Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/8/2001 7:42:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/8/2001 7:39:08 PM EST by NYPatriot]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government says it can get around attorney-client confidentiality as it investigates the terrorist attacks by allowing prisons to monitor phone calls and mail of some of those jailed after Sept. 11. A rule published Oct. 31 in the Federal Register says the monitoring can take place when Attorney General John Ashcroft concludes there is "reasonable suspicion" that the communications are designed to further terrorist acts. The rule went into effect the day before it became public. "The immediate implementation of this interim rule without public comment is necessary to ensure" that the Justice Department "is able to respond to current intelligence and law enforcement concerns relating to threats to the national security or risks of terrorism or violent crimes," the new rule states. The American Civil Liberties Union decried the change. "I think this proposal is a terrifying nightmare for innocent people who are under suspicion by the attorney general," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's national office. Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor and now a white-collar defense attorney in Washington, called it "beyond troubling." "The attorney-client relationship is absolutely necessary and constitutionally protected," he said. "That it can be wiped away on a standard as low as reasonable suspicion is a very, very serious intrusion." Solomon L. Wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel to Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr, said that "this seems at first glance like a very troubling approach because of its obvious infringement" on attorney-client confidentiality. Many constitutional rights are curtailed in the prison context, but generally not the guarantee of private communications between attorneys and their clients, Wisenberg said. The Federal Bureau of Prisons ordinarily sets up two types of phones for inmates -- one in which calls are monitored and the other where inmates can talk confidentially with their lawyers. The monitored phones are prominently marked so that inmates know in advance that there is eavesdropping. Phone calls from the designated monitored phones have been used in the past in criminal prosecutions -- for example, in one of the cases against longtime Bill Clinton friend Webster Hubbell. Phone calls in which Hubbell discussed his taxes were part of the framework for a tax evasion case against the former associate attorney general under President Clinton. Folks we might be at war but this kind of thinking is getting real scary! Dangerous presedents are being set, and hardly anyone notices or cares!?!?!? [b]Bush is trying real hard to lose my vote in 2004![/b]
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 8:16:32 PM EST
LE6921, Yeah, it's that pesky freedom thing that I am hung up on. Don't mind me. Who needs freedom anymore.... It's so 18th. century. What is most important now is safety.
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 9:27:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/8/2001 9:24:01 PM EST by NYPatriot]
LE6921, Yes, this is exactly what I am advocating. Give me a break! The reason I posted this article is because nothing in the Justice Dept. edict restricts application of the evesdroping powers to only non-citizens. If we can't find a way to deal with this "war" (don't get me started on that one... how about we respect the Constitution just this once, and issue a formal and legal Declaration of War) without violating people's rights, then the whole damned American experiment is over. Rights are what this country was founded to protect. Rushing to discard them in a time of crisis while chasing the illusion of security is exactly the tactic that tyrants the world over have used to subjugate their citizens.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 4:41:42 AM EST
Usually, attorney client confidentiality is between the client and the attorney only. In other words, there's no greater general prohibition on "listening in" on an attorney-client conversation than with any other conversation. BUT, such conversations are "confidential" in that the attorney is barred from disclosing what was said, and the evidence of the conversation may be inadmissible in court. Note that this new policy only appears to apply in federal prison phone calls, your state may [b] already [/b] allow this. the sky ain't falling. in the past, they didnt monitor inmate calls with their attorney just to be NICE, they COULD listen if they wanted to, and now they will.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 5:19:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2001 5:17:20 AM EST by I_am_Sancho]
Originally Posted By LE6921: What would you suggest, a strict "constitutional" interpretation and just let these foreign assholes kill a few thousand more of us?
View Quote
Whats with the quotes around constitutional? You some kind of sarcastic non-freedom-believer democrat? A few thousand more killed, even if it's a building I am in personally is still better than a few hundred million having rights taken away. Keep that attitude in Kalifornia where people appreciate the "diversity" of communist authoritarians ruling and walking among them. This one I liked even more, Are you law-enforcement perchance? figures.
Don't blindly take the stance that since it's some type of "infringement" of rights that it's a bad thing. We need to use extreme measures to contain these bastards.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 5:28:45 AM EST
so what? the government can now control fact and fiction, why shouldn't they control everything else? you see, its for the children, the same ones who are willing to give up liberty for safety! gosh, get with the program already! ... you are WITH the program right? because you're not...
