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.
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
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.The right to counsel implies (and has a LONG standing precedent and bunches of laws to reinforce) a "privacy" called attorney-client privilege. That is, that anything said between the attorney and his client cannot be told to anyone. Otherwise, the justice system would simply amount to "arrest individual, bug the room he and his lawyer converse in, and use those tapes as evidence."
...innocent until proven guilty. sure, most might very well be guilty, but you can't generalize like that. prisoners deserve rights while they're going through the judicial process, because they're not yet guilty.
I'm not here. This isn't happening.
The biggest problem I see with this is that even if the DOJ followed the rules and didn't misuse the information, there's no way for a defendant in criminal prosecution to be sure. If you are being prosecuted and you know that your every conversation with your attorney is being listened too, how forthcoming will you be with them? You can't assume that the DOJ isn't breaking their own rules, so you clam up. The end result is that defense attorneys may have less information to work with and will be unable to build a proper defense for their clients. Eventually the courts will probably tell the DOJ they can't do this but in the mean time, how many people's legal cases will be effected by this new policy.
I find it bitterly ironic that we here Bush and crew saying that we are fighting for our way of life and for civilization, yet at the same time, they are doing their best to damage the freedoms that are key to that way of life. They say we need to go on with life as usual and not let the terrorists effect us, but it's not like they are leading by example here.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This only applys to people who are granted a special administrative measure which applys to less than a tenth of a percent of people. And only to people who the AG says "reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a particular inmate may use communication with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of terrorism".
/. sensationalism at work.
I don't agree that they should be doing this in the first place, but it's not for everyone. I guess this is just more
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
So now they abuse their power by changing the laws when its convient.
t
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"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.
I don't think this in any way violates right to counsel.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
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.
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
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"
There's gonna be a firewall huh? How much you wanna bet they'de want it to run windows. :)
\Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
... 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."
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.
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
Go read 1984 by George Orwell. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you're innocent, there's no reason to spy on you.
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.
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.
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.
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!
how different is this from the terrorists view; in that they also feel that the end justifies ANY means?
does the end really justify ANY means? isn't how you get there just as important as the end result, itself?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
i.e. those who it's damn well likely have committed a crime.
You misspelled 'those who it's damn well likely the police can make a profit from the arrest of.'
HTH
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
So you want to throw the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption out the window then, huh? Why do we even bother to pretend we're a democracy anymore? Assholes like you want to give all authority over to the government without assigning any accountability or oversight. We'll just trust them to always do what's right? You're ignorant and more of a danger to the American way of life than any terrorist out there.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Must we whisper to each other in shadowed alleyways?
A client of a lawyer has been arrested because he most probably broke the law.
I would disagree with this, especially with respect to the 1000+ people being held WRT the 9/11 attacks.
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.
The problem is not when the client admits guilt to the lawyer. The problem is that the prosecution gets to listen in to the defense's strategy sessions, and can plan their prosecuton accordingly. This will not result in verdicts that are more fair; it will result in more guilty verdicts. Whoever has more information has the advantage, regardless of the fact of the case.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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.
... 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.
At least, that's the way it used to be...
sPh
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>
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?
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!")
>
> 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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/
Well, considering that under the new rules, under certain situations, the goddamn prosecution has the ability to listen in . . .
Not only do federal prosecuters get to lie in front of juries, but they also get to listen your substandard cousel.
The Michigan Militia, etc.. are going to have a field day with this, as they rightously should.
It feels great to be living in the DDR^B^B^BUSA
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
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
Having any police department at all is "down the slippery slope" toward jack-booted thug totalitarianism.
Slippery slope arguments are no arguments at all. All law enforcement is balancing reasonable rights of the accused.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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
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/
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.
I think this is more in the vein of "fine, we can't use that against him, but he just told his lawyer that they're going to blow the Sears tower on Christmas". Letting one individual go free on something that is not admissible is a small price to pay if it might save a lot of people.
Scary thing is that once the precedent is set to ignore it in some cases, it will be ignored in others and in some cases inadmissibility will be ignored because of the seriousness of the crime. Bush was right...we will never be the same after Sept 11. I miss Sept 10.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
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)
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
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.
>Time to put the second amendment to good use
>before they get rid of that, too.
We don't have the guts or it would have been done already.
Why is there only ONE ACLU? Why aren't there hundreds of such organizations?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Wonder how long before lawers start using encrypted phones...
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.
Attorney-client privalege does not sheild the attorney from having to notify the proper authorities in the event that the client discusses his/her plan to commit a crime in the future, attorneys are required by their ethics rules to notify the authorities.
This "lawyer" would have to have passed the bar and most likely licensed to practice in Federal Court (since these are federal detainees we're speaking of).
... before this change went into effect, the AG's office only needed to get a federal judge to agree and they could already listen in.
You don't just walk off the street and say "I'm a lawyer" and get granted the attorney-client privilege.
And
They're fixing something that's not broken. At the risk of sounding paranoid, when an extremist like Ashcraft expands the powers of federal prosecutors to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist, I get suspicious.
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
They're fixing something that's not broken. At the risk of sounding paranoid, when an extremist like Ashcraft expands the powers of federal prosecutors to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist, I get suspicious.
The problem does exist. I mentioned this in another post, but how long did we struggle with mob lawyers? And the mob was an entirely different scale problem. Does anyone doubt that if we caught bin Laden, he would find a sympathetic attorney to represent him where he could feed new plans to his cells? I don't, and I don't think we need to wait for it to happen. Do we really want to be in the situation knowing his lawyers is coordinating terrorist attacks, but unable to do anything about it? I know I would feel like a total jack-ass having our system used against us like that.
On balance, this just doesn't seem like that big a modification to current law.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
Just as much as the Second Amendment prevents the Government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. And as much as the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
2. Such "testimony" will greatly aid the search for accomplices when lawyers cannot divulge such information.
As that would be tantamount to the alleged criminal testifying against himself, it seems that witnesses thus obtained may be barred from the stand, or their testimony stricken. Even a mistrial might be possible. It would depend on the interpretation of the word "compelled". Is warrantless eavesdropping of a person "presumed innocent" by peace officers testimony volunteered to the court by the accused?
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.
Nicely put. The ACLU definitely seems to be a little off-key here. Private counsel with an attorney is not specifically guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. It is, however, indirectly protected by the Fourth, since up until the moment of conviction through due process, the accused is considered innocent, and thus should have a warrant sworn against him to allow for surveillance. The ACLU should really try to be more precise in its wording.
4. Many of those detained in this current action, are not citizens of the US, and do not have the same rights.
"Many of those detained in this current action, are not citizens of the People's Republic of China, and do not have the same rights." What if that was you under consideration? Would you find it "fair and equitable" to be unable to speak freely to the one person you can talk to who is on your side, and is able to work for you legally?
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.
Other posters have stated that lawyers are under restraint to provide information if the safety or welfare of other humans is at stake. They have also stated that lawyers are to do the same if they are told of crimes to be. However, stating that, "This is what happened, and why I did it", does not endanger others. It comes down to the honesty and morality of the defense counsel if the accused is revealing information that WILL endanger others.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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.
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.
Look, the use of "privilege" is not in the common English sense: "Come home on time, young man, or you'll lose your driving priveleges". It has a very specific definition, legally. I am no lawyer and what follows is just my impressions, but I expect that "privilege" (coming from the Latin for "private law") is related etymologically to "privy", as in "privy to a secret".
Um, actually, federal case law is relatively clear on this: The state cannot organize religious displays; public funds -- collected compulsorily -- cannot be used to advance religion in general or a particular religion. People are free to pray in public, but for example, a school cannot organize a moment of prayer. Separation of church and state is a principle not a privilege, and it seems to me flows quite clearly from and is indeed found in, the non-establishment clause.
The poster nicely quotes the 5th and 6th Amendments for us, which do seem to be the most relevant. Then he/she says:
Of course, the Sixth Amendment ends with, as the poster so clearly quoted, "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". And "counsel" is, legally, a synonym for "lawyer, attorney, barrister, solicitor, ombudsman, and advocate". I think it's extremely disingenuous to argue that the Founders -- many of them, by the way, one or more of "lawyers, attorneys, barristers, solicitors, ombudsmen, or advocates" -- did not mean "lawyer" in this context.
It is a long-established and time-honored principle that the efficient and just operation of the courts demands a full and free flow of information between a client and his/her counsel. To that end, certain communications are deemed "privileged" and made unavailable to the prosecution (which normally has access to nigh-godlike powers of investigation and discovery). The common law has enshrined this right for 400 years. The federal courts have -- correctly, in my view -- found this right to be supplemental to the 6th Amendment (and, I believe, implicit in the 5th as well). Its use and implications were dealt with explicitly in the codification of the Rules of Evidence and its primacy established there. As with all constitutional rights, situations can be imagined wherein the exercise of the right needs to be curtailed in favor of an overwhelming social good... but as with all constitutional rights, the bar should be set pretty high before such curtailment takes place. "Reason to believe", decided by an administrative panel -- not a court! -- simply doesn't meet that high bar.
Such reasoning could lead to truly horrifying results. After all, as the folks in Washington have said unrelentingly, this conflict will be waged for many many years. Indeed, we will never again be so naive as to assume we are not in a time of "Public Danger". Does this mean we must jettison all the hard-won rights that have made America a free and open society boasting the longest-functioning written constitution and an impressive run of rule of law?
Happily, no. If you actually read the referenced Amendment, you see "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
First, note how the exception is made only for the need for a Grand Jury. Other important freedoms are listed after the "time of war" restriction, and grammatically are not limited by it.
