Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (209180)	12/12/2001 3:56:42 PM
From: Bill Grant	Respond to of 769670

>>If, as you say, nothing said in a client-attorney conversation can be used by the prosecution, what would be the poiint of listening. << The point of listening would be to disrupt communication between terrorists. If they know they are being listened to, attorney and client would be less inclined to discuss some planned future event or strategy which the attorney would presumably be passing on to a third party. BG

To: ThirdEye who wrote (209180)	12/12/2001 4:02:49 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"If, as you say, nothing said in a client-attorney conversation can be used by the prosecution, what would be the poiint of listening" It is to check the communications to make sure they are not attempting to communicate with other terrorists through their attorney (who may or may not be a willing accomplice). This practice is outlined in the Al Quida terrorist manual that was siezed after the '93 WTC bombing. The manual also specifies that this form of communication is of the utmost of importance. It is not just a casual suggestion. "Perhaps he thinks other information relevant to some other investigation might come forth" He has stated FLAT OUT that this will not be the case. His procedures and outlines will go into effect against 16 "suspects" out of 100's of thousands of people in jail. If they used the information anyway the judge in the case would have to THROW IT OUT. It is strictly to prevent terrorsist activity against U.S. (and world) citizens, and again is based on the terrorists exploiting this civil right of ours to hurt our citizens. That is not what civil rights were designed to do. Nor was attorney client privelage created with this diabolical scheme in mind. "then what prevents him from saying the same thing about gun ownership records sought by the FBI?" I would like to see if there is any level of agreement on the merits of the attorney client privelage first. I will still respond to the gun list/FBI issue, but your questions leave me with the impression that you are missing the stated reasons for this "infringement" of our civil rights. Does the additional info I have provided (assuming it is right) give you any more comfort in his position on the attorney client listening issue? Can you see any value in it?