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 5:38:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2001 5:33:18 AM EST by warlord]
Government Monitoring Calls, Mail Between Some Lawyers And Clients In Terrorist Probe [url]http://www.kfwb.com/news/nat/n110902.html[/url] (KFWB is one of the all news radio stations in L.A. Calif.) This is getting kind of scary. At some point could the National Rifle Assoc. in the anti-terrorism campaign, be declared a terrorists organization, and be compelled to release their membership list to the govt? Be careful what you say and do, big brother is probably watching by remote video cameras.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 5:50:29 AM EST
hey there fello frogs, is it just me or is the water around here starting to get a little bit warm? sloth
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 5:53:07 AM EST
This is nothing new. A lawyer's confidentiality with his client has always been voided if it is suspected that they are conspiring to commit, say murder. IF the suspicion was false, then anything gathered in the tap that did not pertain to the suspicions mentioned on the warrant would be inadmissible. Then again, I could be wrong. I just watch "Law&Order" sometimes.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:18:04 AM EST
I know this has been quoted a million times before, but it is worth repeating... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:22:00 AM EST
Our wonderful government has never had a power that it hasn't abused. Usually against its own citizens.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:37:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By warlord: This is getting kind of scary. At some point could the National Rifle Assoc. in the anti-terrorism campaign, be declared a terrorists organization, and be compelled to release their membership list to the govt? Be careful what you say and do, big brother is probably watching by remote video cameras.
View Quote
I believe the FBI already classified the NRA as such 3-4 years ago. It was in a report about domestic terrorist organizations. It met the criteria and made the list. They believe many existing laws are wrong, they support ownership and training with firearms, and they use coercion to further their goals. Threatening to unseat an incumbent for not voting the way the NRA wants may count as coercion, but it's dangerous to think that political action committees and elections themselves could be interpreted as terrorist organizations and acts.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:39:29 AM EST
That is silly. The FBI has NOT classified the NRA as a terrorist organization. Paranoia can interfere with rational thought.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:41:04 AM EST
You are right LE6921... NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG!
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 9:23:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By LE6921: Come on now...focus on the issue at hand. This ONLY calls for the interception of communications in a custodial setting that further terrorist activities.
View Quote
Ohhh..Ok I see this is one of those, "relax this would never be applied to [b]YOU[/b] *wink wink* you see what I mean? your [b]KIND[/b] *wink wink* aren't the colo...I mean type we're after" We request not your counsels or arms. [size=6]"Is this really giving up a liberty that we need or deserve? Give ME a damn break!"[/size=6]
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 9:32:54 AM EST
It would seem that LE6921 is suffering from a bad case of "Kalifornication".
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 9:40:04 AM EST
Gentlemen, gentlemen. If you examine this situation, you will find that nothing has changed. No law passed, no abolition of the 4th Amendment, just alot of talk. [b]"The American Civil Liberties Union decried the change. "I think this proposal is a terrifying nightmare for innocent people who are under suspicion by the attorney general," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's national office. "[/b] Listen to her language. She's shrill. So are many of you. All of this still requires a warrant, and therefore the approval of a judge. The Constitution has not changed. Lawyers never could conspire with their clients to commit crimes. This is nothing new.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 12:36:52 PM EST
Major-Murphy, Thank you for being a voice of reason in this discussion. You're absolutely correct that nothing is really new in this issue. And as is usually true in such matters, it has already withstood the scrutiny of time and constitutional challenges. NYPatriot, You have simply decided to cloak all issues in your vision of freedom. Well that's crap. I_am_Sancho, I'm very glad you are not in charge of anything but your little keyboard. A few thousand deaths of innocent Americans better than losing a freedom? Wow! When the "freedom" we are discussing is simply the ability of a friggin terrorist conspiring with a crooked attorney to commit more terrorism, it should be cut off at the knees. And yes, I'm LEO, and I care and do more on a daily basis to protect people's freedom than most on this board will do in a lifetime. I hate debating with anti-LE people - you're the first to call 911 when somebody crosses the line with you and demand action.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 12:53:52 PM EST
Let's remember that AG Ashcroft has been the best friend we Second Amendment advocates have had in the office for a long time. And if I may make a point: Constitutional protections apply to AMERICANS. Not illegal aliens, not aliens waiting for citizenship, not students here on visas. Liberty has always been suspended in certain cases in wartime, and should be in my opinion. The goverment's primary role is to protect it's citizens; some would say it's their only legitimate role. They have failed in that role and I believe this administration is sincere in it's effort to change that. Rich NRA, GOA, LEAA, CCRN
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 1:10:22 PM EST
The whole story is that the AG is now monitoring the communications of the TERRORIST SUSPECTS, that have been arrested since the 11th. The purpose is to see to it that IF these individuals are indeed members of terrorist cells, they won't be allowed to continue operations or issue orders, via counsel. There is a very strict screening process that does this while trying to ensure the suspect's rights are not abused.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 1:12:12 PM EST
Aw crap hear we go again....how many of you are on the payroll of a alphabet agency? Do you honestly belief the crap that you are saying....1shot was arrested because you people kept clamouring for enforcement of laws on the books----that make all of us felons!!! Drug seizure laws have been -----Organized crime laws have bee....do I really have to go over this again? Buy a clue...you are seeing a day-by day encrouchment of our rights by the government. And you shills still protest that it is for the children...the Government with the best military in history did not manage to stop one plane!!! and you believe thaty are doing this to make you safe!!! And yes death is the price of freedom...some of us and some of them. Not the Government!!! However put a smoking whole in the NY skyline and Whoever thinks anthrax in the mail is funny...
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 1:26:47 PM EST
You are shrill. Think rationally.
Top Top