Judge: Arguing NSA Privacy Concerns in Court Is ‘Unnecessary’

A sign stands outside the National Security Administration (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md., Thursday, June 6, 2013.
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
Jan. 14, 2014, 10:29 a.m.

Pla­cing a pri­vacy ad­voc­ate on the ju­di­cial body re­spons­ible for ap­prov­ing the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s for­eign sur­veil­lance or­ders is “un­ne­ces­sary” and po­ten­tially “coun­ter­pro­duct­ive,” a fed­er­al dis­trict court judge wrote to Con­gress this week.

The judge’s com­ments come amid a de­bate con­cern­ing the prop­er role of the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court, which over­sees the gov­ern­ment’s sur­veil­lance-war­rant re­quests on for­eign ter­ror­ist sus­pects. Pri­vacy ad­voc­ates as­sert that the court is a “rub­ber stamp” for NSA sur­veil­lance or­ders, but D.C. Dis­trict Court Judge John Bates took ex­cep­tion to that ar­gu­ment Tues­day.

“The par­ti­cip­a­tion of a pri­vacy ad­voc­ate is un­ne­ces­sary — and could prove coun­ter­pro­duct­ive — in the vast ma­jor­ity” of court mat­ters, wrote Bates, also a former presid­ing judge on the FISA Court. “Giv­en the nature of FISA pro­ceed­ings, the par­ti­cip­a­tion of an ad­voc­ate would neither cre­ate a truly ad­versari­al pro­cess nor con­struct­ively as­sist the Courts in as­sess­ing the facts.”

The let­ter, re­leased Tues­day in con­junc­tion with more-ex­tens­ive com­ments on pro­posed re­forms to the court, was sent to Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein and oth­ers. It comes ahead of Pres­id­ent Obama’s planned speech on Fri­day ad­dress­ing calls for NSA re­form. Fein­stein has been one of the most vo­cal de­fend­ers of the NSA’s sur­veil­lance-gath­er­ing tech­niques since Ed­ward Snowden began leak­ing doc­u­ments about the scope of the pro­grams last June.

The White House has been tight-lipped about what re­forms the pres­id­ent will of­fer, but the in­stall­a­tion of a pub­lic ad­voc­ate on the FISA Court is viewed as one of the most likely con­ces­sions. Aides have re­peatedly in­sisted that Obama is still mak­ing up his mind after a flurry of meet­ings with law­makers, pri­vacy ad­voc­ates, and tech com­pan­ies last week.

Bates, who is also the dir­ect­or of the Ad­min­is­trat­ive Of­fice of the U.S. Courts, con­tin­ued: “Ad­voc­ate in­volve­ment in run-of-the-mill FISA mat­ters would sub­stan­tially hamper the work of the Courts without provid­ing any coun­ter­vail­ing be­ne­fit in terms of pri­vacy pro­tec­tion or oth­er­wise.”

The FISA Court cur­rently hears ar­gu­ments from the gov­ern­ment only in fa­vor of sur­veil­lance, which NSA crit­ics con­tend has led to a lack of fair and vig­or­ous ju­di­cial over­sight of the agency’s col­lec­tion and use of bulk phone and In­ter­net metadata.

Bates also ar­gued that “pub­lic dis­clos­ure of Court de­cisions is not likely to en­hance the pub­lic’s un­der­stand­ing of FISA im­ple­ment­a­tion if the dis­cus­sion of clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion with­in those opin­ions is with­held. Re­leas­ing freest­and­ing sum­mar­ies of Court opin­ions is likely to pro­mote con­fu­sion and mis­un­der­stand­ing.”

He ad­di­tion­ally cau­tioned that the Court should not be placed in an “over­sight” role that “ex­ceeds their con­sti­tu­tion­al re­spons­ib­il­ity to de­cide cases and con­tro­ver­sies.”

What We're Following See More »
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
20 hours ago

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
21 hours ago

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
21 hours ago

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."