Skip to main content

What the government is hiding from you

By Mark Rumold, Special to CNN
updated 1:16 PM EDT, Fri September 6, 2013
Jonathan Pollard is a divisive figure in U.S.-Israeli relations. The former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst was caught spying for Israel in 1985 and was sentenced in 1987 to life imprisonment. The United States and Israel are discussing his possible release as part of efforts to save fragile Middle East peace negotiations, according to sources familiar with the talks. Click through the gallery to see other high-profile leak scandals the United States has seen over the years. Jonathan Pollard is a divisive figure in U.S.-Israeli relations. The former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst was caught spying for Israel in 1985 and was sentenced in 1987 to life imprisonment. The United States and Israel are discussing his possible release as part of efforts to save fragile Middle East peace negotiations, according to sources familiar with the talks. Click through the gallery to see other high-profile leak scandals the United States has seen over the years.
HIDE CAPTION
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A secret court opinion found that the NSA had violated Americans' rights
  • Mark Rumold: It's outrageous that government hid the opinion from the public
  • He says the NSA must not stonewall the public about their activities anymore
  • Rumold: We need to investigate the full scope of NSA's surveillance practices

Editor's note: Mark Rumold is a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that champions the public's digital rights.

(CNN) -- Next Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice is set to release hundreds more pages of legal opinions detailing the National Security Agency's alarming surveillance operations.

The new release should further anger Americans who were already deeply dismayed by the disclosure of an October 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion, which found that the NSA had violated the Constitution and federal law with its surveillance program.

But we shouldn't just be upset because the court opinion revealed that the NSA has illegally and unconstitutionally collected the emails and other communications of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. We shouldn't just be upset because the NSA couldn't convince a secret court that its surveillance was legal. And we shouldn't just be upset because the opinion showed that the government, in the words of the FISA court, "frequently and systemically" disregarded the court's orders.

What should infuriate every American — whether you're a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, or even whether you are for or against the NSA's surveillance program — is the fact that the government hid the FISA court's opinion from the public for years.

Why are Brazil, Mexico angry with NSA?
NSA surveillance revelations
Open Mic: Russians on Edward Snowden

Hiding a significant opinion of a federal court, regardless of the topic of the opinion, is inimical to our democracy.

In the ongoing debate on NSA surveillance, there are two separate, but equally important, questions at stake. The first part of the debate focuses on the legality of the surveillance: is the NSA's surveillance being conducted in accordance with federal laws and the Constitution? The second focuses on the democratic legitimacy of the surveillance: have citizens, through their elected officials and through an informed and fair process, approved the laws the government relies on and the actions of the NSA?

Even setting aside one's views on the first question, the story behind the FISA court opinion provides insight on the second question. The answer, quite simply, is "no." The government has intentionally kept the public in the dark for years.

For the past year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where I work, has been fighting the government in federal court for the public release of the FISA court's opinion. We sued the Department of Justice in August 2012 after the government refused to disclose it.

Initially, we sought the opinion to contribute to a full, informed public debate on the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, the expansive federal law the NSA relies on to conduct its domestic surveillance operations. The law was scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, and, in the summer and fall of 2012, Congress was debating whether the law should be renewed and if reforms should be introduced.

But, during that debate, the government repeatedly delayed publicly disclosing anything about the opinion or the government's surveillance. Months went by, the debate on the FISA Amendments Act came and went, and, on December 30, 2012, the law was reauthorized for another four years.

On January 4, 2013, four days after the reauthorization was signed into law, the government finally produced records in response to our lawsuit. Here's an example of what they gave us. In short, nothing.

Now, eight months later — and only after EFF won the first known motion by a private party in the secret FISA court; only after the most significant leak of surveillance information in American history; and only after a federal court ordered the government to finalize its declassification decisions and release the opinion — the government finally relented.

When current and former administration officials like Gen. Michael Hayden take to the airwaves or editorial pages to rebut the "[b]reathless claims" about NSA spying with condescending offers to help "citizens understand a few basics of what exactly is being done," know this -- advocates and organizations like the EFF have been fighting for a "few basics" about NSA surveillance practices for years.

But government officials, like Hayden, have refused at every step in the process to provide those facts. And, as is now apparent, it's not just the public that was denied information, members of Congress and the judiciary have been misled or kept in the dark about many aspects of the NSA's surveillance as well.

Now is the time to change this. The executive branch, intelligence agencies and the NSA in particular have lost the right to stonewall the public about their activities. They have lost the right to treat us condescendingly. And it's far too late in the day to selectively provide a "few basics" about the government's surveillance.

We need all the facts, and we need them now.

In the 1970s, after the Watergate scandal and multiple reports that federal agencies had spied on Americans, Congress created a special investigatory commission, the Church Committee, to investigate. Through public hearings and investigations, the Committee ultimately produced a series of reports providing the most thorough investigation of American intelligence agencies in our nation's history. Many of the Committee's recommendations were adopted and resulted in a host of beneficial reforms to federal law. It's now apparent that we need a second Church Committee to fully and independently investigate the full scope of the NSA's surveillance practices and to recommend meaningful reforms.

EFF, along with 100 other organizations and more than 500,000 individuals, have joined together to call on Congress to initiate a full, and public, investigation of the government's intelligence practices.

And I hope Hayden will join us, too. His recent op-ed remarked that the debate on NSA surveillance would be enhanced if "discussion were based on fact rather than contaminated by inaccuracies and posturing." I couldn't agree more.

