
Government to Eavesdrop on Lawyer-Client Conversations 508
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.
Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
This is completely useless against terrorists. Terrorists don't hire lawyers and chat about their actions beforehand. Terrorists plan long and quietly, and then without warning even their friends and roommates, they blow shit up.
The only excuse for policies such as this is to enable fishing expeditions where people "suspected" of something can have their rights and privacy stripped away from them without them even knowing it.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:3, Funny)
President Cheney wants to have a word with you!
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:2)
Terrorists don't hire lawyers and chat about their actions beforehand.
That's correct. But they can also call "Joe Terrorist" his "lawyer" and plan more terrorist activity from his jail cell.
If we have good intelligence that some "lawyer" is actually a conduit in order to plan more terrorist activity, I think it's reasonable not to be idiots and let them do it.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
That shouldn't matter.
Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:3, Interesting)
Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives.
No one is talking about throwing the constitution out the window. No, not even Bush et al. But sometimes you have to live in the real world, not this ivory tower world where the police have no surveillance powers at all and must catch all criminals in the act with a full video record.
The law is about balancing the ivory tower with practical needs. And in a time of war when the enemy is actively seeking nuclear weapons, the scales need to tip more toward immedate needs.
The constitution is not worth a damn if our freedom and liberty is taken away by external enemies. Personally, I like my freedom and liberty.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, I doubt it. I think many sane people doubt it. Do you think that guys like that will ever assume they are not being bugged, no matter what constitutional guarantees are declared? The effect of this is to chill attorney-client privilege in all cases for no demonstrable gain. The power to monitor exists already... it's just locked behind that quaint, old-fashioned stumbling block, judicial oversight
The DOJ is proposing limiting a time-honored and well-established right. It's doing so despite the existence of mechanisms to achieve the stated ends. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein this behavior has occured. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein the new rules would have prevented a terrorist act. I believe it's reasonable to ask for proof and evidence before sacrificing a constitutional guarantee, even in a small way.
Re:Welcome to the Police State (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me where, in the Constitution, the government has the right to eavedrop on a person "presumed innocent" without a warrant.
This should not be that surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL (Score:2)
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
Re:This should not be that surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Anyone who is not a federal inmate is safe. For now.
2) "inmates being held must be told of the monitoring"
3) "Such monitoring...has been allowed in the past through court order."
This is not the giant sweeping step torwards a police state that many are making it out to be. More it's a baby-step, or even a subtle side step torwards said police state. Incremental changes do need attention brought against them, but incremental changes call for moderate reaction. If you go shouting "Ahhhhh! Police state! Police state!" at every little reduction of liberty, most people will become desensitized to the reaction.
Re:This should not be that surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. Justice will have no problem getting a federal judge to grant them that right in today's climate for today's terrorist suspects. They can get it in a matter of hours, and the suspect's in custody and ain't going anywhere for a bit anyway.
The AG has given us no evidence that the courts have hindered them in any way in their efforts to investigate this act of terrorism, past acts of terrorism, or any acts that may lead to future terrorism.
Ashcraft's taking advantage of the situation to remove judicial oversight because he knows that he can get away with it in today's climate. And can then proceed to use it in those cases where a federal judge is likely to say "no". Cases where it is unwarranted, in other words, and cases not connected to recent terrorist events...
If you don't think the goal is to eventually gain the right to monitor client-attorney communications for *all* suspects in jail, you're smokin' something far too strong to be good for your mental health...
Time to turn that flag icon (Score:2, Funny)
Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:4, Redundant)
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?
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:2)
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:5, Informative)
One spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other because, under the law, they are often considered a single individual. This is why it too so long for spousal rape and domestic violence laws to be passed - it wasn't (just) a bunch of good old boys who didn't see a problem, but a delicate balancing act between a centuries old tradition and modern concerns - the legislatures wanted to avoid accidently wiping out all marital privilege. It's also why homosexual spouses want legally recognized marriages - marriage includes a lot of rights which no civil contract, alone, can provide.
IIRC, lawyer-client privilege follows a similar argument. Everyone is expected and required to understand the law, but that requires the ability to freely consult experts (lawyers) for advice. So the law squints and say that lawyers are in essence an extension of the person *when discussion prior acts*, or to a limited extend future acts. Same thing with cleric-penitent privilege and doctor-patient privilege.
