"Anti-Terrorist" Exception to Atty-Client Privilege?

Aimee Farr aimee.farr at pobox.com
Sat Nov 10 13:29:08 PST 2001


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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list