Civil Liberties

If the Legal Argument Were More Persuasive, Would It Be Less Confidential?

|

Democrats in the House are threatening to issue subpoenas for Justice Department documents that might shed light on the legal rationale for the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program. The DOJ has refused to hand over the documents voluntarily "because of their confidential nature." The department has not asserted executive privilege (yet), so I'm not sure what the rationale for this confidentiality is. But especially now that the supposedly essential surveillance program supposedly has been abandoned, it is hard to understand why a general explanation of how it worked, including the safeguards it supposedly included to protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans, would jeopardize national security. The Democrats are not asking for a list of every suspect whose international email or telephone conversations were monitored. They are not asking about the intelligence methods used to identify these suspects. They are not asking what information the NSA gleaned from the surveillance about Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. They are just asking what features of the program made DOJ lawyers think it was legal, then decide it wasn't, then decide it was. They may also be wondering why it was absolutely essential to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until that circumvention was publicly revealed and widely condemned, whereupon it turned out to be perfectly possible to investigate terrorism within FISA's constraints yet also somehow necessary for Congress to change FISA, something the administration never thought to request until now.

NEXT: Flag Ridiculed, Nutcase Arrested

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Democrats in the House are threatening to issue subpoenas for Justice Department documents that might shed light on the legal rationale for the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program. The DOJ has refused to hand over the documents voluntarily “because of their confidential nature.”

    I applauded the Democrats victory in the last round of congressional elections because I’d hoped they would do things like this.

    …if they keep it up, I might actually come to imagine myself someday voting for one of them.

  2. it is hard to understand why a general explanation of how it worked, including the safeguards it supposedly included to protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans, would jeopardize national security.

    But we can’t let them subpeona that. They’d see the big board!

  3. ..if they keep it up, I might actually come to imagine myself someday voting for one of them.

    Y’know, I was apprehensive the first time I did it, but it’s kinda cathartic.

  4. …if they keep it up, I might actually come to imagine myself someday voting for one of them.

    Hmm, me too.

  5. They’d tell you, but then they’d have to kill you.

  6. Hmm, I’m late to this, but I applaud the Democrats for at least making the threat. I’m not sure why they don’t just issue the subpoena, but I’m not a politician.

  7. Call me wary – I can’t help thinking that they’re only threatening and not issuing so that they can get something out of Team Red for not actually pressing the issue beyond a token amount.

    I gave these guys my votes last time; I haven’t decided yet about next year.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.