However, lawyers have never been able to give unfettered advice regarding future actions by the client. E.g., your lawyer can't be compelled to reveal that you admitted killing a business rival (N.B., "killing" is an act, "manslaughter," "murder" et al are legal evaluations), but it's a very different thing if you ask your lawyer how you can kill a business rival in the future and face no more than a manslaughter conviction.
It sounds like the DoJ is just seeking to formally recognize that some detainees may be seeking to use their lawyers as agents of future violence, not just sources of legal advice, and wish to prevent that. Risky, but not unreasonable.
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:2)
Agreed.
Diplomatic immunity does not give blanket authorization to commit acts of espionage. (That is, diplomats may themselves be spied upon, and expelled if involved in activities inconsistent with their privileged diplomatic status.)
Likewise, attorney-client privilege ought not to be used as authorization to facilitate conspiracy. (By way of analogy, attorneys suspected of facilitating the crimes of their clients are as subject to search as their clients, and attorney-client privilege - a privilege granted by the state - ought to be revocable in cases where such facilitation has been established.)
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we really have any evidence that such a thing has actually occurred, or is even likely to occur? Seems to me that occam's razor would indicate that Ashcroft is using 9/11 cynically to get an agenda across that has not one damn thing to do with terrorism.
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:3, Informative)
Everyone has heard the term "power of attorney" and has some rough idea of what that means. Few know the meaning of the attorney though. It simply means representitive. One could consider one's house contractor an "attorney at plumbing." Someone with the power of attorney is someone who is legally recognized as being able to act * as if they were you.*
Your attorney at law is, in some very real legal asspects, you. YOU cannot be made to testify agaisnt yourself.
Add to that the right to fair trial, which is impossible if you cannot talk freely and confidently to your own attorney, who is just a legal extension of yourself, and you the basis for attorney-client privilege.
The important part that has been left out of this discussion so far is the process of discovery. Just because you tell your lawyer something dosn't mean he can't reveal it. He MUST reveal everything to the prosocution that the prosocution has the legal right to know. There is a system of legal checks and balances at work here and the process of discovery, which happens out of the view of the public, is perhaps the most important role of the defense attorney. You talk to your attorney, he sifts through what you have told him and protects your right not to testify against yourself by revealing to the prosocution only that which the prosocution has a right to know.
Without this balance of "power of information" constitutional rights would be absolutely unenforcable.
KFG
Re:Where does attorney-client privilege come from? (Score:5, Informative)
In the United States, therapist confidentiality is secured by statutes (just about every state recognizes some sort of therapist confidentiality) or by rule -- the United States Supreme Court relied on the Federal Rules of Evidence when it recognized a psychotherapist-client privilege in 1996.
If the AG's present proposal is adopted, and upheld by the courts, it will be another victory for those seeking to destroy the "American way of life."
When a shepherd visibly counts goats as sheep, who will do business with him in the market place when he comes to sell his flock?
Attorney-client privelege. (Score:3, Redundant)
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.Re:Attorney-client privelege. (Score:5, Insightful)
sPh
Re:Attorney-client privelege. (Score:2)
Oh well
Re:Attorney-client privelege. (Score:2)
In this article [nationalpost.com] this right has already been taken away from Canadians. (sorry for the annoying ad on the right - if you right click you can stop it from playing...)
It goes to the right of testifying against oneself. In the US, I believe you call it the "Fifth Amendment".
Here's the scenario: You talk to your lawyer, being honest with him, to discuss your methods of defense. As of yesterday he must tell the authorities what you said, and not tell you that he is doing so.
In an adversarial justice system, such as we have, it is the responsibility of the Crown (government) to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - your guilt. But with these new laws - your lawyer gets to tell the government details *retroactively* about your confession to him. It not only covers matters before the court, but past crimes as well. Once the door is open - it's wide open.
Essentially, you testified against yourself by assuming client-solicitor confidentially.
Re:Attorney-client privelege. (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, and we can really believe that FBI Agent #1 won't tip off FBI Agent #2 to what he heard while monitoring Federal Suspect #3. Sure. The FBI would never do anything like engage in campaigns of surveillance and harassment against law-abiding political dissidents or civil rights activists, or ever do really nasty crap like try to pressure someone like Martin Luther King to commit suicide. No, of course not. Our state security agencies would never do anything like that again. Right?
Why is it that so many people who will pursue server security with a level of paranoia approaching psychosis are totally unconcerned with protecting their civil rights against liberty crackers like John Ashcroft?
Chilling effects on defendant speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
You have to draw the line at ANY violation, lest it move further to where you DON'T like...
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Slippery slope arguments are, by their nature, stupid. They prove nothing other than a trend based on a single data point. The slope of the line derived from that data point is based on the delusions of the person doing the deriving.
-jon
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. If we let the AG spy on anyone he considers a terrorist suspect, then what's to stop him from later using the same tactic against suspected drug dealers (especially since he's already been trying to tie the drug war to the war on terrorism) and from there on down the chain? Not to mention the fact that there is no way in hell that you can give these suspects a fair trial once you've taken away their attorney-client privelege. It just can't work in an adversarial justice system such as ours. It tips the balance in favor of the prosecution. You want to tell all the people that the FBI has been scooping up lately that they are all presumed guilty and they will not be allowed to have fair trials? Welcome to the New America. We're well on our way to implementing the same practices we've condemned in other countries for decades.
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Times of war demand different standards. Get over it.
-jon
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. How about Reconstruction? IIRC, the last state to exit Reconstruction didn't do so until 1878, 13 years after the "end" of the Civil War. US citizens living under Reconstruction didn't have nearly the same rights as everyone else.
This war is nothing like the War on Drugs. I don't remember the drug lords who crashes airplanes into the WTC. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
The War on Drugs is stupid, as it attempts to prevent Americans from harming themselves by attacking people supplying poison. The War on Terrorism is attacking the people who are trying to kill Americans who are not actively trying to harm themselves. If you can't understand the difference, you are a pretty stupid motherfucker.
We know who the enemy is in this war, too. The problem is that they use human shields and Americans have become squeemish about attacking people who allow themselves to be human shields.
Once upon a time, we realized that the guy who didn't turn against the Nazi leadership was as guilty as the Nazi leadership. Now we send food to the peons and hope they'll be our friends. What we should be doing is attacking peons until they are tired of starving and being bombed and overthrow their leaders. Ask the Italians about how that worked in WW II.
We also have some sort of brain damage, allowing citizens of countries known to be terrorist hotbeds to come here, even after we've been repeatedly attacked for 10 years. I bet the number of Germans, Japanese, and Italians granted visas during WW II was close to zero. The number of Saudi and Egyptian nationals in this country during the War on Terrorism should mirror that number.
War, as Sherman noted during the aforementioned Civil War, is Hell. Trying to make it nicer just makes it last longer. We should be as mean and as ruthless as possible in order to make this war as short as possible.
-jon
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
We should be as mean and as ruthless as possible in order to make this war as short as possible.
And what will be left to live for once we've taken away the rights, liberties, and justice from the citizens of this country? You seem to think that we'll just go flatten a few countries and everything will be all better. It won't happen like that. We'll lose our rights, the War on Terrorism will continue, as there is no end condition that we can call victory. At least with drugs, it's obvious that we're losing. We'll never know if we've stamped out terrorism. Terrorism requires us to be vigilant against it, always. This isn't a temporary war. It won't end. You can't say, "we'll get our rights back when it's over." You can't compare it to previous wars. It's not really a war.
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's be smart about this, then - don't allow the prosecution access to the tapes, only the military and intelligence agencies. We've got a reasonable suspicion that Prisoner X is a terrorist, and is using his lawyer to communicate with other terrorists? Let the CIA or the FBI track down others with those conversations, but don't let the prosecutor have those tapes. That way, Prisoner X still has a right to a fair trial, and we still get to track down terrorists.
You elected these people (Score:2, Insightful)
So now they abuse their power by changing the laws when its convient.
t
make sure you read this part: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:make sure you read this part: (Score:2)
And national security shouldn't be handled by the monkeys that do it now.
Re:make sure you read this part: (Score:2)
Then they came for the murders...
Then the rapists...
The burglars,
the shoplifters,
traffic violators.
