# Bye Bye civil rights..or Ashcroft part 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 9, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455 "2001-11-09T16:16:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/1 "2001-11-09T16:16:33Z")
[No mote lawyer client confidentiality](http://www.masslive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0784_BC_Attacks-Monitoring&&news&newsflash-washington) Which one is going to go next? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/2 "2001-11-09T16:29:17Z")
This is very troubling. Although the lawyer-client privilege does not apply if the lawyer is part of a criminal conspiracy, or if the conversation involves a future crime, as opposed to a past one, there is no way to know this without first listening in. And the potential for abuse is clear - much like telling a jury to disregard testimony, how will law enforcement officers “disregard” admissions and details about past crimes - the very material the attorney-client privilege is designed to shield. Under very limited circumstances, it’s possible to serve a search warrant on a lawyer, and examine client files – usually by appointing a special master, who can review all the files and pass on only those that are relevant and unprivileged. I don’t see an easy way to extend the “special master” concept to phone calls. This is not a good idea. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/3 "2001-11-09T16:34:45Z")
> [@](#): > > A rule published Oct. 31 in the Federal Register says the monitoring can take place when Attorney General **John Ashcroft** concludes there is “reasonable suspicion” So he decides what is reasonable? No court is involved? ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/4 "2001-11-09T16:43:06Z")
And people pooh-poohed when I posted about S1510. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/5 "2001-11-09T18:06:29Z")
> [@](#): > > So he decides what is reasonable? No court is involved? Although I find this instance particularly disturbing, federal bureaucracies do this all the time, and have for years. It’s nothing new. For some horribly unfair and punitive (and likely unconstitutional) bureaucratic actions, take a look at the federal asset forfeiture regulations/procedures. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-civil-rights-or-ashcroft-part-2/92455/6 "2001-11-10T00:40:48Z")
No one cares? Then their job will be easy.