Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Bridget Johnson


June 11, 2013 - 7:41 am

There aren’t many initiatives in the Senate that would bring Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) together, but that’s just what the NSA surveillance scandal has done.

Lee and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who last week charged the Obama administration with “clearly” not following the law, today introduced a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Franken to end to the “secret law” governing controversial government surveillance programs.

This bill would require the attorney general to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions, allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming to spy on Americans under the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to Merkley’s office.

“There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies,” Merkley said. “We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’ communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”

“This bipartisan amendment establishes a cautious and reasonable process for declassification consistent with the rule of law,” Lee said. “It will help ensure that the government makes sensitive decisions related to surveillance by applying legal standards that are known to the public. Particularly where our civil liberties are at stake, we must demand no less of our government.”

“Of course, ensuring Americans’ safety is one of our government’s most important responsibilities, but there is a careful balance between protecting Americans and honoring the Fourth Amendment,” Heller said. “This legislation is a measured approach that will bring more transparency to the FISA court and respect the American people’s right to know how and when the government may be accessing their personal information.”

It is impossible for the American people to have an informed public debate about laws that are interpreted, enforced, and adjudicated in complete secrecy,” Wyden said. “When talking about the laws governing Intelligence operations, the process has little to no transparency. Declassifying FISA Court opinions in a form that does not put sources and methods at risk will give the American people insight into what government officials believe the law allows them to do.”

Merkley offered the bill last Congress as an amendment to FISA reauthorization. It got 37 votes.

That amendment would have covered declassification of rulings related to the provisions used to authorize the controversial Verizon telephone records metadata collection and the PRISM program collecting information from tech companies, both of which were disclosed last week, Merkley’s office said.


Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Gentlemen, we have to do something to justify our phoney-baloney jobs!
We can't appoint a black sheriff, that's been done already.

I know! We'll propose some bill that does nothing, but lets us go back to our constituents and tell them we're watching out for the little people.

I'm sort of surprised there weren't 100 Senators co-sponsoring that bill.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe the real issue is not so much the surveillance as the secrecy. I assume our enemies have known for years that their telephone, cellphone, and Internet communications are being monitored. I assume they take precautions when contacting each other. I also assume that we have ways of overcoming their precautions - at least sometimes.

So if everybody "knows" already, what good does it do to keep the existence of these programs secret? Why do we need secret warrants from secret judges presiding over secret courts? It make sense in cases where we don't want to tip off specific individuals or groups that we're after them. But for these large-scale sweeps of EVERYONE'S phone data - why?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It makes sense to keep means secret, such as by redacting those parts of a warrant application -- but the existence of a warrant, or of the program, or of the law itself? That's not how a republic operates.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All