Re:make sure you read this part: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then read news accounts from 2000 about how the government of the PRC selects prisoners' execution dates based on the need for transplant organs.
Then read your post and its parent again.
sPh
Still Wobbly (Score:2, Insightful)
More sensationalism! (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think this in any way violates right to counsel.
Re:More sensationalism! (Score:2)
What's the difference? And also, the fact that they're willing to bend the rules this much sort of removes the "undoubtedly" from your statement.
DOJ Theme song (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DOJ Theme song (Score:3, Funny)
Close, but no cigar.
"5 amendments scratched offa the paper, five amendments scratched off..."
Look in the bright side - they have to stop before amendment 16!
When will the time come? (Score:3, Funny)
Clarifications (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Clarifications (Score:2)
Yes, this is crucial.
At the risk of getting my door knocked down by a bunch of Feebs in the middle of the night, I only see a conflict of interest if FBI ("cops") perform this monitoring, but not CIA or NSA ("spooks").
It's the cops' job to bust people who have commited crimes and testify against them in court. Cops shouldn't listen to attorney-defendant discussions, because they're likely to be testifying in court against the defendant.
It's the spooks' job to find badasses before crimes are committed and warn the cops ahead of time. Spooks ought to be able to listen to attorney-defendant discussions, because they sure as fsck won't be testifying in court.
There's a world of difference between Offiser Bob saying "Your Honor, we picked him up for speeding, searched him, and found drugs, which he denies knowing about, but the defendant admitted he was drug trafficking in his lawyer's office and that he hoped to get away with only a speeding ticket" and Spooky Sam phoning Officer Bob to say "Bob, you might just want to point your radar gun down Highway 12 at 3:00 in the morning and pick up whoever's speeding by exactly 4 miles per hour, because one of our agents has just tweaked someone's speedometer by 5 mph."
Re:Clarifications (Score:2, Insightful)
Those wiretaps J. Edgar Hoover had done on "suspected communists" weren't admissable in court either. I'm sure he never had any intention of using them that way...
Opposition (Score:2)
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.
Re:Opposition (Score:2)
Confuse the public, then take their rights away (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Slashdot Headline out of line (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's 'only' been used on existing recordings. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
This won't fly. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:This won't fly. (Score:3, Informative)
According to The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64 663-2001Nov8.html, for the goat-wary),
Please, fight your knee-jerk reaction (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Please, fight your knee-jerk reaction (Score:2)
Oh I see, if you don't tow the party line, you must be one of them. Got it. Heard it before. It isn't any more convincing coming from you than it was coming from anyone else.
It's for your own good... (Score:2)
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!
all in the name of 'anti-terrorism' (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
What's next? (Score:2, Interesting)
Must we whisper to each other in shadowed alleyways?
SURE you can expect the gov't to keep their word.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Naivety (Score:3, Interesting)
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>
No need (Score:2)
America is headed for rainbow fascism. (Score:2)
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 [nara.gov] 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.
Braving the knee-jerks (Score:3, Insightful)
Such intelligence could not be admissible in court, but it just might stop the next attack.
There is no forfeiture of rights here.
Bush on trusting government (Score:2)
"... Bush
Is this better than "Read my lips, no new taxes," or what?
Re:is that really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:is that really... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:is that really... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:is that really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not innocent, presumed innocent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is that really... (Score:2)
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
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
At least, that's the way it used to be...
sPh
Good intentions, bad ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:5, Informative)
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!)
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:4, Insightful)
You misspelled 'those who it's damn well likely the police can make a profit from the arrest of.'
HTH
Ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why I AM against this (Score:2, Informative)
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Did you even read the article?
Good grief... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess landlords are automatically criminals, eh?
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
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?
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:3, Insightful)
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!")
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23590&cid=2
TROLL ALERT (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
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).
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
>
> 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.
Re:Why I am not against this (Score:2)
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.
Re:Commit a crime (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Does not really suprise me (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:ACLU being reosonable? That is surprising! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:ACLU being reosonable? That is surprising! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Read article before jerking knee (Score:2)
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.
Re:It is part of a long running campaign. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it makes you feel better to mod me down for stating this fact, fine. But be aware governments are not benign entities. There are some truly evil people out there, and they don't all live in the deserts of Afghanistan.