Law and Order

by Larry Tate on May 8, 2008

As a fan of the television show Law and Order, I know that sometimes detectives Briscoe and Greene cross the line to obtain information or evidence for the prosecutor. One time, Jerry Orbach put a toothpick in a guy’s lock so that the perp couldn’t enter his house and destroy a video before the warrant was issued. In this instance, and in many others like it, the judge found the discovery “tainted” and threw the evidence out. Then Sam Waterson gets really pissed off and give us that poignant, I’m-so-outraged-and-angry-that-I’ll-dramatically-stare-off-into-space expression that he’s mastered.

I’m sure Waterson’s head would explode if he read today’s New York Times which details the goings on within the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay:

NY Times

“I think they are listening to my telephone calls all the time,” said John A. Chandler, a prominent lawyer in Atlanta and Army veteran who represents six Guantánamo detainees.

Several of the lawyers, including partners at large corporate law firms, said the concerns had changed the way they went about their work apart from Guantánamo cases. A lawyer in Chicago, H. Candace Gorman, said in an affidavit that she was no longer accepting new clients of any type because she could not assure them of confidentiality.

The new filing, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, came in a 2007 lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in which Guantánamo lawyers are seeking records to determine whether they have been targets of surveillance.

The Justice Department declined to comment Tuesday. But in a legal response in March, its lawyers said they could neither confirm nor deny that detainees’ lawyers had been targets of such surveillance “because doing so would compromise the United States Intelligence Communities sources and methods.” [. . .]

Guantánamo officials say they monitor attorney-client meetings for the safety of lawyers with video cameras but that meeting areas are not wired for sound.

But several lawyers said their clients had told them that shortly after detainees met with lawyers, interrogators had asked the detainees about topics that had been discussed.

But it doesn’t end at eavesdropping on privilged conversations.  Evidence or statements procured through torture? A-ok. Habeas Corpus?  Never heard of it.  Try to time convictions to coincide with US elections to benefit Republicans?  Yep.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: