back to article Client-attorney privilege? Not when you're accused of leaking Vault 7 CIA code

The lawyer for former CIA employee Joshua Schulte is unhappy the spy agency is allowed to review communications with her client before she receives it and has accused the agency of trying to intimidate her. Schulte's lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, appeared in a New York court on Wednesday and argued that the CIA was abusing client- …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "The government responded ... saying that it had no way to speed up the process because the CIA officer in charge of reviewing the material is independent from its prosecutorial team."

    I strongly suspect that if the court ordered that if the review wasn't completed in, say, 6 hours the material would be handed over anyway they'd suddenly find it possible to review it in 6 hours.

    What, BTW, happens if the reviewer decides the material is classified?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If the material is classfied it will not be released to the lawyer.

      This article is a bunch of nothing.

      Its from what I can tell standard ops when you have a trial the deals with classified material as evidence.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        "Its from what I can tell standard ops when you have a trial the deals with classified material as evidence."

        Well, it shouldn't be. "Innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law" is the basis of the common-law judicial system. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This cannot be done if the prosecution is hiding evidence from the defence team.* We should all be very concerned that anything, even "national security" , is allowed to trump the basis on which the judicial system is based, since it could happen to any of us.

        * That doesn't mean that other safeguards, such as hearings in camera, can't be used, though sparingly. Justice not seen to be done isn't justice.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "If the material is classfied it will not be released to the lawyer.

        This article is a bunch of nothing."

        It might not be a bunch of nothing if you'd read it carefully enough to realise that the material being reviewed is the accused's instructions to his lawyer. Having a reviewer interposed to black-hole instructions on the unchallengeable (because black-holed) basis that they're classified is not a good way to have justice seen to be done.

  2. ma1010
    WTF?

    How can the government get away with this?

    They need to try to find a federal judge who at least HEARD OF the Bill of Rights and the Constitution - I doubt this one knows what those are. Maybe they could appoint the judge that just told IBM where to get off? He seems to have a clue about rights, which is more than I can say about this judge.

    What is going on these days in this country? This sort of abuse of people just boggles my mind. I wonder if many Germans felt the same way in 1933? Whatever happened to the federal judges in this country who handed down decisions like Miranda? They've all retired or died, I guess, and many of the new ones have little clue about human rights, it seems. If this sort of thing continues, I fear we'll see concentration camps in the not-too-distant future. Hopefully I'll have died of old age before then, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: How can the government get away with this?

      Didn't Eisenhower mention it was happening fifty something years ago? I've no idea how old you are but this has been the case in the US for most of your life, how come you've only noticed now?

      Things like due process get in the way of making money, and the US is all about making money, so, "out with due process".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Judicial appointments are becoming a problem

      You think it is bad now, just wait. It used to be that judges were appointed based on experience and qualifications, with an overall tilt based on the party in power. Now they are appointed based on 1) having the "right" opinion on a handful of hot button issues and 2) youth, so their life appointments will stack the court longer.

      We need to go back to requiring 60 votes to pass the Senate - or better yet 75! Failing that they need a limited term rather than life appointment. Otherwise we are going to follow this to its logical conclusion and see judges appointed for life at age 25, having written papers in law school exposing the "correct" views to get them the job from one party or the other. Wisdom need not apply.

    3. JohnFen

      Re: How can the government get away with this?

      "What is going on these days in this country?"

      These days? This sort of thing isn't remotely new. Seriously, just check out US history, particularly around the CIA. If you're short on time, just check out what the Church Committee found. And know that today is no different.

  3. AndyFl

    At least Rumpole's telephone kept working

    Reminds me of Rumpole and the Official Secret. One of the best of the series.

  4. GrapeBunch

    Nightmare drama

    If World knows how CIA planted spyware on devices, I don't see what the National Security aspect is. The cover is blown, so by now CIA must have rolled out a different way to plant spyware on devices. Are they saying that Schulte also knows the current method? If he did, he could also have released that at the same time, again negating the National Security aspect of the charges. But if he did not release anything, then he is Innocent.

