|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||
 In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts
Arbitrary Justice: Trials of Guantanamo and Bagram Detainees in Afghanistan Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Culture of Impunity [PDF - 2.79 MB] Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan [PDF - 803 KB] Behind the Wire: An Update to Ending Secret Detentions [PDF - 485.30 KB] Getting
to Ground Truth: Investigating U.S. Abuses in the “War on Terror.” [PDF - 400.22 KB] Ending Secret
Detentions [PDF - 383.31 KB] Assessing
the New Normal [PDF - 1.66 MB] Imbalance of Powers [PDF - 669.61 KB] A Year of Loss [PDF - 543.58 KB]  In Their Own Words: Detainees Tell of Degradation of Religious Beliefs at Guantanamo (05/19/05)   U.S. Law and Security Work from 9/01 to 12/02 US Law & Security |
|
|
|
Human Rights First
Condemns Attack New York, November 14, 2001 Human Rights First is deeply disturbed by the Justice Department's interim rule permitting the Bureau of Prisons to monitor communication between lawyers and their imprisoned clients. The new provision empowers the Bureau to monitor previously confidential verbal or written exchanges between lawyers and their clients, who may be held in any form of detention. Those allowed to be monitored include individuals who have not been convicted of any offence, on certification by the Attorney General “that reasonable suspicion exists to believe that an inmate may use communications with attorneys or their agents to facilitate acts of terrorism.” Such certification will last for up to one year, and is not subject to judicial review. The Department of Justice has not demonstrated the need for these rules to protect against attorneys who may help to facilitate future or ongoing criminal activity. Under existing law, federal authorities can seek appropriate remedies under the well-established "crime-fraud" exception to attorney-client privilege. In a closed door hearing before a federal judge, and in the absence of the offending attorney, the court can take immediate and effective actions, including ordering the monitoring of communications if necessary. Other options include removing the attorney from the case and prosecutors are always free to initiate criminal proceedings against attorneys where appropriate. These procedures ensure judicial review in the narrow band of cases where an attorney is abusing the attorney-client privilege, protect legitimate attorney-client communications, and ensure that authorities have the power to investigate and prevent criminal activity without obstruction. The new rules undermine the principle of attorney-client privilege, an essential part of the right to effective legal representation, protected by the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution as well as international law. The rules published on October 31, 2001 will impinge on legitimate attorney-client communications, and should be repealed. |
|||||||||
