Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 45810
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/05/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/23    

2007/2/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45810 Activity:nil
2/23    UCD Law Review Symposium on 4th Amend. Search & Seizure law:
        http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8048
        http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/2007symposium
        \_ If anybody here has EBOLA, please go to this and lick JOHN YOO.
2025/05/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/23    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/6/18-8/13 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:54695 Activity:nil
6/17    Don't mess with Texas:
        http://gawker.com/woman-tells-carjacker-he-picked-wrong-witch-runs-him-513728108
        \_ Kudos.  I just worry that some shameless ambulance-chasing lawyer
           might sue her on behalf of the criminal.
           \_ America has more lawsuits per capita than any other nation.
              Lawyers, rejoice!!!
	...
2013/4/10-5/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:54651 Activity:nil
4/10    Is it just me, or it seems really ironic that a bunch of iconic
        monopolists in the Guilded Age funded a bunch of academic institutions
        through their philanthropies and those institutions later on produced
        famous academics that are highly critical of their benefactors
        and attack the ideals on which those monopolists based their
        philosophy on?
	...
2012/9/19-11/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:54480 Activity:nil
9/18    Why are so many ACCOUNTANTS Jewish? Not a troll, just curious.
        Gil. Goldberg. Levy. etc...
        \_ Perhaps b/c historically Jews (unlike Christians) were allowed
           to charge interest on loans (usury).
           \_ ok, fine. What about lawyers? I don't get that one.
              Goldberg. Ginsberg. Buergenthal. Rosenthal. Hoffman. Shapiro.
	...
2012/6/23-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:54421 Activity:nil
6/23    Werher von Braun, Nazi, SS, overseer of Dora slave factory,
        is an American hero because of his contribution to
        Saturn V. What is wrong with America?
        \_ Is this worse or better than Gerald Ford pardoning
           Nixon for FuckYouAmericaGate?
        \_ "Hero" is a strong word. "Useful" would have been a
	...
2012/5/9-6/4 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:54384 Activity:nil
5/9     If U.S. doesn't do assissination, then what do you call
        Operation Neptune Spear aka "Mission Kill Bin Laden"?
        \_ I think theoretically the difference is that the goal of one is
           "kill him/her", while the goal of the other is "capture him/her,
           and don't hestitate to shoot with the possibly of killing if he/she
           and don't hesitate to shoot with the possibly of killing if he/she
	...
2010/4/28-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53808 Activity:nil
4/28    Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone in 1963:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28laura.html?no_interstitial
        How come she didn't go to jail?
        \_ Car drivers rarely go to jail for killing people.  -tom
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Dick Cheney shot a man.
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Hillary and Dick Cheney both shot a man.
	...
Cache (2446 bytes)
www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8048
Printable version Event Focuses on Surveillance, Wiretapping, Terrorism February 21, 2007 John Yoo -- who spearheaded the Bush administration's legal response to the 2001 terrorist attacks -- and other constitutional scholars will debate the National Security Agency's surveillance program, warrantless phone wiretapping and the war on terror at UC Davis March 9 The event, titled "Katz v US: 40 Years Later -- From Warrantless Wiretaps to the War on Terror," will focus on how the US Supreme Court's landmark "search and seizure" decision in Katz applies in a modern age of global terrorism. The UC Davis Law Review and the School of Law will host the free, public event. The program runs from 9 am to 4:30 pm in the Wilkins Moot Court Room of King Hall on the UC Davis campus. "The issue of warrantless wiretaps and personal privacy has resurfaced from under the current NSA surveillance program," said David Richardson, editor-in-chief of the law review. "This symposium will allow some of the greatest legal minds in the country to discuss both sides of this controversy." Jennifer Chacon, a UC Davis professor of law and faculty adviser to the event, said, "Growing concerns over crime and terrorism in the United States have sparked a national conversation about the trade-offs between individual privacy and security." "Read against a modern backdrop," she added, "the case of Katz v United States provides an ideal framework for discussing privacy expectations, effective law enforcement and anti-terrorism strategies." In Katz, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects "people, not places" and provides protection of a "reasonable expectation of privacy," effectively curtailing the use of warrantless wiretaps by law enforcement agencies. John Yoo, now a UC Berkeley law professor, and Glenn Sulmasy of the US Coast Guard Academy, will co-present a paper questioning the viability of Katz in the war on terror in a session at 2:45 pm Yoo served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the US Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. Sessions are as follows: "Katz in Context: Privacy, Policing Homosexuality and Enforcing Social Norms," 9:30 am to 11:30 am; "Katz in the Age of International Crime and Terrorism," 2:45 pm to 4:15 pm; and closing remarks, 4:15 pm to 4:30 pm Celebrating its 40th anniversary, the law review ranks in the top 50 most cited legal periodicals in the United States.
Cache (1337 bytes)
lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/2007symposium -> lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/2007symposium/
Podcast & Blog As the fortieth anniversary of Katz v United States, 389 US 347 (1967), approaches, there could hardly be a better time to reexamine that important decision. With the declaration that the Fourth Amendment protects "people, not places" and provides protection of a "reasonable expectation of privacy," the Katz case fundamentally altered the foundation of constitutional criminal procedure. The issues that were raised in the Katz case are of continued relevance for contemporary practitioners. Lawyers are still seeking to define the sorts of electronic monitoring that should be classified as Fourth Amendment searches, even as the technologies continue to evolve. Lawyers are still working to define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections in an age of global terrorism. Just a few weeks ago, in ACLU v National Security Agency, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a warrantless wiretapping program initiated by the National Security Agency after the events of September 11, 2001. Her opinion looks back to Katz, and to the statutes enacted in its wake. In short, many of the fundamental questions discussed in the Katz case continue to pose challenges for contemporary lawyers. We hope that our symposium will provide a useful forum for an updated exploration of those questions.