    Anybody who has watched TV in the past 20 years knows that "You can't make me, I'm innocent" meets with the reply "but when we put kiddie porn on your computer, you're guilty." So is anybody suggesting that it could be through agency (cough) of CIA that the abusive images were uploaded to the server in question? This could have happened before, or after, CIA began to question Schulte. Were the abusive images uploaded under Schulte's own account name, or somebody else's?

    In a TV version of this drama, Schulte might tell his bosses "You can't make me, I'm innocent". "We can't make you, but we can make your life a living hell. We'll make the suckers believe you're the devil incarnate, not us. And you'll never want to take another shower." "Prove it." "With pleasure." That's not too Byzantine for the spy genre, especially in USA in the 21st century. Of course we don't know what CIA was trying to get out of Schulte--that might have National Security ramifications. Not to be confused with imagined National Security ramifications.

    CIA is a business based entirely upon deception. And they're very good at it. I would have thought that pursuit of justice would first want to see the deception and its purveyors kept in a quiet room.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate for a millisecond.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Nightmare drama

      At this point in time, with the current shambles that is the NSA, CIA, FCC and the entire US Government, I would be much more surprised to learn that they didn't stick the images to pin on him and bring him down while they tore his life apart with glee.

      Everything in this article seems to describe a process tailor-made by the CIA to inflict as much humiliation and anguish as possible. A strip search before every meeting ? Really ? What can he possible have to pass out since the last search ? Be a tad logical and strip search him after the meeting to at least look like you're worried about something.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nightmare drama

      I think it's to do with maintaining what they call "plausible deniability".

      Of course it isn't at all plausible - but if they say it is, no one dares say otherwise.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave ...

    ... with a Chlorinated Chicken as President who suffers from Wikileaks Amnesia.

  6. beep54

    We have met the enemy

    and he is us.

  7. blue-eyes

    Pedantic

    "Schulte was in charge of a server that contained 54GB of illegal content but has pled not guilty, "

    Could we have some good old fashioned English please. The past tense of "plead" is "pleaded".

    1. _LC_ Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Pedantic

      From

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plead#note-1

      "Pleaded vs. Pled

      Plead belongs to the same class of verbs as bleed, lead, and feed, and like them it has a past and past participle with a short vowel spelled pled (or sometimes plead, which is pronounced alike). From the beginning, pled has faced competition from the regular form pleaded, which eventually came to predominate in mainstream British English. Pled was and is used in Scottish English, which is likely how it came to American English. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pled was attacked by many American usage commentators (perhaps because it was not in good British use). Though still sometimes criticized, it is fully respectable today and both pled (or plead) and pleaded are in good use in the U.S. In legal use (such as “pleaded guilty,” “pled guilty”), both forms are standard, though pleaded is used with greater frequency. In nonlegal use (such as “pleaded for help”), pleaded appears more commonly, though pled is also considered standard."

      1. DontFeedTheTrolls
        Thumb Up

        Re: Pedantic

        I was going to down vote the original pedantry however your quote from the dictionary explains my Scottish use of "pled". Not like us to leave out letters, that normally only occurs once the Merkins adopt the word.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pedantic

        So it's pleaded then, seeing as "mainstream British English" is English. You know, English from England.

    2. Aodhhan

      Re: Pedantic

      If you're going to play the moronic grammar police role, you should at least have your own grammar correct. First, you should use "Can" instead of "could". Then of course, since you're asking a question, the sentence shouldn't end in a period.

      Then most importantly--take 25 seconds out of your life and use a search engine to validate what you improperly believe is correct.

      Dumbass.

  8. Trollslayer
    Flame

    And we thought MI5 was bad

    Remember the Matrix-Churchill affair aka the Iraqi Supergun affair?

    The CIA make MI5 seem like angels.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And we thought MI5 was bad

      Well, the CIA make Genghis Khan, Timur Lenk, Macchiavelli and the Gestapo seem like angels.

      It's not just the wickedness: it's the enjoyment they get out of cheating, lying, torturing, killing, blackmailing - and get away with it all.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022