Why not tear up any notion of due process of law. Let the war criminal of a Dick pronounce judgement.

And not even all of those.

has the perfect right to investigate how the leak happened.

And note...they went to a source who is not entitled to privilege.

The prosecution didn't know. The defense lawyers....if they colluded in the leak, screwed their own client.

If there's a trial delay..it will be because of the defense.

According to the ABA,
The attorney-client privilege and the ethical obligation of client confidentiality extend to the paralegal and all nonlawyers working with the lawyer. Rule 5.3 of the Model Rules provides that lawyers who are partners in a firm, who have comparable managerial authority or who have supervisory authority over nonlawyers "shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." An analogous provision exists in Guideline 6 of the Utilization Guidelines.

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2007-01-02/kao.shtml

The FBI does not have the right to infiltrate the defense team. Any attorney who advised the FBI to follow this procedure should be sanctioned and lose his license. The court has the duty to uphold attorney-client privilege.

edited to add source

for the security contractor is not the same as a legal professional and I cannot imagine under what rubric a court would find security personnel necessary to the defense.... remember this is not a paralegal, a legal professional or even a translator... all which would be integral and necessary to the defense and would generally be covered by attorney client privilege.

Apparently the security contractor has entered into a plea deal with the FBI. I hope KSM did not fuck over his defense lawyers because certainly they are good people and don't deserve that.

edited to add:... privilege doesn't cover the commission of a crime neccessarily.

That's why I mentioned the penalties I did. Did you notice I didn't refer to criminal penalties and instead referred to sanctions on any attorney for approved the infiltration? As for security, this is exactly the type of case that security is required. I can imagine a court finding security personnel required to protect defense counsel for alleged terrorists.

BTW, are you aware of how rude it is to start off a comment with "um...no?" It implies that the other person is an idiot. You might want to cease doing stuff like that, particularly when you don't know how to spell. The word "necessarily" has only one "c."

FYI...thanks.for correcting my spelling. As a diagnosed dyslexic, I'm used to people jeering at my spelling when I don't use the spellchecker, particularly when they have no refutation of the facts I present.

The security personnel at GITMO would be protecting the defense counsel. I've never encountered private security being used inside a prison by defense counsel. The SAMS these prisoners are under generally don't allow for extraneous personnel.

As I noted, the security contractor apparently signed a plea deal with the FBI. At some point we'll hear about who was involved and who did what. I suspect someone on the defense team is going to get hit with a charge of material support to terrorism.

Perhaps you'll understand the points the second time around.

Courts take ethical standards into account when making decisions. If it considers the infiltration to be an ethical violation, it could dismiss the case, order sanctions, or both. Please note that I mentioned sanctions in my first post.
Accordingly, the ethical rule is a standard that may affect the outcome and thus worth pointing out.

Your unnecessarily rude posts is why I and so many other people generally avoid General Discussion.

BTW, you have picked a very appropriate screen name.

Edited to correct a typo

absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the FBI that would affect the charges already brought against him.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the restrictions on communication placed on KSM. He violated those restrictions. It would not surprise me in the least if the judge knew of the FBI investigation.

Take a look at the Lynne Stewart case. The people who are sweating here are not the prosecution....it's the defense. The people facing penalty? The defense...not the prosecution.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how judges deal with leaks by the defendant in violation of court restrictions. The penalties to the defense tend to be severe.

It was stolen by cronies of Ed Meese.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw.html