Citizenfour Page #3

- Amazon.com orders?

- No.

- Bank records?

- No.

What judicial consent

is required for NSA

to intercept communications...

and information

involving American citizens?

Within the United States,

that would be the FBI lead.

If it was a foreign actor

in the United States,

the FBI would still have the lead

and could work that with...

with NSA or other intelligence

agencies as authorized.

But to conduct that kind of...

of collection in the United States,

it would have to go through a court order,

and the court

would have to authorize it.

We are not authorized to do it,

nor do we do it.

All rise.

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit is now in session.

Please be seated.

Good morning, and welcome

to the Ninth Circuit.

The first case for argument is

Jewel versus National Security Agency.

You may proceed.

May it please the court, Kevin Bankston,

for Carolyn Jewel and her fellow plaintiff

appellants in Jewel v. NSA.

Your Honors, plaintiffs

have specifically alleged

that their own communications

and communications records

have been acquired by the government.

But the District Court found that

we had failed to allege facts

that differentiated the injury

that our plaintiffs suffered

from the injuries suffered

by every otherAT&T user

whose communications and records

have been acquired by the government,

basically concluding that

so long as everyone is being surveilled,

no one has standing to sue.

However, to deny standing to persons

who are injured simply because

many others are also injured

would mean that the most injurious

and widespread government actions

could be questioned by nobody.

Do you have anything

concrete that in fact

a specific communication

of your client was intercepted?

We have evidence

that all the communications

passing between AT&T's network

and other networks

in their Northern California

facility have been intercepted.

And so that would necessarily include

the Internet communications

of our Northern California plaintiffs.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Your Honors.

May it please the court, I am Thomas Byron

from the Department of Justice

here on behalf

of the government defendants.

We think this litigation

need not be resolved in federal court

in light of the oversight

of the political branches,

both legislative and executive,

which provides a better opportunity

for oversight and resolution

of the concerns raised

concerning nationwide policies

of alleged surveillance,

uh, in these complaints.

Even if it's revealed that

one or more of the plaintiffs

had email or telephone

conversations intercepted

that had nothing to do

with national security?

Rate this script:5.0 / 1 vote