Secret Courts Rule to Reveal Legalities of Patriot Act

By Admin on September 17, 2013

1

by Bridget Aladro
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ruled, in response to the American Civil Liberties Union’s motion, that a 2011 opinion may be released to the public if a district court orders it. The court opinion found that the government had, in fact, “engaged in unconstitutional snooping.” FISC thinks the move will “contribute to an informed public debate” as it will better explain the interpretations of the surveillance law that requires United States phone carriers to relinquish all metadata concerning every phone call made within the country to the NSA.
The order, given by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, makes it very possible that the government will have to go public with court opinions associated with the legal interpretations of Section 215 of the United States Patriot Act. In the Patriot Act, Section 215 “allows the FISC to authorize broad warrants for most any type of ‘tangible’ record, including those held by banks, doctors and phone companies (Wired).”
Under this act, government agencies are only required to show that the information is “relevant” to their investigation. They do not need to show specific evidence or make a connection to terrorism to obtain this information. According to Wired.com Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), who was in favor of and pushed for the Patriot Act in 2001, is having second thoughts and was quoted as saying that the government is now posing a “dangerous version of relevance.”
With last Wednesday’s ruling, the American public may get a glimpse of how cavalier the government has been with the word relevant. This decision marks an important step regarding the accountability of United States surveillance agencies. The FISC has now proven to be willing in permitting a level of public scrutiny of its decisions.
Judge Saylor set an October 4th deadline for the government’s lawyers 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.” ACLU National Security Project Staff Attorney, Alex Abdo, calls this a “significant victory” and responded “We are pleased that the surveillance court has recognized the importance of transparency to the ongoing public debate about the NSA’s spying.” He also says “For too long, the NSA’s sweeping surveillance of Americans has been shrouded in unjustified secrecy.
Today’s ruling is an overdue rebuke of that practice. Secret law has no place in our democracy.” The new trend of transparency seems to stem from none other than Edward Snowden. Judge Saylor referred to Snowden’s leaks in his opinion stating “The unauthorized disclosure in June 2012 of a Section 215 order, and government statements in response to that disclosure, have engendered considerable public interest and debate about Section 215.
Publication of FISC opinions relating to this provision would contribute to an informed debate.” He adds, “Publication would also assure citizens of the integrity of this Court’s proceedings.” Whether it is a direct result of Snowden’s release of classified information or FISC just thinks it’s time to open the lines of communication, it looks very likely that the American public will soon be made aware of the controversial legalities regarding the Patriot Act.