Monitored Alarm Systems

One of the most ridiculous things about the government's campaign of secret surveillance of Americans is how difficult it is fought anyone who tried to test the policy in court. If the federal government were sure that what they did was legal, it would not be as aggressive attempts to prevent every day. When the ACLU and others sued over wiretapping without warrants under the FISA Amendments Act (the check box against the AI) decisions of the lower courts were particularly troubling because it was determined that there was no locus standi because there was no direct evidence of espionage. So that leaves the audience in a good place. I can not blame the program, unless they can prove they were spied on, but can not do so unless they know more about the program, which is secret. Someone page of Joseph Heller.



The part of the case before the Supreme Court is only whether or not the leader of Amnesty International and the ACLU to advance the case . The government insists, quite violently, while nobody knows who is spying, can not continue. The blog has a good summary Escoto said that the judges were "sensitive" to lawyers who want to continue, but as we have already said, what the judges say in court is not always a good barometer of how they ultimately prevail. However, you might as well go through the transcription of certain key points. The report began the Attorney General (and former litigator entertainment industry) Donald Verrilli asked about the fact that, according to his interpretation, could not sue after being accused of a crime and knew the details. It is neither fair nor reasonable. Verrilli cooked some other scenarios, but they all seem rather unlikely.

And fortunately, Judge Ginsburg asked at this point:

General Verrilli
, can you be more specific about who this person is? Because, if I understand correctly, it is unlikely that, for example, the lawyers in this case would be charged with any crime. It is more likely that their customers would be, but according to the government, customers have no Fourth Amendment rights because they are people who are not citizens acting abroad.

It is therefore difficult for me to imagine. I see the theoretical possibility, but I see a real person who is subject to a federal tax that could raise an objection.



In other words: "Do not we have a problem when you write effective supervision outlaw"

More

Later, Ginsburg also questioned whether the government has required state secrets on the need to provide information anyway. Ultimately, the debate comes down to a lawyer only if

thought

the government spy phone calls to him and change their behavior is a form of "injury" and whether or not we trust the Special Court (FISA established to oversee these things) to do a good job in eliminating abuse. regard to "think" that the government spy call, Verrilli tried to argue that there is no real damage because a lawyer has a moral obligation to take more precautions. Seriously


JUSTICE KAGAN
: Well, is there really such a speculation, sir? I mean, imagine - you in the position of the lawyer and the lawyer said, I represent a person associated with a terrorist organization, I represent KLM in the case of one of these lawyers, and I will speak with family members and associates of that person and try to find out everything you can.

Now, as a lawyer, he would care, or if you pick up the phone and start writing e-mails to all these people?



Verrilli GENERAL: If I took precautions, be due to the belief that it had to comply with a rule of conduct, ethics and the rule would cause me to take these precautions. It does not change the rule.


JUSTICE KAGAN
: I do not even think it has to do with an ethical standard. If you are a good lawyer, and forget the rule of ethics and how they apply the rules of ethics. Are you really telling me that you, as a lawyer, just pick up the phone on the face of the law and talk with associates of the terrorists?



side lawyers seeking standing, his lawyer Jameel Jaffer, tried to put the case to the judges, in which there is a "significant risk" have intercepted communications, leading to behavior change. Here, Chief Justice Roberts continued to push back the rule is "certainly impending" instead of "serious risk".



President Roberts: You have two arguments: the first is the likelihood of future injury and the other is a present obligation or cause. I want to focus first. Our policy is certainly imminent and substantial risk revolves say. It is clear that there is a big difference between the two.



MR. Jaffer: Well, I do not think, sir, that the Court has questioned imminent. The case - Government cites case - I think the government cites is based on strongly summers. But Summers, the distinction between probability and was certainly not for tomorrow, the Court relied on - in this decision. The court stated that the plaintiffs could not meet even the lowest level. So I think that the discussion of doubt imminent -

Justice Kennedy: But the government and Monsanto Summers said: We knew that the government's action was happening, then a Once we knew that the issue was a significant risk.

MR. Jaffer: Justice Kennedy, - depending on the case, Monsanto, Laidlaw, Meese v. Keene, are those cases in which the Court did not see any rule certainly imminent. The question of the Court in these cases was asked: Is there a significant risk? Is there a risk that effective forces actors to act as they are - act?



Meanwhile, Justice Scalia seemed to think that the FISA Court can really trust automatically discover any violation of the Fourth Amendment, for example, lawyers spied able to raise themselves. Scalia is apparently very confident in the powers of the FISA Court really stop excessive surveillance. Jaffer said that although the current struggle to renew the FISA Amendments Act suggests otherwise, because it eliminates the basic tests that the FISA Court had to look at the details (the person or place to watch) and gives the each government to spy more generally:
Scalia: This assessment takes into account the fact that the court is going to happen in the government's ability to intercept these communications?

Find best price for : --Supreme----Court----Scalia----Chief----Jameel----Justice----General----FISA----ACLU--