>> A good analysis of FISA (written shortly before it was yet further
>> broadened) is available at
>> <http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/fisa_faq.html>
>
> This is a very clear summary, but I don't see any mention of allowing
> the covert surveillance of attorney-client communications. Can you
> think of another summary that makes the connection clear?
Elaine Cassel's piece in Counterpunch last year was a good clear summary: <http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel1012.html>
> Or is this just SOP in prisons?
I've never believed that the special attorney visiting rooms were provided in order to _respect_ the privilege, and have always preferred (if permitted) to consult in the general visiting rooms
> I was under the impression it was relatively new frontier in privacy
> violation, or at least that legitimating it was.
Yes, it's the bald claim that surveillance of attorney-client communications is "legitimate" (and can be the basis of criminal prosecution) that is the new frontier.
Lynne's defense webpage <http://www.lynnestewart.org> is an excellent resource. It's slightly out of date, but only as to Friday afternoon's events. Judge Koeltl reset the trial date for May 2004 to permit motions on the superceding (returnable in April). BTW (for Pugliese's little list), the webpage recites that it is "made possible by the generous support of the Open Society Institute" (i.e., George Soros).
john mage