# Government can now monitor attorney-client conversations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474 "2001-11-09T17:34:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/61 "2001-11-13T02:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > First, assure me that you are not asking rhetorical questions, as I strongly suspect you are. If you have a position to debate, sir, get to the point. I guess you could call it semi-rhetorical. I can’t think of a way that it significantly impacts the defence of an innocent person, so I suspect at this point that it might not. But I am open to suggestions that it does in ways that I haven’t thought of. So I may have a position to debate and I may not, depending on the answer to my question. > [@](#): > > Second, amend your inquiry to eliminate references to a suspect’s guilt or innocence. Procedural safeguards apply equally to all, for patently obvious reasons. Not obvious to me. Obviously, until the guilt or innocence of a given person is known, the **procedural safegurds that apply to all** must be given. But if there is a **specific type of safeguard** that only protects the guilty (IOW is unneeded by the innocent), I don’t see why it should be in place. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/62 "2001-11-13T03:23:05Z")
So how are you planning on distinguishing between the innocent and guilty suspects, **Izzy**? As far as I can tell, what you’re really claiming is that the guilty have no entitlement to pre-trial procedural safeguards. That ain’t the way we do things in America. As for impacting the attorney-client relationship, I can personally attest that an attorney is best able to effectively represent a client when the lawyer has access to all the relevant (and many irrelevant) facts. For a myriad of reasons–including, but by no means limited to guilt–clients frequently withhold information from their attorneys that they don’t want them to know. This is true even though attorneys are legally bound not to reveal such information to any other person on the face of the earth, from now until the end of time. Now throw a couple FBI agents into the equation. How much harder will it be to get the client to reveal the information necessary for their defense? Even assuming that any information revealed during the course of the legal representation may not be used by the government in prosecuting the suspect, there is no guarantee at all that the information will be kept confidential. In fact, the entire purpose of having those government agents in there is to reveal whatever is said to law enforcement personnel, not to mention god knows who else. Confidentiality is _utterly_ destroyed by the presence of anybody other than the lawyer and the client, and that is a problem whether or not the information is subsequently used to prosecute the client. This, I submit, is a significant detriment to the adequate assistance of counsel. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/63 "2001-11-13T04:00:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > So how are you planning on distinguishing between the innocent and guilty suspects, **Izzy**? As far as I can tell, what you’re really claiming is that the guilty have no entitlement to pre-trial procedural safeguards. Strange, I could have sworn that I just said the opposite. Again, I don’t think the government is entitled to distinguish between “innocent” and “guilty” suspects. But I do think that safeguards whose **impact** is to protect the guilty, and are not needed by the innocent, are unneeded, and in fact, a bad idea, and should not be given to anyone, regardless of guilt. > [@](#): > > Now throw a couple FBI agents into the equation. How much harder will it be to get the client to reveal the information necessary for their defense? Even assuming that any information revealed during the course of the legal representation may not be used by the government in prosecuting the suspect, there is no guarantee at all that the information will be kept confidential. In fact, the entire purpose of having those government agents in there is to reveal whatever is said to law enforcement personnel, not to mention god knows who else. Confidentiality is _utterly_ destroyed by the presence of anybody other than the lawyer and the client, and that is a problem whether or not the information is subsequently used to prosecute the client. This sounds strange to me, but I don’t know any actual information or have any experience with this. So if you say it is so, I can’t argue with you. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/64 "2001-11-13T04:12:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*But if there is a **specific type of safeguard** that only protects the guilty (IOW is unneeded by the innocent), I don’t see why it should be in place. \*\* And in certain situations, this is the case. If the police, through normal, legal means happen to find illegal drugs on your possession then guess what? You’ve just given up your right to employ the 4th amendment for your benefit. The guilty don’t have those rights. The police also don’t need a warrant when they use search techniques that can ONLY show illegal activities. Drug sniffing dogs, for instance. But the situation here, the point here, is that no one knows if these people are guilty or innocent. That’s the reason they’re talking to their lawyers in the first place! When we start snooping around as if they’re 100% guilty save for a verdict, then we destroy a number of rights and the whole legal system in the process. Also, while I realize you haven’t yet brought this argument up people who say “What’s the problem? If you’re innocent you have nothing to hide,” make me cringe. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/65 "2001-11-13T04:21:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > But I do think that safeguards whose **impact** is to protect the guilty, and are not needed by the innocent, are unneeded, and in fact, a bad idea, and should not be given to anyone, regardless of guilt. So are you claiming that innocent people don’t need the effective assistance of counsel? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/66 "2001-11-13T13:42:52Z")
No, I was suggesting that in the case of innocent people the assistance of counsel **will not be rendered inneffective** by the lack of confidentiality. That it was only (or almost only) in the case of guilty people who have something to hide, that they will find the lack of confidentiality to render their counsel ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/67 "2001-11-13T14:00:51Z")
Re the legal issue - from the NY Times: [Experts Divided on New Antiterror Policy That Scuttles Lawyer-Client Confidentiality](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/13/national/13LEGA.html) > [@](#): > > Legal experts differ sharply on the new Justice Department policy of monitoring communications between people the government says have been involved in terrorism and their lawyers > [@](#): > > Civil liberties and lawyers’ groups, including the American Bar Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, have criticized the policy. Mr. Romano was one of many lawyers who said the policy was an unnecessary limitation on the right guaranteed by the Constitution to legal representation. > > But the Justice Department measure also won support from some legal experts and former prosecutors who said it was carefully designed to protect the public while impinging as little as possible on the rights of people to confer with their lawyers. (Note: this is unconnected to my earlier comments on this topic, which were not about the constitutional issues, as mentioned). ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/68 "2001-11-13T21:32:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*No, I was suggesting that in the case of innocent people the assistance of counsel **will not be rendered inneffective** by the lack of confidentiality. That it was only (or almost only) in the case of guilty people who have something to hide, that they will find the lack of confidentiality to render their counsel ineffective. \*\* See Ender See Ender cringe Cringe Ender, cringe. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/69 "2001-11-13T21:57:18Z")
Uh-oh! Enderw24’s gonna cringe! Run for your lives! How will IzzyR withstand the pressure? Will he fold? On second thought, cringe. (Just a little, anyway. No need to get carried away there, son.) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/70 "2001-11-13T22:42:32Z")
Reminds me of a woman I used to work with. When the subject of no-knock drug raids came up, she cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” After listening to the story of another coworker whose house was searched (actually, ransacked and partially destroyed would be a much more accurate description) in a no-knock raid based on an anonymous phone call, she cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” After listening to said coworker explain again that _she_ didn’t do drugs and had no drugs in her house or in her possession, that either the police had screwed up or the phone call was a fraud, CW1 cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/71 "2001-11-13T22:47:20Z")
Reminds me of a woman I used to work with. When the subject of no-knock drug raids came up, she cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” After listening to the story of another coworker whose house was searched (actually, ransacked and partially destroyed would be a much more accurate description) in a no-knock raid based on an anonymous phone call, she cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” After listening to said coworker explain again that _she_ didn’t do drugs and had no drugs in her house or in her possession, that either the police had screwed up or the phone call was a fraud, CW1 cheerily chirped “Oh, well, that would never happen to me because I don’t do drugs. _Of course_ there’s no problem with those! The only people who have to worry are **guilty** people, like drug dealers and addicts.” It continued like that until I gave up. Some people simply WILL NOT understand that “only guilty people have to worry” just doesn’t work. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474/72 "2001-11-13T22:52:48Z")
Hey, how did that happen?!!? I swear _I_ didn’t do it! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-can-now-monitor-attorney-client-conversations/92474.md?page=3)