bill of Rights and listening in on a conversation between a lawyer and client? Ooh! I know! Why don't we stuff hidden cameras into confessional booths? Why not just have our neighbors reporting us to the FBI when they suspect us of "un-American" activities? I don't know about you guys, but I'm all pumped up for reliving the Salem witch trials! As a matter of fact, my dog died yesterday, and I think my boss may have had something to do with it. *fume*
Just another reason to go down shooting instead of getting detained.
Personally, I have been trying to obtain a grenade launcher, and had an AK-47 all lined up, but then the 9/11 problems made my purchases a fantasy as all the paranoid fucks jacked the prices up...
God spoke to me
They already started. This began the day before it was announced. I wonder if this will hold up against it's first constitutional challenge? I doubt it.
Carpe Deez
Absolutely not. Neither legal ethics nor any law (in a typical state) require lawyers, or anyone else, to reveal confidential communications (when they're not otherwise liable for the conduct).
Under the ABA's model rules, a lawyer is *permitted*, but not required, to reveal a client's confidences only when *necessary* to *prevent* a crime or fraud reasonably *certain* to cause death or serious bodily injury. (Until this year, the injury also had to be "imminent.") An ordinary robbery wouldn't qualify, and, in any case, a lawyer with his head on straight wouldn't voluntarily turn in his own client.
No, this is not the rule California applies to psychaitrists under _Tarasoff_. That shouldn't be surprising, since few rules of psychiatry apply to lawyers, and vice versa.
Now, of course, it would not be *priveleged*, but that affects only whether it can be kept out of evidence -- not whether the police can be told of it. (Simplifying there a touch.)
Yes, IAAL.
Lionel Hutts, J.D.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Interspousal immunity has nothing to do with priveleges. It's an ancient doctrine with no important force anywhere anymore.
There is a spousal testimony immunity (in many states), which, as you say, permits people not to testify against their spouses at the time of trial, on any subject. This has no equivalent in _any_ other common relationship: your doctor, lawyer, priest or sibling _can_ be forced to testify against you.
There is a second relevant privelege: "marital communications," i.e., confidential communications between spouses are priveleged, and cannot be admitted (over the objection of the party-spouse) even if the witness-spouse wants to testify. This is similar to what lawyers and psychologists get everywhere; doctors have a similar privelege only in a few states and Federal courts.
Finally, no state I know of has codified its law of priveleges. A minimal lawyer-client privelege is guaranteed by the 5th (and 14th) amendments; just about everything else is simply common law.
IAAL.
Lionel Hutts, J.D.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
See the Jerusalem Post. The Mohammed Atta who committed a bus bombing in '86 is a different person from the one who was involved in the WTC attack. People sometimes have the same names, and Mohammed is not exactly a rare name among Muslims. Furthermore, he didn't get released because of US arm twisting; he got released due to the Israeli legal system.
Had we abused Mr. Atta's rights, it would hurt us; discriminating against Arabs because they were Arabic does not the cause of righteousness make.
I have to disagree.
Innocent until proven guilty implies that guilt is presupposed, and that it's just a matter of time until it can be proven.
Simply because many people use language incorrectly does not make that usage valid.
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
It helps to know what amendment we're thumping the pulpit about.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I know this is offtopic, but my head is beginning to hurt from everything going on lately.
.sig kicks ass. That's my favorite quote from him (Spike).
Anyways, that
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
Read. Your analogy just plain sucks, although it may serve your purposes enough. A better example would be a Holocost victim trying to recover stolen property from a German bank, and the bank says "that was SIXTY years ago old man!"
Look up the RECENT troubles in the Black Hills of Dakota. This is *still* going on. The courts have ruled that the Black Hills belong to the native peoples there, but have not been returned.
Leonard Peltier is in fact still in jail in 2001 for his American Indian Movement political activities, despite evidence and admissions that the FBI violated process and the law with his and other cases (such as planting evidence and lying to the court, which was proven in the trials of other people charged).
