NY judge: NSA can refuse to discuss wiretapping

The NSA has refused to say whether it listened in on the conversations of the lawyers who are advising detainees being held at the U.S. naval facility in Cuba.

[Steven Belsky]

I AGREE WITH WHAT THE JUDGE SAID BUT HE DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.

He should have said "You are NOT ALLOWED to use any information at trial UNLESS you think the lawyer acted wrong...then you can create a record, dismiss the jury, arrest the lawyer"

ANYTHING ELSE the prosecution has to FISA COURT in camera,(WITHOUT THE DEFENSE) ALTHOUGH THE FISA COURT SHOULD APPOINT A DEFENSE LAWYER FOR THE HEARING.

[Michael]

Wow, even attorney client privilege is ignored by the government.....at least the telecoms will get immunity from illegally allowing access to US citizens records.

If the program was legal, why do they need immunity?

[Ozark_Sunshine]

Michael, you obviously don't understand this sue happy society or are too ignorant to care. Just because it is legal doesn't mean you won't get sued for something. It happens every day.

[Michael]

My point is simple: if they feel they acted legally, they would not need to lobby Congress to pass a law, retroactively declaring their actions legal. Also, if they had a doubt as to legality, they could have refuses...like one company did.

FISA had simple instructions as to tap/surveil/monitor FOREIGN communications....which common sense dictates includes any foreign communication regardless of whether the phone/computer line goes into the US...if the communication/correspondence is from and to a FOREIGNER...then FISA has the ball (at least before Billary and George the Oneth).

INstead, Bush told the telecoms that he spoke to lawyers, and wrote a Presidential Order, that legally allows the telecommunications companies to share US citizens information with the Federal Agencies...which a) had nothing to do with FISA, b) is against even the simply worded laws of the Constitution and c), is worse than the Nixon spying that created FISA in the first place.