quick, i say this with more than all due respect, i am not saying it which is of bad thing but all the stuff we now know the we don't know, all the stuff we now know is as part of the political reaction to the understanding that this program was in effect arguing a good deal that was classified and was made public as a reaction to that. >> that is true that there is now information public in the public realm that had not been public before but this program, i think this is the critical aspect of the congressional design, was subject to article iii review from the beginning operation of the fiscal which

was a body congress set of specifically to accomplish that just as the intelligence committees act as that panel for oversight of the executive branch from the congressional side where by necessity you are dealing with classified information. >> this is entirely useless. i can't say -- all the systems would truly be given the warmer feeling inside gifts it was not all some representative of the other side, some representative of the other side was a pro bono or not promote, in chicago, have the law argue the other side of

these. i for one would blame what you say, i am not talking lava or out of school a lot more reassuring conflicts. >> as your honor may be aware of the proposals currently pending for a change to the program would include provisions that allow more than one option on the table, the approach you are talking about. if you look at the reasonableness inquiry for example i think balancing factor is the supreme court and this court says should be balanced and the one hand there is an overriding importance in preventing future terrorist

attacks, intrusion if any subject to the smith argument on the privacy of individuals to allow the examination of the data, to allow the identification of connections only on finding reasonable procedures that are in place so the statutory safeguards a limit the dissemination of records that are collected. there is an oversight system on congress or other entities in the executive branch. all of this i submit we submit should lead the court of providing for the amendment question that the program as it stands is reasonable. >> constitutionally reasonable whether it is award feeling and we respect that. >> the test is whether it is an effective means of affecting interests, not him least

restrictive means. >> looks like you are folding up. there are more questions come as much time as we gave alex abdo we understand your argument unless there's something you think you haven't gotten to that is critical. >> anything? >> didn't mention it either. we will consider at based -- it will be picked up in rebuttal. talking about it in the initial arguments anymore than sturat delery talked-about a standing argument. he is relying none is briefed. i don't know the we need to hear more about those. i don't want to cut you off if there's something critical for we should know if you haven't gotten to but we have given that probably more crimes and you

will get in the supreme court day. >> i can assure you when you get to the supreme court in won't see two of these. >> thank you your honor. >> alex abdo, we will hear you on rebuttal, you are limited to two minutes. at the same time we have had a very fair and discussion of the issues sore i hope you will be able to be relatively brief and respond only to points you haven't had an opportunity to address a far. with that, go ahead. >> to respond to sturat delery's ratification, it is not a game of gotcha with congressional intent. it is whether there is an official interpretation of statutes that congress was aware of and that is not the case here. many members of congress were not aware of the program. those who were were not provided legal analysis of the program

and even then they were not allowed to discuss it with their colleagues or constituents in a way the supreme court has always pointed to in past cases of ratification. the second point to go back to exchange you had the government related to the efficiency and constitutionality, the government could use targeted demands in a continuous way if it structured its arrangement with the telecommunications companies in a certain way and congress could provide that mechanism. affect the congress has not yet provided that mechanism is no bar to the court ruling, that was precisely the case when the supreme court ruled the government could not wiretap individuals without a warrant and lead to enactment of title free and that was the case in the key to the supreme court rules that intelligence surveillance even though justifies the need to gather

intelligence, had to be individualized. smith is different from this case for a lot of reasons. not just the government requiring different types of information that was under smith it was acquiring information about millions of individuals and not just one but also that the government is acquiring that information even with respect to a single person indefinitely for an indefinite duration and not made clear just a few years after smith that when the government scales up surveillance to dragnet the constitutional balance is a uhbeillance operation from targeted to dragnet the constitutional balance is a different engine needs to be addressed differently. you exactly right, what requires this court to assess expectations of privacy of this program and not just what the supreme court decided. a quick related point the minimization procedures heavily relies on would be

constitutionally superfluous if smith government this case. they could collect records without protections in plac on they could store them indefinitely, clearing them for any reason or no reason at all then they could build a dossier in this case with no constitutional restriction. final point, the government tries to explain why it is only asking for a narrow ruling from this court. no legal fees that it advances are a road map to a world in which the government routinely collects cast parties of information about americans who have done nothing wrong. i don't think that is the world congress envisioned when it enacted section 215 and not the world the framers envisioned when they crafted vote for the amendment. if there are no questions? >> thank you very much and we very much appreciate your arguments on both sides which were extremely careful and learned and we will take some

under advisement. and eventually render a decision. thank you very much. that is the last case on the calendar. the clerk will adjourn the court. >> court stands ad1 caurned. ..