The most obscene bunch of terrorists are our own law enforcement, for using this terrible tragedy to take away rights that took HUNDREDS OF YEARS to get! THESE are the true terrorists...the police state that's being created by ASScroft et al!
In other words: the US government is prohibited from making any laws that establish a state-endorsed religion, or provide for favorable treatment of one religious group over another; and also from making any laws that keep someone from practicing their religion. The ACLU position clearly violates both provisions of the constitution - they think Congress has the right and responsibility to pass laws regarding religion, and prohibiting the excercise of religious freedom, in order to keep religion from "contaminating" the government.
This is flat-out wrong! There is absolutely NO prohibition against the private exercise of religion in schools as long as it doesn't conflict with the establishment clause. If you think there IS a prohibition, you don't understand the amendment. The ACLU is trying to stop religious advocates from doing damage to the letter and spirit of this amendment. Any conduct that allows taxpayer funds to be turned to religious uses (including paying teachers to initiate or participate in religious observances during class time) is illegal,
If you want to live in a country where a teacher could demand that your child bow to Mecca, say Kaddish, or recite the Lord's prayer before class (these things are equivalent), then leave the United States because it ain't gonna happen here!
There is a fundamental difference between warfare and police action. In warfare we shoot first and ask questions later - or never. When confronted with an enemy - in uniform or out - on a battlefield, a different set of rules apply than would apply in a civil action.
The battlefield has been defined by the terrorists. We must act in knowledge that the rules have changed. US law does recognize the fact that in national emergency, certain constitutional rights can be abrogated.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
The "terrorists" perceptions and arguments about the nature of our society is irrelevant and immaterial. If you are argueing that we are in danger of becoming like them, you are wearing some pretty odd glasses.
The terrorists real aim is to enhance their own power and psychological status among their own perceived peers. Their methods are ultimately irrational because their psychology is pathological. Short term success does not lead to long term survival. But turning our society into one that looks like theirs isn't truly in their plan, it's just a convenient canard to throw at the ignorant masses they prey on.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
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.
You may very well have a point, and I'm not up enough on current Native American affairs to agree or disagree with you. My whole problem, really, is with people who characterize the government in such a fashion as to make it some otherwordly being with no human connections, when it's really just made up of people, some of whom we elected and some of whom are appointed or hired by those whom we elected.
As a postscript, your sig is totally correct. Anonymous moderation is killing
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Problem with this kind of thing is that the wording is such that ANY percieved act of terrorism can be used in the context of this rule.
.. but given that some people are equating hacking as terrorism it can bite us in the ass.
.. though the erosion is getting steeper - given the knockless searches and relaxed wiretap rules in effect currently.
e di tion.ap/index.html
.. for the ignorant .. sedition is detaining and prosecuting someone on the basis of words or ideas .. sort of a version of conspiricy only easier to get a conviction / search warrent / arrest warrent etc>
To put it in a Slashdot content. Given this administration's stated desire to close up crypto laws in this country to pre 95 levels. The line of thinking is something like this - if a terrorist were to use an encrypted text stream to communicate possible acts to another person, and one gets caught - the detail of the communication might not be brought up in court .
Without the privacy normally enjoyed by ANYONE in the US . Than all of a sudden coders for openSSL and openssh are party to terrorism and are open to a visit in the hot seat.
