3 views on NSA reform after Snowden leaks

In this One Minute Debate, three writers offer their views on NSA surveillance and reforms.

3. A targeted approach: Reform the FISA court that grants US surveillance

Leave it to the American people to pinpoint the place that needs fixing in the US government's vast antiterrorism surveillance program: the courts that approve the spying.

A July survey by the Pew Research Center shows that the majority of Americans (56 percent) do not believe the courts have placed adequate limits on the government's collection of phone and Internet data.

They're right.

The court responsible for authorizing surveillance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, makes its decisions in secret. It's a judicial black box issuing opinions and making civil law that have dramatically altered the balance between liberty and security. The court makes these decisions after hearing from only one side – the executive branch.

This lack of an adversarial process, in which both sides have advocates, is unique to the FISA court in the US legal system. Further, every one of the judges responsible for issuing these decisions is picked by just one man – the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Most of Chief Justice John Roberts's appointees have been Republicans.

To restore public confidence in this process, I have proposed legislation in the Senate to create a "special advocate" whose client will be the Constitution. The advocate's mandate will be to argue for limits on surveillance, challenge the evidence presented, and protect individual rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. When appropriate, the advocate will also petition the court for disclosure of rulings.

Also, I have proposed changes in selecting FISA court judges to ensure greater geographic and ideological diversity on the court.

Appropriate, targeted surveillance is important to ensure our safety at home and abroad, but Americans must be confident that constitutional rights are protected. My proposals will balance those concerns and implement fair processes to produce just, legitimate outcomes.

Richard Blumenthal is a Democratic US senator from Connecticut.

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.