Attorney/Client Privilege

[Neeero]

Call me a Communist here if you want, but of all the privelages the Patriot Act is doing away with (and there's a shitload, many of which I'm quite angry at and looking for any way to do something about it) the attorney/client privilege is one I won't bid farewell to with tears in my eyes.

It's bothered me much since I was still a kid in Hells Kitchen. I remember the local Irish mobs and Italian Mafia crews were being run by their members who were, at the time, incarcerated in jail. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out WHY they were able to do this. A particular criminal enterprise is only as good as it's leadership, and a shake up at the top can topple it without effective replacements. This is why these men are put in jail, to shake up the enterprise. By allowing them to facilitate communication with the group on the outside through their lawyers, family, friends, etc. it defeats the purpose of incarceration!

But that's simply me, if anyone has rebuttals, agreements, insults, death threats, please post 'em up.

[Powerboss]

Hell's kitchen eh?

Well, the only thing is, is that this doesnt affect the people you are referring to.
It only affects CONVICTED foreign terrorists who have been known to communicate and issue Fatwa's while in the clink.
And I do approve of stopping them from doing that, and if the threat of listening in does that, then fine by me.
As far as moving it towards Americans and the Mob et all, I dont know. It would have to take some serious persuaison for me to get on board that.

[Shadowhawk]

I'd have to agree with PB here... I'd rather see the Feds just LEGALLY try to round up the rest of the individual gangs or mob families than risk opening the door to having our rights violated at all. Once they get their foot in the door...

Well, hell that's why I get a bit nervous about the Patriot act & some of the other things that have gone down along those lines. To me it's just WAY too easy to start slipping in a few more people here and there who no longer have rights. Hopefully Powerboss is right and the conspiracy nuts are wrong here though and where it's at now is as far as it will go.

I guess time will tell...

[Turbostang]

It's bothered me much since I was still a kid in Hells Kitchen. I remember the local Irish mobs and Italian Mafia crews were being run by their members who were, at the time, incarcerated in jail. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out WHY they were able to do this. A particular criminal enterprise is only as good as it's leadership, and a shake up at the top can topple it without effective replacements. This is why these men are put in jail, to shake up the enterprise. By allowing them to facilitate communication with the group on the outside through their lawyers, family, friends, etc. it defeats the purpose of incarceration!

The purpose of the A/C privilage is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and proper due process of law.

Somehow I have a problem seeing lawyers being messangers or errand boys for these people.

If you want to stop above activities, how about restricting PHONE CALLS except for legitimate purposes for those who are incarcerated...

The other problem is called PRECIDENT. Once such a law goes into effect... today it's foreign terrorists, tomorow it's everyone.

Also, what exactly defines a terrorist? The government could easily just label anyone who doesn't tow the party line a terrorist like Asscroft has suggested...

[Cosmo]

I don't think Ashcrfoft has suggested that anyone not "towing the party line" be considered a terrorist. But I've beenb wrong before, maybe you can enlighten me.

[Neeero]

Alright, how about taps on attorney conversations when convicted of RICO (running or being involved in an ongoing racketteering enterprise....which most terrorists could also be accused of)?

RICO is a wide-reaching statute though. White collar criminals, anti-abortion activists, White supremacists, union officials, among others have all been tried under RICO. RICO itself falls under the sketchy area of being covicted of crimes one may not have committed, only of being a member of an organization in which crimes were committed.

[86Dude]

The bottom line is that there are 3 types of citizens: Citizens that trust their federal government to do the right thing, and skeptical Americans like myself who do not. As much as I wish I could trust the federal government, I would rather be safe than sorry. And finally, the 3rd and most pathetic lot: Those who couldn't give a damn either way.

Furthermore, there are 2 types of elected officials. Statesman, that hold the constitution, repbublic above all else, and present day political scum like Bush/Ashcroft, who either by utter stupidity, greed, or for reasons of political stategy, seek to circumvent, or ignore the constitution completely.

The saddest indicator of the times is poll data that indicates most Americans (what a pathetic joke) are overwhelmingly in favor of such unamerican tactics.

Crap, what am I saying. Mr. Fleischer told me I had better watch what I say and how I act. Hopefully, none you guys will turn me in!

[Powerboss]

So these FOREIGN convicted terrorists should be able to issue fatwah's, and help plan out attacks while in prison?

If you think they've done something unconstitutional please bring forth a lawsuit. ALL they are seeking to do is to try to win this war, and protect American lives, and if that means cramping our style for a few years, so be it.

[hammegk]

oops! nevermind!

[hammegk]

[quote]Originally posted by 86Dude
The bottom line is that there are 3 types of citizens: Citizens that trust their federal government to do the right thing, and skeptical Americans like myself who do not. As much as I wish I could trust the federal government, I would rather be safe than sorry. And finally, the 3rd and most pathetic lot: Those who couldn't give a damn either way. [/UNQUOTE]

Apparently 4 types; #4 has been so wounded in the past by the USGovt that every Govt action and statement MUST be wrong.