It's a little circumstantial in this instance
This doesn't even begin to look at the small erosion of rights it represents
A larger question is from this link
http://cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/attacks.s
Satsuke
[to the tune of Sultans of Swing by Dire Straits]
You get home late and you hurry to turn on your computer
Waiting for Linux to load takes forever
You log on to slashdot, but it takes too long
You feel all right, when you see the gay intro colors
Now you click on a link but it doesn't load right away
You get some coffee while waiting for the download
Shitty servers, with Linux software
Yeah but at least, they use open source
and post bullshit
and post gay fucking bullshit
You check out Retard Michael, he's a real fag
Mind you he's strictly an anal fiend he doesn't want to jack it off
Old condoms are all, he can afford
When he gets up under the porno lights to shoot his thing
And Hemos doesn't mind, if he doesn't get pussy
He's got a full time boyfriend, he's doing all right
He can suck a cock just like anything
Saving it up for Friday night
With the faggots,
With the faggots of Slashdot
[hey]
And the hundreds of visitors, they are fooling around on the webpage
Bored and drunk with nothing better to do
They don't give a damn about the bullshit slashdot posts
It ain't what they call, 'news for nerds'
And the faggots
And the faggots are buttfucking
(buttfucking, baby)
(uh huh)
[solo]
And then timothy steps up to the keyboard
Typing words in just before he cums
"Microsoft sucks, Linux is great"
and he makes it fast with one more thing
"We are the faggots"
"We are the faggots of Slashdot"
[solo]
Keep this in mind: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
This means that if you did it, you should not get off! If you admit that you did it to your lawyer, he should turn you in!
You can cry civil liberties all you want, and I even have my reservations, but this will only affect those with something to hide. I know this sounds callous and is often critisized, but when its regarding say recording private conversations, thats one thing. But in the case of a lawyer: the lawyer is not there to get you off the hook, he's there to get you a fair trial. Don't forget that.
I have to agree with MacDaffy, that just does not respect the intentions of the first amendment. It may say "Congress", but that is a standard of freedom that should be respected and applied to other government facilities. It just makes sense that you dont want the government to use your tax money to endorse/respect an establishment of religion over other religions and beliefs. Would you as a christian be happy if some teacher started teaching budhism to your child in their class even though the class is not about religion at all, even though the first amendment only says "*Congress* shall make no *law*"? I dont think so. The problem is that at young ages children and teenagers tend to be more impressionable (not all of them are like this of course), and parents dont want some one to poison their minds with strange ideas. As for evolution, evolution is fact (that is that animals and plants evolve, like in insects that become immune to insectecides is proven), its the theory of evolution (abiogenesis) which is a *theory* and is presented as a *theory* not as fact, religion does not present itself as *theories* of creation they present themselves as *facts* of creation a diffrent thing all together. I would think it possible to have a class on general religion and philosophy, although most schools would probably not find it productive as they find english math and science as more important, but it would be interesting if they did.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Moderation itself killed Slashdot a long time ago. That, and the editor's War on Trolls, which has some interesting parallels with the War on Drugs and War on Terrorism.
Forget writing to your congress critter, write to all of the members of the supreme court.
Just like Hoover before him, JBT's like Ashcroft are always going to push for more and more unconstitutional police powers, and in out country, it's the job of the supreme court to say no. If we let the motherfucker get away with this, then goddamn it, the rag-heads WIN.
Did any of the reporters present at his proclamation ask the question: "Excuse me, you fucking pig, but what in the world makes you imagine that a fanatic who's willing to train himself for years to off himself in a kamikaze is going to be so incompetent that you'll trip him up by merely shredding the constitution?"
Mr Bush took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Mr. Ashcroft is the most obvious example of the latter since Obergruppenführer Hoover himself.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They listen to ALL conversations on the Internet - the excuse of looking for terrorists was a lie.
Ask them to explain how using carnivore, or backdoors in encryption will stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier and steganography.
They will have to do that, or get caught.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiesce - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce is stopping free speech. They and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization know the solution to domain name and trademark problems. Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it.
Who has a right to a fair trial?
Did the people in the Salem witch trials have a right to a fair trial?
(granted that was in the 1600's, and thus before the constitution, but work with me.)
Or how about the Native Americans during the Western Expanion?
Did they get a fair trial before we either marched them off to ever-shrinking reservations or killed them off as we saw fit?
Think that our precious America has changed since so long ago?
How about the people who got black listed during the great communist witch hunt?
Did we give them a fair trial?
No.
The point I'm tring to make here is that anyone who is labeled to be 'staning in our patriotic way' is hunted down by our governments own version of mob justice.
All people care about anymore is what dateline and /.ers know about how hard it is to get people to care about the whole Microsoft issue. This is even more improtant, and people don't care. They just want to feel safe, and if you point out new laws life this one they'll tell you. "If you haven't done anything wrong then you should have nothing to hide." Something has to give and force people to wake up and stop being sheep for the media to heard.
20/20 tell them to. Poeple don't research ideas or statments in the media, they could but they don't feel like spending the time.
I'm proud to admit that I stand corrected. My parsing of the Fifth Amendment was incorrect and I'm embarrassed to have to blame sleep deprivation as the cause.
I do stand by my assertion that the first amendment is being violated when valedvictorians are told that they cannot offer prayers at graduations and such, as this is clearly infringing on their right to practice their religion freely.
It is my understanding that in many trial cases, much evidence is discovered that ultimately will never be used in a trial. Much of this is because the evidence is useless, but in quite a few cases, a judge will rule that the evidence is inadmissable for other reasons. Prior convictions and confessions under duress come to mind immediately.
I can see no reason for wiretapped conversations between counsel and a client to be admissable in any court for the currently accused or any of his accomplices. That is not to say that I see no value in having these conversations taped.
The crux of the problem that investigators are having now is the fact that none of the detainees with strong associations to the hijackers or other known terrorists, are saying anything. Anything that they may tell their attourneys would not be admissable in their trial, and their counsel cannot divulge much of this information anyway. Even though the eavesdropping tapes would be inadmissable in court, they could still provide leads for other investigative teams to persue on other linked individuals.
Note that these individuals have had warrants issued, based on credible evidence. Many are direct accomplices to the events of 9/11. Our Bill of Rights does not say "presumed innocent" it only guarantees a fair trial, so that they can be convicted of only the crimes that they did commit. Many of them are not completely innocent people, and most who are really innocent know information about the truly guilty. Silence and priveledge are preventing justice from being done.
-- Len
Hmm... I'm going to have to go cry now. :-(
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
It's as rare here as anywhere else.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
In the book Fahrenheit 451 a character explains to
the protaganist how it came to be that all books
are banned. Not all books were banned at once.
Certain groups opposed certain content that then
became illegal. Over time all content became
illegal.
The point is that, should we be complacent about
giving up any part of any liberty, such as freedom
of speech, we could loose them all. Losing one
particular freedom is not bad, but giving up the
princple that we do not give up liberties
is bad.
It won't be long before we're living in some hell out of Nick Zedd's brain. Specifically Police State.
President Bush,addresing members of the White House press corps Wednesday, denied all allegations of falsehood regarding the Iran-Contra affair*, covert CIA operations in Central America, his "no new taxes" pledge and several other matters currently being dodged by individuals who may or may not be conected to the BUsh Administration.
"I did not, nor have I ever, betayed the trust of the American people by lying to them when I claimed, as I did, to have no knowledge of these aforementioned affairs," Bush said. "Furthermore, I empathically deny ever commenting on the matters, of which I had no knowledge, and I am still uncertain as to what extent my knowledge may be implicated".
Bush went on to say that any alleged remarks he may have made on the issues were taken out of context.
* This was about Bush, father, to update change Iran-Contra to War on terrorism
From the Onion's "Our dumb century" ISBN 0-609-80461-8
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
For any Slashdotter who thinks the proposed limitations to the attorney-client privilege revocation will be respected by the U.S. government when those limitations prove inconvenient, I have five words for you:
"Iran-Contra"
"War on Drugs"
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Maybe so, but Slashdot isn't a democracy and has never even given the illusion of supporting free speech.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Why don't we just declare martial law for the time being and get it over with? This inch-by-inch destruction of true freedom in the name of "protecting freedom" is getting more annoying every day.
Do you have a reference for the ACLU being involved in that case? Do you have a reference of the ACLU opposing art which clearly has pro-Christian content?
Who needs terrorism to undermine freedom, liberty, democracy, etc. when your own government can do it?