Government & Law ~ 3 Cases ~ Edward Snowden (Whistleblower government surveillance), Julius & Ethel Rosenberg (Espionage atomic bomb), John Hinckley (Presidential Assassin uses Insanity Defense) + Tests~ 67 Slides Totally
THERE ARE MANY ACTUAL SLIDES FOR YOUR REVIEW IN THE PREVIEW. THIS IS YOUR BEST INDICATION OF PRODUCT QUALITY
These are three separate powerpoint presentations on the above 3 cases. All three presentations deal with individual people and a crime involving the American government. There are excerpts from each presentation below. Each has its own multiple choice test with answer key included. There are 30 Questions Total.
* You might also like *
Government v. Rosenbergs - Hinckley - Snowden - 3 FREE POSTERS
The author is a retired lawyer, instructor and textbook author.
EXCERPT FROM EDWARD SNOWDEN:
Lawsuits have emerged in the wake of Snowden’s revelations, such as two lower federal courts splitting over the constitutionality of NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata. The one which ruled against Snowden’s position has been reversed, on appeal, however, in the below case.
On May 7, 2015, in the case of ACLU v. Clapper, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not authorize the NSA to collect Americans' calling records in bulk. It voided U.S. District Judge William Pauley's 2013 finding that the NSA program was lawful. The case was remanded for further review.
It is clear that the competing interests of national security vs. information privacy are now at the forefront of what’s going on in the law. Snowden in a meeting with human rights organizations gave the following quote.“The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair.”
EXCERPT JULIUS & ETHEL ROSENBERG:
This is the trial and conviction of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg from the 1950s which ended in their execution in 1953. This presentation includes:
Julius Rosenberg was already passing information to the Soviets when his handler learned that his wife’s brother, David Greenglass, was working on the Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a machinist and sergeant in the U.S. Army. America did not share its atomic secrets with Russia either during nor after WWII. Russia wanted that information. Greenglass was able to pass info to Julius Rosenberg who in turn passed it to the Soviets about the atomic bomb at Los Alamos.
David Greenglass and his wife Ruth were the ones who told the U.S. government that his sister and her husband recruited him and that they had leaked information he provided to the Soviet contact agent Anatoli Yakovlev. This was enough to charge the Rosenbergs with espionage. It has in modern times come to light that the Greenglasses implicated Ethel to save themselves when there was no real evidence against her.
Both Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman under Section 2 of the Espionage Act of 1917, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794). That law prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense.” The Rosenbergs’ convictions helped fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into anti-American activities by U.S. citizens. All of the people who named names to the House Unamerican Activities Committee subsequently just followed the David and Ruth Greenglass model of betrayal.
EXCERPT FROM JOHN HINCKLEY:
John Hinckley Jr. was the son of a wealthy family. They had had trouble with him for a long time and thus had him under the long term care of a psychiatrist. The issues his parents and the psychiatrist had with this son would be the same ones which would later play out in his trial for shooting President Reagan and others in his retinue.
Specifically, was Hinckley an overindulged, rich, spoiled brat or was he significantly more mentally disturbed than they surmised, so disturbed that he could be classed as legally insane?
That both the parents and the psychiatrist had radically underestimated his problems is a given. That the psychiatrist had advised them to financially cut him off so that he would be forced to behave responsibly was a catastrophic error. But did this mean that he was so disturbed that he should have been committed long term to a mental hospital instead?
The unusual problem with the insanity defense is absent in this case. That is that the defendant has no prior contact with psychiatrists and thus it is very difficult to build the basis of a defense from his earlier treatment for mental illness. Hinckley had substantial psychiatric care prior to the shooting so was an ideal candidate for the defense.