"Anti-Terrorist" Exception to Atty-Client Privilege?
U.S. Defends Monitoring of Lawyer-Suspect Communication By James Vicini Reuters WASHINGTON (Nov. 9) - The U.S. Justice Department defended Friday its rule to listen in on conversations between some inmates and their lawyers to prevent violent and terrorist acts, but a civil liberties group denounced the new policy as a ''police state'' tactic. The rule, signed by Attorney General John Ashcroft and published on Oct. 31, provided for the monitoring of mail and communications with attorneys for as long as a year, as opposed to 120 days previously, and took effect immediately. The eavesdropping would not be surreptitious. The defendant and the attorney must get notice of the government's listening, Ashcroft said. The rule expanded an existing regulation that allows for monitoring of attorney-client communications. Rachel King of the American Civil Liberties Union said the rule set a ''terrifying precedent'' and was ''very scary.'' ''It's nothing short of a police state,'' she added. King, the legislative counsel in the Washington office, said the group would file comments opposing the rule. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said it will challenge the new regulations through all available legal means. ''Rules and codes of professional responsibility are very clear: an attorney cannot communicate with a client when confidentiality is not assured,'' Irwin Schwartz, the group's president, said in a statement. NO EAVESDROPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDER ''The federal government has no business eavesdropping on these conversations, absent a court order,'' he said. In the rule, Ashcroft said, ''Recent terrorist activities perpetrated on U.S. soil demonstrate the need for continuing vigilance in addressing the terrorism and security-related concerns identified by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.'' The rule represented one in a series of steps by Ashcroft in what he has described as an aggressive campaign to prevent future terrorist attacks after the Sept. 11 hijackings of planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ashcroft has vowed to carry out tough new anti-terrorism legislation that Congress approved giving law enforcement officers expanded powers to wiretap phones, monitor Internet traffic and arrest suspects. On Thursday, he announced a ''wartime reorganization'' of the Justice Department to carry out in its ''first and overriding priority'' of defending against terrorist attacks. Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker defended the rule, saying ''important safeguards'' were in place. She said the team monitoring the communications will have no connection to any ongoing prosecution that involves the inmate. Currently, less than 1/10 of one percent of the federal inmate population is subject to the special administrative measure taken by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Tucker said. Ashcroft said the rule would affect only a small portion of the federal inmate population. He said it would affect those inmates for whom the attorney general or the head of a federal law enforcement of intelligence agency has determined there was a substantial risk the communications with others could lead to violence or terrorism. Ashcroft maintained the constitutional rights of the inmates to a lawyer would be protected. ''The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications regarding legal matters, but the law is clear that there is no protection for communications that are in furtherance of the client's ongoing or contemplated illegal acts,'' he said. REUTERS Reut13:39 11-09-01
See United States v. King, 335 F.Supp 523 (1971). See also the original DOJ manual and related amendments. If you can, pick up a copy of Eavesdropping On Trial, '74. It's an insightful and easy read with good historical footnotes. It's an odd book, in that it has gained in relevancy through the years. Originally, Congress was predisposed to outlaw electronic surveillance altogether. Law enforcement fought for decades to get it. Then, we came up with organized crime (some still say they "invented" it). Title III was part of the "law and order" agenda, before we characterized things as "war on." It's effectiveness in regard to organized crime was even questioned, as that was the stated target of Title III. It was the time of COINTELPRO, to give you an idea of the political climate. Most of the questions raised in '74 (soon after the act's '68 passage and state implementation), remain unanswered. This suggests that the Title III scheme itself is flawed. The forward by Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. is worth a frame: ------------------------------------------------------- ''The history of American liberty has been a continuing struggle between the desire for security and the human striving for personal freedom. Too often it appears that the choice is easy -- for example, that the issue of law and order is one of balancing the rights of society against the rights of criminals. But the choice is never as easy as that deceptive formulation suggests. The great challenge of our constitutional system is the continuing reconciliation of these two strong competing interests. Without law there can be no true liberty, but a constant and exclusive preoccupation with security is the death of human liberty. This was recognized by American patriots as long ago as 1775: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The citizen who truly honors liberty knows that there are no easy choices. The public leader who is true to his obligation to inform and educate the citizenry recognizes that he must shun emotional appeals. It is a great disservice to the public to succumb to the temptation to make issues of crime and liberty a political football. Unfortunately, politicians forever fall victim to the temptation, especially in recent years. <snip>...These issues are too important to be left to the "expert" -- be he a lawyer, legislator, judge, or prosecutor. While the issues are complex, this is no arcane subject which the private citizen can safely leave to others. Few people are neutral about issues such as eavesdropping, but the public is not well served by rhetoric. As difficult as it may be to address the subject fairly, openly, and accurately, to do so is necessary if the public is to be well served. [...] Words to haunt Congress by? Only time will tell. ~Aimee
participants (2)
-
AARG! Anonymous
-
Aimee Farr