[quote]Furthermore, there are 2 types of elected officials. Statesman, that hold the constitution, repbublic above all else, and present day political scum like Bush.Ashcroft, who either by utter stupidity, greed, or for reasons of political stategy, seek to circumvent, or ignore the constitution completely. [/UNQUOTE]

Do you support Bill&Hil or are you so far right Ashcroft is a commie??

[quote]The saddest indicator of the times is poll data that indicates most Americans (what a pathetic joke) are overwhelmingly in favor of such unamerican tactics. [/UNQUOTE]

You are in luck. If you disagree, you can hire a lawyer and test the Constitutionality issues.

[quote]Crap, what am I saying. Mr. Fleischer told me I had better watch what I say and how I act. Hopefully, none you guys will turn me in! [/UNQUOTE]

Yup, I'd say crap IS mostly what you're saying.

Calm down & take a few deep breaths....

[Turbostang]

So these FOREIGN convicted terrorists should be able to issue fatwah's, and help plan out attacks while in prison?

Please explain to me how attorney/client privilage = issuing fatwahs? As said before, I have a real hard time believing that these lawyers would also be running as message boys for the terrorists. IF the lawyers in question happen to be involved with these terrorist organizations, then that is another issue entirely.

If you think they've done something unconstitutional please bring forth a lawsuit.

Fortuneately the ACLU seems to be in general disagreement as well...

ACLU Appalled by Ashcroft Statement on Dissent;
Calls Free Speech "Main Engine of Justice"
Statement of Laura W. Murphy,
Director, ACLU Washington National Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 10, 2001

WASHINGTON -- In a blatant attempt to stifle growing criticism of recent government policy, Attorney General Ashcroft delivered testimony last week equating legitimate political dissent with something unpatriotic and un-American. We urge the Attorney General to learn from the history of American dissent -- from the Civil War to the civil rights struggle -- that free and robust debate is one of the main engines of social and political justice. While we feel as strongly as the rest of America that those who perpetrated the monstrous acts of September 11 must be brought to justice and our future safety ensured, we forcefully disagree with the Attorney General that domestic debate about the government response in any way harms the investigation. In fact, we believe debate only strengthens our government in this time of national crisis.

The Attorney General swore an oath to guard the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, including the First Amendment. For him to openly attack as "aiding the enemy" those who question government policy is all the more frightening in light of his constitutional duty to protect each and every American's right to speak and think their mind. Even worse is the tone of derision used by the Attorney General to mock his detractors, declaring their concerns "phantoms" and charging that their criticism brings "comfort to the enemy."

There is evidence that the recent steps by the Administration to hold secretive military tribunals, to allow the government to eavesdrop on confidential attorney-client conversations and to blanket interrogate and detain Arab-Americans and Muslims are problematic for liberty in America. Ashcroft should welcome a free and robust debate about the appropriateness and legality of his positions as a means of legitimizing his authority, not weakening it.

American history demonstrates clearly that the search for truth tends to become muddied in times of crisis. Since the turn of the last century, America has seen each of its military conflicts prod the government into taking steps to stifle domestic dissent. Ashcroft's statement suggests that, if we are not careful, the tragedy of September 11 might be compounded by a repeat of this history.

While we firmly support the Administration in its efforts to prevent another September 11, we cannot abide - nor can the American commitment to liberty and democracy support - any attempt by the Administration to dictate or coerce the thoughts we think or the opinions we hold. Thinking critically about government policy is the strongest shield against government excess.

We will continue to voice our disagreement when we feel the government has stepped out of bounds and will do so with the conviction that one of the highest forms of patriotism is devotion to the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed within, including the right to speak out in disagreement with the powers that be.

[Turbostang]

So these FOREIGN convicted terrorists should be able to issue fatwah's, and help plan out attacks while in prison?

Please explain to me how attorney/client privilage = issuing fatwahs? As said before, I have a real hard time believing that these lawyers would also be running as message boys for the terrorists. IF the lawyers in question happen to be involved with these terrorist organizations, then that is another issue entirely.

If you think they've done something unconstitutional please bring forth a lawsuit.

Fortuneately the ACLU seems to be in general disagreement as well...

==========================================

ACLU Appalled by Ashcroft Statement on Dissent;
Calls Free Speech "Main Engine of Justice"
Statement of Laura W. Murphy,
Director, ACLU Washington National Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 10, 2001

WASHINGTON -- In a blatant attempt to stifle growing criticism of recent government policy, Attorney General Ashcroft delivered testimony last week equating legitimate political dissent with something unpatriotic and un-American. We urge the Attorney General to learn from the history of American dissent -- from the Civil War to the civil rights struggle -- that free and robust debate is one of the main engines of social and political justice. While we feel as strongly as the rest of America that those who perpetrated the monstrous acts of September 11 must be brought to justice and our future safety ensured, we forcefully disagree with the Attorney General that domestic debate about the government response in any way harms the investigation. In fact, we believe debate only strengthens our government in this time of national crisis.