We have been lied to, misled and kept in the dark for too long: it's time we the people command the full story on NSA surveillance.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Rumold.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 11:16 AM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Whitney Barkley says many for-profit colleges deceive students, charge exorbitant tuitions and make false promises
updated 4:48 PM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Mark O'Mara says the time has come to decide whether we really want police empowered to shoot those they believe are 'fleeing felons'
updated 10:32 AM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Bill Frelick says a tool of rights workers is 'naming and shaming,' ensuring accountability for human rights crimes in conflicts. But what if wrongdoers know no shame?
updated 5:15 PM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Jay Parini says, no, a little girl shouldn't fire an Uzi, but none of should have easy access to guns: The Second Amendment was not written to give us such a 'right,' no matter what the NRA says
updated 9:40 AM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Terra Ziporyn Snider says many adolescents suffer chronic sleep deprivation, which can indeed lead to safety problems. Would starting school an hour later be so wrong?
updated 5:53 PM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
Peggy Drexler says after all the celebrity divorces, it's tempting to ask the question. But there are still considerable benefits to getting hitched
updated 7:05 PM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014
The death of Douglas McAuthur McCain, the first American killed fighting for ISIS, highlights the pull of Syria's war for Western jihadists, writes Peter Bergen.
updated 6:42 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
Former ambassador to Syria Robert Ford says the West should be helping moderates in the Syrian armed opposition end the al-Assad regime and form a government to focus on driving ISIS out
updated 9:21 AM EDT, Wed August 27, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says a great country does not deport thousands of vulnerable, unaccompanied minors who fled in fear for their lives
updated 9:19 AM EDT, Wed August 27, 2014
Robert McIntyre says Congress is the culprit for letting Burger King pay lower taxes after merging with Tim Hortons.
updated 7:35 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
Wesley Clark says the U.S. can offer support to its Islamic friends in the region most threatened by ISIS, but it can't fight their war
updated 7:26 AM EDT, Wed August 27, 2014
Jeff Yang says the tech sector's diversity numbers are embarrassing and the big players need to do more.
updated 4:53 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
America's painful struggle with racism has often brought great satisfaction to the country's rivals, critics, and foes. The killing of Michael Brown and its tumultuous aftermath has been a bonanza.
updated 4:19 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
Ed Bark says in this Emmy year, broadcasters CBS, ABC and PBS can all say they matched or exceeded HBO. These days that's no small feat
updated 3:19 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
Rick Martin says the death of Robin Williams brought back memories of his own battle facing down depression as a young man
updated 11:58 AM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
David Perry asks: What's the best way for police officers to handle people with psychiatric disabilities?
updated 3:50 PM EDT, Mon August 25, 2014
Julian Zelizer says it's not crazy to think Mitt Romney would be able to end up at the top of the GOP ticket in 2016
updated 4:52 PM EDT, Mon August 25, 2014
Roxanne Jones and her girlfriends would cheer from the sidelines for the boys playing Little League. But they really wanted to play. Now Mo'ne Davis shows the world that girls really can throw.
updated 12:29 PM EDT, Mon August 25, 2014
Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider say a YouTube video apparently posted by ISIS seems to show that the group has a surveillance drone, highlighting a new reality: Terrorist groups have technology once only used by states
updated 5:04 PM EDT, Mon August 25, 2014
Kimberly Norwood is a black mom who lives in an affluent neighborhood not far from Ferguson, but she has the same fears for her children as people in that troubled town do
updated 5:45 PM EDT, Fri August 22, 2014
It apparently has worked for France, say Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider, but carries uncomfortable risks. When it comes to kidnappings, nations face grim options.
updated 1:27 PM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014
John Bare says the Ice Bucket Challenge signals a new kind of activism and peer-to-peer fund-raising.
updated 8:31 AM EDT, Fri August 22, 2014
James Dawes says calling ISIS evil over and over again could very well make it harder to stop them.
updated 9:05 PM EDT, Sat August 23, 2014
As the inquiry into the shooting of Michael Brown continues, critics question the prosecutor's impartiality.
updated 6:47 PM EDT, Fri August 22, 2014
Newt Gingrich says it's troubling that a vicious group like ISIS can recruit so many young men from Britain.
updated 10:50 AM EDT, Thu August 21, 2014
David Weinberger says Twitter and other social networks have been vested with a responsibility, and a trust, they did not ask for.
updated 7:03 AM EDT, Fri August 22, 2014
John Inazu says the slogan "We are Ferguson" is meant to express empathy and solidarity. It's not true: Not all of us live in those circumstances. But we all made them.
updated 8:23 AM EDT, Fri August 22, 2014
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling says he learned that the territory ISIS wants to control is amazingly complex.
updated 3:51 PM EDT, Wed August 20, 2014
Cerue Garlo says Liberia is desperate for help amid a Ebola outbreak that has touched every aspect of life.
updated 1:42 PM EDT, Thu August 21, 2014
Eric Liu says Republicans who want to restrict voting may win now, but the party will suffer in the long term.
updated 11:38 AM EDT, Thu August 21, 2014
Jay Parini: Jesus, Pope and now researchers agree: Wealth decreases our ability to sympathize with the poor.
updated 8:00 AM EDT, Thu August 21, 2014
Judy Melinek offers a medical examiner's perspective on what happens when police kill people like Michael Brown.
updated 6:03 PM EDT, Tue August 19, 2014
It used to be billy clubs, fire hoses and snarling German shepherds. Now it's armored personnel carriers and flash-bang grenades, writes Kara Dansky.
updated 1:27 PM EDT, Wed August 20, 2014
Maria Haberfeld: People who are unfamiliar with police work can reasonably ask, why was an unarmed man shot so many times, and why was deadly force used at all?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT