Yup, a Federal Judge has ruled that the NSA can wiretap a attorney and cannot be forced to admit it. If your calls with your attorney were swept up in Bushs Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping scheme then they are free to use whatever it was they heard. There is no fruit of the poison tree even if illegally collected.
WASHINGTON --
The National Security Agency does not need to tell lawyers for Guantánamo Bay detainees whether their phones were tapped as part of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
So when a Lawyer calls a witness to see what they have to say they must take care that whatever is said could be used against them. If they need privacy they should travel and do all communications face to face in some kind of Safe Room.
This is just another reason why the Telecom Immunity should not be allowed to pass. If you take this Judges ruling, if the NSA happen to listen in on Obamas phone calls with his attorney during a election planning session, the NSA is free to keep that a secret because of States Secrets.
The Judge ruled that the NSA can keep it's secrets, so unless the Telecoms are forced in court to reveal what they did for Bush and to whom, we will never know. We won't know even if it could result in a flawed verdict, even if the verdict could end with a death penalty.
A federal judge in New York agreed, saying the super-secret agency can't be forced to disclose information about the program.
"Confirming or denying whether plaintiffs' communication with their clients has been intercepted would reveal information about the NSA's capabilities and activities," U.S. District Judge Denise Cote wrote. http://www.miamiherald.com/...
On the same day, Wednesday, a Canadian Judge found that "the U.S. military's treatment of a teenage detainee at Guantánamo Bay violated international laws against torture." This is according to another AP story. It's harder and harder to see a decent ending to all this abuse of the Laws when even our candidates refuse to stand up for what's right. To me that signals we can expect more of the same type of cya behavior in the near future.
People should bear in mind that the detainee in question was a Minor when he was tortured. That reminds me of John Yoo's famous answer to a question from a reporter when he was asked if the Pres. had the right to crush the testicles of the child of a detainee ? Yoo's answer was it was up to the Pres. to decide. This Canadian Judge might think differently since after all Khadr was only 15 when he was arrested. Using what appears to be some kind of codewords for torture the Judge made his feeling clear enough.
The practice criticized by the judge was described in a U.S. military document outlining ''steps taken by the Guantánamo authorities to prepare the applicant for the Canadian visit'' in March 2004, according to the ruling.
Mosley also chastised the interrogator from Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, saying Canada ''became implicated'' when the agent proceeded to meet Khadr despite learning of the efforts to prime the prisoner. http://www.miamiherald.com/...
If you have read any of my over 50 diarys on Torture and the Wiretapping you already know my opinions on this so I won't push the point any more. Make up your mind.