The Attorney General swore an oath to guard the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, including the First Amendment. For him to openly attack as "aiding the enemy" those who question government policy is all the more frightening in light of his constitutional duty to protect each and every American's right to speak and think their mind. Even worse is the tone of derision used by the Attorney General to mock his detractors, declaring their concerns "phantoms" and charging that their criticism brings "comfort to the enemy."

There is evidence that the recent steps by the Administration to hold secretive military tribunals, to allow the government to eavesdrop on confidential attorney-client conversations and to blanket interrogate and detain Arab-Americans and Muslims are problematic for liberty in America. Ashcroft should welcome a free and robust debate about the appropriateness and legality of his positions as a means of legitimizing his authority, not weakening it.

American history demonstrates clearly that the search for truth tends to become muddied in times of crisis. Since the turn of the last century, America has seen each of its military conflicts prod the government into taking steps to stifle domestic dissent. Ashcroft's statement suggests that, if we are not careful, the tragedy of September 11 might be compounded by a repeat of this history.

While we firmly support the Administration in its efforts to prevent another September 11, we cannot abide - nor can the American commitment to liberty and democracy support - any attempt by the Administration to dictate or coerce the thoughts we think or the opinions we hold. Thinking critically about government policy is the strongest shield against government excess.

We will continue to voice our disagreement when we feel the government has stepped out of bounds and will do so with the conviction that one of the highest forms of patriotism is devotion to the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed within, including the right to speak out in disagreement with the powers that be.

[86Dude]

Apparently 4 types; #4 has been so wounded in the past by the USGovt that every Govt action and statement MUST be wrong.

I don't take anything they say as the undistputable truth. The U.S. governments legacy is to some extent, one of coverrups, scandals and lies. I take whatever they say with a grain of salt, and go from there.

Do you support Bill&Hil or are you so far right Ashcroft is a commie??

Please, what do Bill and Hillary have to do with this? For the record they are equal scum. I voted for Bush because I was under the mistaken impression that Bush might actually respect the constitution more than the Gore/Clinton gang. Bad assmumption.

Calm down & take a few deep breaths..

That was calm.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by 86Dude
The bottom line is that there are 3 types of citizens: Citizens that trust their federal government to do the right thing, and skeptical Americans like myself who do not. As much as I wish I could trust the federal government, I would rather be safe than sorry. And finally, the 3rd and most pathetic lot: Those who couldn't give a damn either way.

Furthermore, there are 2 types of elected officials. Statesman, that hold the constitution, repbublic above all else, and present day political scum like Bush/Ashcroft, who either by utter stupidity, greed, or for reasons of political stategy, seek to circumvent, or ignore the constitution completely.

The saddest indicator of the times is poll data that indicates most Americans (what a pathetic joke) are overwhelmingly in favor of such unamerican tactics.

Crap, what am I saying. Mr. Fleischer told me I had better watch what I say and how I act. Hopefully, none you guys will turn me in!

I think there is another type. I consider myself a REagan Republican. "Trust but verify." I trust my gov't to the extent that it is the best yet devised, based on noble thoughts and ideas, usually shown by nobvle actions. I also accept that it is a gov't run by "people" for the "people," so a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. But I don't think one must fall into a camp of don't trust or don''t "give a shit". I think there are a lot of good Americans that are falsely labled sheeple. Most of these people are hard working, god fearing tax payers, who most may not have known where "Pearl Harbor" was, but they were down at the enlistment center first thing in the morning. These are the guys who are the first to volunteer in times of disaster, war or national crisis, and it is unworthy of us to call them Sheeple.

Ari Fleischer never said that alone. That is taken completely out of context, read the discussion before and after.

Ashcroft is not against legitimate politcal dissent, and he and Bush haven't ripped the Constitution to shreds.

These arguements do nothing to get at the truth. We seem to be faced with one extreme or the other. Disagreeing with Ashcroft doesn't make him a fascist, any more than agreeing with CA makes you an Anarchist.

[Powerboss]

Please explain to me how attorney/client privilage = issuing fatwahs?

The previous bombers of WTC, while in prison, were issuing fatwahs, and decrees and stuff. Fortunately, it has been stopped.
I posted the article somewhere here before, Ill see if I can find it, but it doesnt change the fact that they were.

[Turbostang]

The previous bombers of WTC, while in prison, were issuing fatwahs, and decrees and stuff. Fortunately, it has been stopped.
I posted the article somewhere here before, Ill see if I can find it, but it doesnt change the fact that they were.

I hear you loud and clear Bill, but I still fail to see how A/C privilage is related.

Were the bombers using the attorneys as message boys? If so, why weren't the attorneys brought up on conspiracy charges?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Turbostang

....
Were the bombers using the attorneys as message boys? If so, why weren't the attorneys brought up on conspiracy charges?

Just jumping in here.

Because there are a few too many Alan Dershowitz type attorneys around willing to make everyone else out as a liar and defend scum in trade for media coverage.

Our "criminal Justice" system is a joke. Think of OJ squared.