Thereâs nothing against it in our constitutionâŚ
If you have nothing to hide, Citizen, you have nothing to fear.
Iâm pretty sure itâs accepted as constitutionally illegal to eavesdrop on a suspectâs conversation with counsel. Isnât it?
How theyâve been getting away with things like this in the US is by re-classifying things from criminal law to national security. Traditionally, national security operations tended to happen only abroad - or domestically if there were clear ties to a âhostile foreign powerâ. Part of the problem with the âWar on Terrorâ is that it has been an expansion based upon having no clear enemy, and this has been used as an excuse to focus the military apparatus upon the domestic population, thus avoiding disclosure, accountability, due process, etc. If ânational interestsâ are a vague and secretive thing, the defense of them is jurisdiction by fiat.
I donât know about the UK, but there might well be some wording which allows defense to trump the rights of the citizens in some general way.
That makes sense. It reminds me that lawyers for the Gitmo detainees have been complaining about this for years.
As we all know, lawyers and journalists are far more dangerous to these entrenched power structures than terrorists. Indeed, terrorists are only the excuse for their true goal, which is spying on journalists.
The summary seems to be : Itâs legal and even expected for the security agencies to spy on journalists and their sources, and also to collect legally privileged information between clients and their defence lawyers. Itâs counterproductive for the security services to pass that information on to the police or to the prosecution involved in an active case, because if the prosecution try to introduce it as evidence, or if the prosecution disclose it to the defence, the judge will stay the case.
It sounds as though if a client mentions a third party during a legally privileged conversation who is not part of the case at hand, or if parts of a conversation between a client and his defence council are not directly legal advice, then the security services may pass on those pieces of information to an unrelated branch of the police, e.g. a different police force, perhaps after the first case is concluded. Doing this does not prejudice the case at hand and thus it is OK
Itâs wily, Iâll give 'em that.
Conveniently, of course, good old âparallel constructionâ allows classified surveillance and assorted fruits of the metaphorical poisonous tree to be converted into rich, wholesome, admissible, evidence efficiently and without pesky disclosureâŚ
Sure, if PC Plod can stumble into the same evidence on his own, itâs all above board, innit?
Reminds me of some of the ruses that Brits used to pretend that they happened to information (e.g. German submarine positions) by chance than by Enigma. E.g. sending a patrol plane to âjust accidentallyâ be somewhere near.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
