Transpartisan Arguments the Government Won’t Want to Succeed

Justin Amash, Paul Broun, Tulsi Gabbard, Morgan Griffith, Rush Holt, Walter Jones, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Thomas Massie, Tom McClintock, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Beto O’Rourke, Steve Pearce, Matt Salmon, Mark Sanford, Ted Yoho.

Well, that’s got to be a group of people the Powers That Be don’t want to see joining together?

Captain Tulsi Gabbard, Physics PhD Rush Holt, Appalachian Trail Hiker Mark Sanford, and Paleocon Walter Jones. With my libertarian Congressman, Justin Amash apparently leading the bunch.

All on a court motion together, calling for the court to release the FISC opinion explaining why the government’s Section 702 collection was unconstitutional because without it they can’t do their job. Which includes, in part, informing the American people.

As important, whatever information Members of Congress learn about secret FISC opinions and orders, they are unable publicly to discuss or debate them because any disclosure is still subject to secrecy requirements.

[snip]

In light of recent disclosures regarding the existence of a “classified intelligence program,” related to the “business records” section of FISA, the Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that “it is important for the American people to understand” the limits of the program and the principles behind it.

[snip]

Notwithstanding the compelling public interest in an open debate about the scope and propriety of government surveillance programs authorized under FISA, even the amici — Members of the U.S. Congress — cannot meaningfully participate in that public debate so long as this Court’s relevant decisions and interpretations of law remain secret. They cannot engage in public discussion on the floor of the Senate and the House about the government’s surveillance programs. And they cannot engage in dialogue with their constituents on these pressing matters of public importance.

[snip]

Informed, public debate is central to Congress’s role as a coequal branch of the federal government. The Constitution acknowledges the unique importance of open debate to Congress’s role in the Speech or Debate Clause. Debate in Congress serves no only the institution’s internal goal of creating sound public policy. Courts have recognized a second crucial purpose of informed, public debate in Congress: to inform the American people about the issues affecting their government.

Now, I think they may overestimate the degree to which this opinion pertains to the Section 215 collection (indeed, if it pertains to Internet metadata collection, it pertains to Section 214 of PATRIOT instead). [Update, 9/13/13: I’m mistaken here–it was exclusively Section 215.]

And I think their Speech or Debate argument has confused people about whether these members of Congress have seen what’s in the opinion. Holt used to be on the House Intelligence Committee, but no longer is, so I assume none of the Members on this brief know what the opinion is. In any case, the House has much more restrictive rules about who can access intelligence secrets than the Senate.

But I am rather fond of the argument that Congress can’t do its job with all the secrecy the Executive is operating under.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

7 Responses to Transpartisan Arguments the Government Won’t Want to Succeed

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz How sweep it is: https://t.co/gXG9j7f6uE
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Are the Sawx beating the Yanks? Yes? That is a good day.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva Yeah, I've been conned. Good one!
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva Yeah, shit, 30 yrs of criminal law and I have no clue of what is scam. Probably I need a Clinton to show me a real scam.
35mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva @peterdaou @kdrum That is beyond hilarious.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Also anybody who thinks Joe Biden is cuddly instead of a bought off asshole, or Jack Danforth+Hatch are reasonable https://t.co/7avXObIZNA
40mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Anybody reading a Clarence Thomas opinion or supporting obstruction of Merrick Garland ought have to watch HBO's "Confirmation".
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva @peterdaou Hey Peter, Donna and @KDrum seem to like Hillary, so not "everybody" I know thinks she is a pile of shit, just most.
49mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @peterdaou Yeah. About everybody I know thinks she is a pile of shit.
51mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @verysmallanna @peterdaou @HillaryClinton @BlueNationRev Yeah, I had serious questions before, and I have more now. So "NEVER" is bogus.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Why did @CIA think it was a good idea to start a Twitter feed anyway? Is Baghdad Bob on the payroll, looking for something to do?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Honestly, and with due respect, this does not have diddly squat to do with my thoughts of warmonger Clinton https://t.co/YsGo0sDeSI
4hreplyretweetfavorite
July 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031