-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Hi, I'm Bill Weir1 in for Anderson Cooper, welcome to the 360 podcast. It is judge versus2 judge on the NASA's phone spying program, big news scare for target customers and big win for Duck Dynasty. Let's get started.
Today, a New York Federal Court Judge weighed in on the NASA operation, they collects the numbers called from all of our phones: when those calls are made and for how long. It is a defeat for the American's civil liberties union which sued to stop the NASA. And Judge William Polly wrote: While Robust3 discussions are under way across the country. In congress and at the White House, the question for this court is whether the government bulk telephony metadata program is lawful4, this court finds it is.
One catch, though, just a week ago, another Federal Judge Richard Leon looking at the very same facts reached exact opposite conclusion. He wrote: I can't imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic5 high-tech6 collection and retention7 of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying8 and analyzing9 it without prior judicial10 approval.
So the question now, how is square these two rulings and who gets the job doing that? Senior legal analyst11 Jeffery Tooben gets the job tonight trying to answer both.
So break this down for us, Jeffery. This is really interesting. A couple of weeks ago, we had Judge down in Washington appointed by or nominated bench, by George W. Bush who says this is against Fourth Amendment12, this will not stand, we can't hoover up all this metadata and keep it forever. This judge, here in New York, two weeks later, appointed by Clinton disagrees.
It's a pretty amazing situation. I've never seen something precisely13 like this. Here you have two judges, exactly legal issue inside a couple of weeks, deciding it completely differently.I think the big difference is that the judge here in New York said "There's a supreme14 court precedent15 that controls this case." There is a Supreme Court 1979 said " When you dial the phone, you are telling the phone company what number you are dialing, you'll see it on you bill. It is not something you have any right to expect privacy,"
But again, 1979 when we had rotary16 phones (correct) and the founder17 of Facebook was negative five (correct).
Well, that's what the judge in Washington says, that may be the precedent on the books but it's obsolete18 now. So, I'm gonna find this a violation19 of privacy. You know, appeals courts don't take too kindly20 to district court judges saying. You know the Supreme Court is wrong. So I think the Judge in New York may have the advantage on appeal, and I think the odds21 favor although is not a sure thing. This metadata program being upheld.
And one is saying it works, the other saying it's worthless.
This was the thing that I found the most surprising in this whole opinions. Because Judge Leon in Washington said " It's been proved that this hasn't stopped any terrorists attacks." Judge Polly here in New York has a list of terrorist events, would be attacks that it was stopped. " I don't, I mean, that's just frankly22 a mistery to me and I hope that gets sort it out as this case proceeds because it's obviously very important question does this thing do any good.
Well, that's it. Final question then. It has to wind this way through the appellates. May be a year before it hits scotus, right? So knowing what you know of the bench, as the Supreme Court stays the way it's now. How do you think they come down on this?
I think they uphold it. You know, national security is something the judges take very seriously and they recognize that they don't have expertise23 in this area, they defer24 to the executive branch to the experts on this areas. And I think ultimately that's how it would turn out. Now, it may also be that President Obama modifies the program in some way on his own initiative. But the Courts, I think, will ultimately go the way of saying " We're not gonna interfere25, this is a political question for executive branch." But as we seeing, different judges see it differently and I could be wrong. It's happened before.
I've been a fan to your work for a long time. It's great to share a set with you, Jeffery.
It's good to see you, Bill.
点击收听单词发音
1 weir | |
n.堰堤,拦河坝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 versus | |
prep.以…为对手,对;与…相比之下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 robust | |
adj.强壮的,强健的,粗野的,需要体力的,浓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 systematic | |
adj.有系统的,有计划的,有方法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 high-tech | |
adj.高科技的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 retention | |
n.保留,保持,保持力,记忆力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 querying | |
v.质疑,对…表示疑问( query的现在分词 );询问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 analyzing | |
v.分析;分析( analyze的现在分词 );分解;解释;对…进行心理分析n.分析 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 judicial | |
adj.司法的,法庭的,审判的,明断的,公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 analyst | |
n.分析家,化验员;心理分析学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 rotary | |
adj.(运动等)旋转的;轮转的;转动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 obsolete | |
adj.已废弃的,过时的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 kindly | |
adj.和蔼的,温和的,爽快的;adv.温和地,亲切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 odds | |
n.让步,机率,可能性,比率;胜败优劣之别 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 expertise | |
n.专门知识(或技能等),专长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 defer | |
vt.推迟,拖延;vi.(to)遵从,听从,服从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|