---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Veleka Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mar 28, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: [nola4DFA] No more attorney-client privilege?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush's eavesdropping program includes power to monitor doctor-patient or
attorney-client conversations
March 25, 2006
DOJ: NSA could've monitored lawyers' calls
3/25/2006, 10:19 a.m. ET
By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Security Agency could have legally
monitored ordinarily confidential communications between doctors and
patients or attorneys and their clients, the Justice Department said
Friday of its controversial warrantless surveillance program.
Responding to questions from Congress, the department also said that it
sees no prohibition to using information collected under the NSA's
program in court.
"Because collecting foreign intelligence information without a warrant
does not violate the Fourth Amendment and because the Terrorist
Surveillance Program is lawful, there appears to be no legal barrier
against introducing this evidence in a criminal prosecution," the
department said in responses to questions from lawmakers released Friday
evening.
The department said that considerations, including whether classified
information could be disclosed, must be weighed.
In classified court filings, the Justice Department has responded to
questions about whether information from the government's warrantless
surveillance program was used to prosecute terror suspects. Defense
attorneys are hoping to use that information to challenge the cases
against their clients.
Since the program was disclosed in December, some skeptical lawmakers
have investigated the Bush administration's legal footing, raising
questions including whether the program could capture doctor-patient and
attorney-client communications. Such communications normally receive
special legal protections.
"Although the program does not specifically target the communications of
attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be
categorically excluded from interception," the department said.
The department said the same general criteria for the surveillance
program would also apply to doctors' and lawyers' calls: one party must
be outside the United States and there must be reason to believe one
party is linked to al-Qaida. The department's written response also said
that these communications aren't specifically targeted and safeguards
are in place to protect privacy rights.
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's top
Democrat, complained about the department's evasiveness in answers to
questions from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, submitted to
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. All but two of 45 answers to the
House Judiciary Democrats were vague and unresponsive, Conyers said.
He found the response regarding doctor-patient and attorney-client
privilege particularly troublesome. More generally, the "need for
oversight is especially glaring," he said in a statement.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department "has
been extremely forthcoming and clear about the administration's legal
analysis through multiple briefings with Congress, three hearings with
the Attorney General, multiple letters to Congress, a 42-page white
paper and dozens of questions for the record."
Responding in 75 typed pages, the department clarified some points in
the three-month-old debate over the program. But it also left many
questions unanswered, citing the need for national security.
The House Democrats asked if any other president has authorized wiretaps
without court warrants since the passage of the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs intelligence collection
inside the United States.
Choosing its words carefully, the department said, "if the question is
limited to 'electronic surveillance' ... we are unaware of such
authorizations."
The department also made clear that the program as confirmed by
President Bush has never been suspended since it began in October 2001.
That would include 2004, when reports indicate serious doubts about the
program were raised by Justice Department officials.
But the department refused to discuss, or even confirm, a meeting in
2004 at then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bed. News reports
indicated that White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Gonzales, then
White House counsel, needed his help to quell dissent about the program.
Lawmakers also asked whether federal judges on a secretive intelligence
court objected to the program and, if so, how the administration
responded.
The department wouldn't answer, citing the need to protect classified
information. "We assure you, however, that the department keeps the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court fully informed regarding
information that is relevant to the FISA process," the response said.
The department also avoided questions on whether the administration
believes it is legal to wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant,
when al-Qaida activity is suspected. The department wouldn't say
specifically that it hasn't been done.
"Interception of the content of domestic communications would present a
different legal question," the department said.
___
Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press
http://www.unknownnews.org/0603280325wof.html
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/politics-9/1143300581182730.xml&storylist=washington
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
attorney-client conversations
March 25, 2006
DOJ: NSA could've monitored lawyers' calls
3/25/2006, 10:19 a.m. ET
By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Security Agency could have legally
monitored ordinarily confidential communications between doctors and
patients or attorneys and their clients, the Justice Department said
Friday of its controversial warrantless surveillance program.
Responding to questions from Congress, the department also said that it
sees no prohibition to using information collected under the NSA's
program in court.
"Because collecting foreign intelligence information without a warrant
does not violate the Fourth Amendment and because the Terrorist
Surveillance Program is lawful, there appears to be no legal barrier
against introducing this evidence in a criminal prosecution," the
department said in responses to questions from lawmakers released Friday
evening.
The department said that considerations, including whether classified
information could be disclosed, must be weighed.
In classified court filings, the Justice Department has responded to
questions about whether information from the government's warrantless
surveillance program was used to prosecute terror suspects. Defense
attorneys are hoping to use that information to challenge the cases
against their clients.
Since the program was disclosed in December, some skeptical lawmakers
have investigated the Bush administration's legal footing, raising
questions including whether the program could capture doctor-patient and
attorney-client communications. Such communications normally receive
special legal protections.
"Although the program does not specifically target the communications of
attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be
categorically excluded from interception," the department said.
The department said the same general criteria for the surveillance
program would also apply to doctors' and lawyers' calls: one party must
be outside the United States and there must be reason to believe one
party is linked to al-Qaida. The department's written response also said
that these communications aren't specifically targeted and safeguards
are in place to protect privacy rights.
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's top
Democrat, complained about the department's evasiveness in answers to
questions from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, submitted to
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. All but two of 45 answers to the
House Judiciary Democrats were vague and unresponsive, Conyers said.
He found the response regarding doctor-patient and attorney-client
privilege particularly troublesome. More generally, the "need for
oversight is especially glaring," he said in a statement.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department "has
been extremely forthcoming and clear about the administration's legal
analysis through multiple briefings with Congress, three hearings with
the Attorney General, multiple letters to Congress, a 42-page white
paper and dozens of questions for the record."
Responding in 75 typed pages, the department clarified some points in
the three-month-old debate over the program. But it also left many
questions unanswered, citing the need for national security.
The House Democrats asked if any other president has authorized wiretaps
without court warrants since the passage of the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs intelligence collection
inside the United States.
Choosing its words carefully, the department said, "if the question is
limited to 'electronic surveillance' ... we are unaware of such
authorizations."
The department also made clear that the program as confirmed by
President Bush has never been suspended since it began in October 2001.
That would include 2004, when reports indicate serious doubts about the
program were raised by Justice Department officials.
But the department refused to discuss, or even confirm, a meeting in
2004 at then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bed. News reports
indicated that White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Gonzales, then
White House counsel, needed his help to quell dissent about the program.
Lawmakers also asked whether federal judges on a secretive intelligence
court objected to the program and, if so, how the administration
responded.
The department wouldn't answer, citing the need to protect classified
information. "We assure you, however, that the department keeps the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court fully informed regarding
information that is relevant to the FISA process," the response said.
The department also avoided questions on whether the administration
believes it is legal to wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant,
when al-Qaida activity is suspected. The department wouldn't say
specifically that it hasn't been done.
"Interception of the content of domestic communications would present a
different legal question," the department said.
___
Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press
http://www.unknownnews.org/0603280325wof.html
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/politics-9/1143300581182730.xml&storylist=washington
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "nola4DFA" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .
--
Powered by NewOrleansEmail.Com http://neworleansemail.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
[RobsList]
A progressive group that is part of http://robwire.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RobsList" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Robslist
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
