The Morning Plum: Time to declassify those FISA court opinions, Mr. President

[ProSense]

The Morning Plum: Time to declassify those FISA court opinions, Mr. President

By Greg Sargent

President Obama, still facing widespread criticism over revelations about NSA phone gathering and internet mining, again defended the NSA programs yesterday. “I came into office committed to protecting the American people but also committed to our values and our ideals and one of our highest ideals is civil liberties and privacy,” Obama said. “I am confident that at this point we have struck the appropriate balance.”

If that is so, then surely Obama would have no reason to support the status quo, in which Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions authorizing these programs continue to remain secret — leaving the public and the press with no meaningful way of evaluating whether the legal rationale underlying that “balance” is indeed “appropriate.”

As best as anyone can determine, Obama could push for the declassification of key FISA court opinions if he wanted to. And in a letter to be sent to the President today, Senator Jeff Merkley calls on him to do just that.

Merkley notes that the NSA programs are made possible by the legal interpretation of key sections of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act offered by both the administration and the FISA court — but that these interpretations remain secret, making meaningful public debate about the programs impossible. Merkley continues:

Because of the highly classified nature of opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), Members of Congress cannot publicly discuss, let alone debate, the way that the executive and judicial branches are interpreting the law. And without disclosing and debating the interpretation of the law, it is a fruitless exercise to debate whether and how to change laws which we are periodically asked to reauthorize.

In order to support a public discussion about these issues, I ask that you declassify opinions issued by the FISC and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that contain significant construction or interpretation of law. If declassifying the full opinions would compromise sensitive sources and methods used by our intelligence community, then I urge you to release public summaries of legal interpretations contained in these opinions. While debating the laws that govern our intelligence gathering programs has never been easy, we must be able to publicly discuss what the law means in order to protect and promote our most cherished values.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/19/the-morning-plum-time-to-declassify-those-fisa-court-opinions-mr-president/

President Obama:

"What I've asked the intelligence community to do is see how much of this we can declassify without further compromising the program," the president continued. "And they are in that process of doing so now so that everything that I'm describing to you today - people, the public, newspapers, etc., can look at. Because frankly, if people are making judgments just based on these slides that have been leaked, they're not getting the complete story."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589732/obama-on-nsa-programs-americans-not-getting-the-complete-story/

Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098

[NYC_SKP]

1. I think he'll do the right thing.

It's a sketchy position for him, not just in terms of balancing security with transparency, but also in having to not reward the whistle-blower with an immediate response (laws were broken).

My guess is that Obama will turn this into an opportunity to challenge Congress to begin to do their job with greater care.

[NCTraveler]

2. While I think that Obama is a good President overall....

on this topic he cannot be trusted. His words are empty. He once called the Patriot Act "Shoddy and dangerous", he then fully supports it with very limited changes. He will have just enough released to make the program look reasonable. While at the same time holding back thousands of documents that he doesn't want us to see. It is bullshit. He will attempt to give those willing to fight for him over any issue, regardless of where he stands, some ammo to tell everyone else that there is nothing bad here.

For those arguing that this program is constitutional and legal, I say fine. What Westboro is doing is constitutional and legal. I put those showing support by making the legal/constitutional argument on the same playing field as the characters at Westboro. They have no argument with respect to civil liberties, so they make the only argument they can. The list of things the government doesn't do, that would be found constitutional, is endless. Because it is legal/constitutional does not mean it needs to be done or that it doesn't erode civil liberties.

[ProSense]

3. I don't think

"For those arguing that this program is constitutional and legal, I say fine. "

...anyone is arguing that it's "constitutional." The program is legal, and while it's being challenged on its Constitutionality, no decision has been rendered by the Court. That is not to say that even if the Court sides with the government, it will be accepted as Constitutional.

This is a situation in which a balance has to be struck between Constitutionality, national security, privacy and the need to know.

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

Releasing the opinions will help to make these determinations.

[NCTraveler]

4. I agree with most of what you wrote.

I do think you left out something important in one of your sentences. Maybe you didn't mean to have it in there.

" the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution. "

Civil liberties needs to be added there. Certain things can limit civil liberties and still be found constitutional. Once again, because it is legal or constitutional, does not mean it is right. That is a Westboro argument.

[ProSense]

5. That was

I agree with most of what you wrote.

I do think you left out something important in one of your sentences. Maybe you didn't mean to have it in there.

" the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution. "

Civil liberties needs to be added there. Certain things can limit civil liberties and still be found constitutional. Once again, because it is legal or constitutional, does not mean it is right. That is a Westboro argument.

...included in protecting Americans and the Constitution.

As I said, even if the current Court sides with the government, doesn't mean that the decision will be accepted.

That still doesn't prevent Congress from acting on the concerns expressed by many.