Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

FISC judge orders review of secret court rulings on NSA phone surveillance

Posted by on Sep. 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM
  • 10 Replies

A judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ordered the Obama administration to review for possible public release legal opinions issued by the secret court dealing with the constitutionality of the widespread collection of phone records by the National Security Agency.

Friday’s ruling by one of the FISC judges, F. Dennis Saylor IV, a US district judge in Boston, is important, because it could mark a new willingness by the court to permit a level of public scrutiny of its decisions.

The special court was created in 1978 to facilitate judicial oversight of the government’s use of highly classified sources and methods to track potential terrorists and head-off future attacks.

The FISA court had authorized the collection of telecommunications meta-data that formed a massive surveillance effort that was disclosed, in part, by leaks last summer from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The disclosures have prompted significant public concern and debate about the extent of government collection of information about ordinary Americans as part of its anti-terrorism surveillance.

The ruling on Friday came as a result of a motion filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union directly to the FISA court.

The ACLU is also seeking some of the same documents via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed in October 2011 in federal court in New York. That suit prompted the release of some of the requested documents earlier this week.

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Saylor gave government lawyers until Oct. 4 to identify all legal opinions sought by the ACLU and to establish a timetable to review any classified sections of the opinions for possible redactions prior to public release.

The judge said that after the reviews are complete, it would be up to the author of each opinion whether to propose that the opinion be publicly disclosed.

The Obama administration has opposed release of any FISC opinions in both the New York litigation and in response to the ACLU motion.

Judge Saylor’s order does not guarantee that the FISC decisions will be made public, but it sets in motion a process that opens a door to that possibility.

ACLU lawyers said the ruling was an important decision and a significant victory.

“We are pleased that the surveillance court has recognized the importance of transparency to the ongoing public debate about the NSA’s spying,” said ACLU National Security Project Staff Attorney Alex Abdo, in a statement.

“For too long, the NSA’s sweeping surveillance of Americans has been shrouded in unjustified secrecy,” he said. “Today’s ruling is an overdue rebuke of that practice. Secret law has no place in our democracy.” 

Specifically at issue in the motion was an ACLU request for copies of FISC opinions interpreting the scope and constitutionality of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes government officials to seize “any tangible things” relevant to US intelligence gathering related to foreign agents or terrorists. Officials relied on Section 215 for authorization of the telecommunications meta-data collection.

In his opinion, Judge Saylor referred to the Snowden affair and the resulting public controversy. “The unauthorized disclosure in June 2013 of a Section 215 order, and government statements in response to that disclosure, have engendered considerable public interest and debate about Section 215,” the judge wrote. “Publication of FISC opinions relating to this provision would contribute to an informed debate.”

He added: “Publication would also assure citizens of the integrity of this Court’s proceedings.”

Judge Saylor said publication of the orders with only limited redactions was now possible after recent government disclosures about how Section 215 was being implemented. He noted that a declassification review by the government was already underway.

“In view of these circumstances, and as an exercise of discretion, the Court has determined that it is appropriate to take steps toward publication of any Section 215 opinions that are not subject to ongoing FOIA litigation [in the New York court case], he said.

The Saylor opinion is also important for what it does not decide. The judge declined to require release of any documents involved in the New York FOIA litigation. He said the New York case had been filed before his case and he would decline to decide issues already before another judge.

But Saylor also said that there likely other FISC opinions delivered after the New York case was filed that could be released.

The judge also declined to rule on an ACLU argument that it possessed a First Amendment right to obtain access to the FISC rulings. Instead, the judge based his actions on a FISC rule that grants judges on the secret court discretion to direct the publication of an opinion, order, or other decision of the FISC.


by on Sep. 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Sep. 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM

 Oh, heck yes...this needs to be public.  It affects all of us.

stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Does it matter? 

PrimmednPunked
by Bronze Member on Sep. 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 


stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 



PrimmednPunked
by Bronze Member on Sep. 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 




stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM

What do you expect to gain by knowledge of these rulings?

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 





PrimmednPunked
by Bronze Member on Sep. 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Disclosure of just how deep the government is getting into my business.  Letting the population know what their government is doing behind their backs.  More interest in making the government much smaller than it currently is.

Quoting stormcris:

What do you expect to gain by knowledge of these rulings?

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 






stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I am interested in that as well but I do not think anyone will find a way to do it simply with this. It will just be swept under the rug like most other investigations. I think we perhaps would be better off with disclosures that come from outside sources rather than inside ones. IE I think this is just placating.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

Disclosure of just how deep the government is getting into my business.  Letting the population know what their government is doing behind their backs.  More interest in making the government much smaller than it currently is.

Quoting stormcris:

What do you expect to gain by knowledge of these rulings?

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 







PrimmednPunked
by Bronze Member on Sep. 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM

This is where it starts.

Quoting stormcris:

I am interested in that as well but I do not think anyone will find a way to do it simply with this. It will just be swept under the rug like most other investigations. I think we perhaps would be better off with disclosures that come from outside sources rather than inside ones. IE I think this is just placating.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

Disclosure of just how deep the government is getting into my business.  Letting the population know what their government is doing behind their backs.  More interest in making the government much smaller than it currently is.

Quoting stormcris:

What do you expect to gain by knowledge of these rulings?

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 








stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Very well we will see where it leads.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

This is where it starts.

Quoting stormcris:

I am interested in that as well but I do not think anyone will find a way to do it simply with this. It will just be swept under the rug like most other investigations. I think we perhaps would be better off with disclosures that come from outside sources rather than inside ones. IE I think this is just placating.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

Disclosure of just how deep the government is getting into my business.  Letting the population know what their government is doing behind their backs.  More interest in making the government much smaller than it currently is.

Quoting stormcris:

What do you expect to gain by knowledge of these rulings?

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

 So you basically don't care because either way you think they will do it?  Sorry that is a sad excuse.

Quoting stormcris:

No it is just they will hire private contractors and wash their hands of it.

Quoting PrimmednPunked:

So the thought that the government has no limits when it comes to your privacy doesn't matter?

Quoting stormcris:

Does it matter? 









Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured