home

Federal Judge: Government Need Not Disclose Spying on Attorney-Client Conversations at Gitmo

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:17:48 PM EST
Tags: detainee, Guantanamo, attorney-client privilege (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Late yesterday, a federal court judge ruled that the government did not have to disclose whether it was illegally spying on Guantanamo attorneys’ conversations. The judge ruled that the National Security Agency (NSA) could not be forced to reveal information about its domestic spying program because, “confirming or denying whether plaintiffs' communication with their clients has been intercepted would reveal information about the NSA's capabilities and activities.”

Plaintiffs had argued that the government cannot use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to shield illegal surveillance of attorneys. In response, the court said that because of the breadth of a statute protecting the NSA’s secrecy, “the Court need not address plaintiffs’ substantive arguments concerning the TSP’s illegality.”

What it means: [More..]

According to CCR,

“This ruling allows the government to hide its illegal activities behind far-fetched claims of national security,” said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. “Not only does the public have the right to know, but our ability to represent our clients is deeply compromised by not knowing whether our conversations are being listened to and the information passed on to opposing counsel. We are investigating our next steps.”

< New Habeas Action Filed for Guantanamo Detainee | DMV Learns Acronyms >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Federal Judge: Government Need Not Disclose Spying on Attorney-Client Conversations at Gitmo | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What is far fetched? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:40:15 PM EST
    These are not US citizens. Can we please quit pretending that they are??

    and (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    not being citizens of the US means they aren't entitled to ?

    It isn't bad enough that these people are being locked up, in many cases, based on hearsay and that treatment there has been less than humane. Now they aren't even allowed to speak with an attorney without having their conversations eing spied upon.

    Then again, here n the good ol' US of A spyin without cause has just been deemed acceptable I guess it woul be too much to ask that foreigners be treated better than US citizens.

    Parent

    Not being US citizens (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:06:06 PM EST
    mean they aren't entitled to constitutional protections for crimes committed outside the US.

    And that's matter what the SC tells you.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:44:48 AM EST
    This is a very interesting, although convoluted  approach. You're saying the US can arrest people for what we deem as crimes even if the act is committed outside the US, but not be subject to US laws...a bit contradictory don't you think?

    I can accept that only if you were to agree they would then be subject to International Law or the Law of the country where they were taken into custody.

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    Uh yes, attacking the US military is something that I take exception to.

    And yes, sinc