5 ms·
I know this isn't an opinion shared by the current US administration, but having a fair trial for one's crimes is a human right. It's a right guaranteed by arti
by drrotmos 13y ago
I know this isn't an opinion shared by the current US administration, but having a fair trial for one's crimes is a human right. It's a right guaranteed by articles 10 and 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Part of having a fair trial includes having legal representation, and the ability to communicate with your legal council in confidence.
Eavesdropping on privileged lawyer-client conversations, regardless of legality is outrageously indecent and should be illegal. Revoking a lawyer's visa because he is representing a particular client is equally outrageous, especially due to the chilling effects it causes upon the legal community making it much more difficult for suspects of serious crimes to find good legal representation.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoI agree with you on moral grounds, but technically human or natural rights are not the same as legal rights. In particular, they cannot be guaranteed by any document the UN produces, unless embodied as legal rights within a functioning judicial system. Instead, these rights are more like ideals.
- justincormack 13y agoThe US did sign this as a treaty. But yes that is why in Europe most of these rights were signed into law as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adds a court to enforce them. They did remove some like the right to democracy, bizarrely.
- jackcviers3 13y agoI am sure King George tried the same argument against the colonies.
- rayiner 13y agoIt's not the view of any administration. The client was Norwegian-Chilean. Foreigners not in the US don't have A right to counsel (which is the constitutional basis of attorney client privilege in the US). And I'd argue that's the way it should be. Every time courts declare something unconstitutional, they use up limited political capital. I don't think defending the "human rights" of non Americans is a valid use of that political capital.
- visural 13y agoWell that's disappointing.
- hncommenter13 13y agoI do not believe this interpretation is correct. In a criminal proceeding in the US, a defendant--whether a citizen or not--has a right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. As this is not a criminal prosecution, the right to counsel does not necessarily apply. Under present law, border searches are quite different from normal searches, even for US citizens.
- rayiner 13y agoI didn't say "citizen". I said "foreigner not in the US". I was under the impression that the guy was not in the US.
- einhverfr 13y agoBut still, revoking a lawyer's visa for defending someone even elsewhere is pretty sketchy if you ask me.
- rayiner 13y agoExtremely sketchy. Not illegal.
- marvin 13y agoYou realize how ridiculous this sounds to any ally or trading partner of the US, right? What US authorities are saying is basically that non-citizens of the US do not have basic human rights.
- einhverfr 13y agoActually what it says is a lot more pernicious than that: Sure, if you are in the US you have a right to legal representation regarding trials, but if you are outside the US, the US reserves the right to say whether you have a right to legal representation. It's worse than saying you don't have basic rights. Now, maybe the lawyer in question was actually doing something illegal or highly questionable. However we will never know at this point.
- niekmaas 13y agoIn The Netherlands a case is usually dropped if evidence is provided that the conversation between a lawyer and his/her client was recorded and analysed.
- thomasbk 13y agoGiven the PRISM revelations (and the today-reported fact that the AIVD has reportedly been recording and analyzing all domestic calls since 2000) try moving to drop all cases since 2000.