More importantly, it seems clear from the structure that the "in time of War or public danger" is meant to modify "in the Militia". The presumption was, all able-bodied men would be in the state militia; it was a duty of citizenship. Obviously, during peacetime, you wouldn't want to exclude such men from the protections of the Constitution; just as obviously, in time of War, you might need to move more expeditiously. It would make sense that men actively serving would be subject to military, not civil, justice.
But most importantly, look at that emphasized section. The only recognized restriction is during actual service, during a time of war or crisis. Look how hedged that restriction is
It would seem to me that the Founders quite explicitly did not want to wrap constitutional guarantees -- including that of effective counsel -- under a boatload of proscriptions and restrictions.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The ACLU opens themselves to criticism by conservatives by being inconsistent in their approach to the constitution and bill of rights. They vigorously defend the "right to abortion", which isn't present in the plain reading of the text, and ignore the 2nd amendment, which even many liberal legal scholars believe is an individual right. I'm a long-time ACLU member and I know that the organization isn't always consistent in its approach to civil liberties. When the political agendas of some members collide with the constitution, the constitution sometimes loses. These are often the same people who vigorously support free speech rights for everyone except klansmen, evangelical Christians, and pro-lifers.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I know this is offtopic, but my head is beginning to hurt from everything going on lately.
Anyways, that
Mine too, not many people get it, my user name or the connection. Sad really.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
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).
Of course it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the listeners can't use the information against you in other ways-- for instance, as a lead in an investigation that eventually digs up other-- admissable-- evidence. It's a prosecutor's dream, having somebody leaking you transcripts of the defendant's conversations with their lawyer. Or imagine trying to come to a plea agreement, with somebody listening in? It's like playing poker with a mirror on the ceiling.
Of course, the defendant and his lawyer will know that they're being monitored. Which will have the effect of stifling attorney-client communication, and seriously damaging the clients' ability to defend himself. Then, as another poster mentioned, you'll have two classes of defendant, with differing abilities to make a case-- those who can afford bail, and those who can't.
Another problem: legitimacy of evidence. The Fifth amendment gives an individual the right to remain silent if he/she believes the testimony might be self-incriminating. If the cops force an individual to talk, they ultimately forfeit not only the testimony, but any evidence that results. This law is troublesome because it becomes very difficult to determine what evidence is the result of the recorded testimony, and what is just happenstance (eg, did a cop find the murder weapon in an alley by chance, or was the discovery the result of testimony recorded by the eavesdroppers?) I would actually imagine that this is going to be a messy thing for both sides of the case. There are reasons why cops don't bug people's houses without a warrant, chief among them that they risk having legitimate evidence supressed based on the possibility that it was the result of the illegal bugging.
I have no idea how this is going to work out. Who is the organization doing the listening? What if the organization doing the eavesdropping uses the tapes to find evidence pertaining to the case-- will they be content with the fact that it's all going to be inadmissable? Will the recordings they make be available to the courts and defendant in order to determine whether evidence collected might have resulted from a leak in the "firewall"? And can we really trust this system to work?
In a nutshell, there's a lot of reason to panic. And it bugs me that people don't realize this; it's a lot more than a baby step in the wrong direction, and the safeguards provided are not terribly strong.
Incidentally, one should not assume that Ashcroft has a great interest in creating constitutional policy. I get the impression that he's adopting something of an "act first, let the courts sort it out later" attitude to a lot of issues. Any information gathered between the time this policy takes effect and the day a court slaps an injunction on him will still be useful-- the courts can't "undo" the damage caused, as it will likely be intangible.
Sorry, as Al Powell would say "Why don't wake up and smell what you shovelin'?"
D
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.
Don't get me wrong, I think the fuckers who did this should pay. Dearly. In blood. Them, their families, their friends, and anyone else who they sullied by their existence. :)
But what is being stirred up in this country reminds me of what I've read of pre-WW2 Germany... and its not just me, because two out of three surviving grandparents both said the same thing without even my mentioning it.
What do you need to lead a rise to power of a totalitarian state? ... an enemy to unite the people against, be they Jews or Al-Qaeda ... an economic recession, that you can, at least in part, attempt to blame on the enemy ... an expert group of media mongers who can feed the public just the nuggets they want to get ... a public who is blissfully ignorant of the facts ... and a leader who is "charismatic in his own way", and who the public doesn't believe is actually capable of being malicious, someone they trust to be "that guy who's stuck in office when this happens, and who we need to get behind and give him 110% support..."
You tell me ... how are we NOT like pre-WW2 Germany.
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.
Yes, their methods are irrational.
I'm suggesting that we need to be very careful in our reaction to events lest we help destroy that which we wish to defend.
And yes, I know Maslow's hierarchy is being pressed here... gov't defending itself, then citizens, then rights and freedoms.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
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.
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.