New Bill Would Declassify FISC Opinions

Trailrunner7 writes "A group of eight senators from both parties have introduced a new bill that would require the attorney general to declassify as many of the rulings of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as possible as a way of bringing into the sunlight much of the law and opinion that guides the government's surveillance efforts. Under the terms of the proposed law, the Justice Department would be required to declassify major FISC opinions as a way to give Americans a view into how the federal government is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Patriot Act. If the attorney general determines that a specific ruling can't be declassified without endangering national security, he can declassify a summary of it. If even that isn't possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret."

Comments

I can see it now...

[coId fjord]

If even that isn't possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret.

That's just pathetic. Give them the opportunity to hide their wrongdoings and that's exactly what they will do. The "national security" excuses need to stop.

Re:I can see it now...

[coId fjord]

Your position is no better than "We can't tell you anything", just on the opposite extreme.

Actually, assuming that the government is doing wrong is much better.

With that said, I only meant that they use that excuse to cover up their wrongdoings, not that there's never a legitimate threat. Problem is, the ones who decide it's a matter of national security seem to love abusing that little power they have.

Re:I can see it now...

[NatasRevol]

It was classified because spying on all of America was illegal regardless of the three letter group doing it, but especially the NSA.

Is it illegal to break classification on something that is illegal?

Re:I can see it now...

[nip1024]

America runs on a series of checks and balances: congress can create a law and the president can sign it or override it with a veto; if the president vetoes it, then an overwhelming vote in congress can override the veto; if a bill is passed in congress and the president signs it into law then the supreme court can still strike it down if it isn't constitutional; and if all of these things fail, Americans can vote people into office whose ideas are more closely aligned with their own.

However, if the American people are denied the very knowledge that their government is acting in a way anathema to the interests of a free society, we cannot make a knowledgeable decision when we vote. The penultimate check and balance Americans have at their disposal will be based on opinions created with misinformation or no knowledge at all of what their chosen representative's are actually doing.

The American public cannot be left in the dark and still make informed decisions when we choose the people to represent us in government.

Explain...

[Savage-Rabbit]

If the attorney general determines that a specific ruling can't be declassified without endangering national security, he can declassify a summary of it. If even that isn't possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret.

And such explanations would probably look something like this: "Opinion number M-9458985 needs to be kept secret because [blacked-out] which is a very serious allegation that has been confirmed by [blacked-out] and [blacked-out] as well as the following independent intelligence sources: [blacked-out]. If this opinion were to be made public it could easily have the following horrible consequences: [blacked-out]"

Re:Explain...

[__aaltlg1547]

More importantly, the law needs to be changed so that without the warrant, that specifically names the persons and places to be searched and the things to be seized they can't compel a search. What the NSA finds that's already in the open (e.g. a public profile on Facebook) is fair game. No warrant required because it's not an invasive search. But if they want your email or phone call records, they shouldn't be able to compel a search without a warrant that names you, issued upon probable cause that your email contains evidence of a specific crime. The 4th Amendment is really clear and Americans never gave the NSA or the FBI or anybody else permission to ignore it.

it does nothing

[nimbius]

so long as the government has classified documents they dont need to tell anyone anything.
so long as we have redaction, FOIA doesnt really mean anything
so long as the original requests are sealed, the opinions of a judge or judges are decontextualized and meaningless.
and none of this means anything at all once you learn the FISC never rejected a single request last year.

a normal, functioning state has no need for classification of anything really, but this isnt a normal functioning state. we have the worlds highest incarceration rate, we're guaranteed a brand new war every four years, we run torture camps, execute our own citizens without trial, and somehow react with incredulity when we find out our own citizens are either apathetic to democracy, or leak state secrets about our warcrimes or our domestic spy program.

we are the land of the free, so far as we are free to consume the product, and the home of the brave, so long as its state-sponsored.