White House to publicize secret court orders
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to release previously secret court orders that set out the rules and rationale for the bulk collection of phone records, as officials seek to quell growing unrest in Congress over the government's information dragnet.
A senior official said that the government has declassified the order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that authorized the collection program, which began in 2007. Before that, the National Security Agency had been collecting telephone records without a court order since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The now declassified order is expected to be made public Wednesday when Deputy Attorney General James Cole, NSA Deputy Director John Inglis and other officials appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed the program in June by giving the Guardian newspaper and The Washington Post a secondary order from the foreign intelligence court directed at one company, Verizon. The primary order has more details, the official said, including the rules about when the database of phone records may be queried.
Since Snowden's disclosures, administration officials have been engaged in intense internal debates over how much information about the program and the secret orders of the foreign intelligence court should be released to the public. National security officials have resisted many proposals to declassify information on the program, arguing that any information about it could be used by terrorist groups to evade surveillance.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Deal to improve veterans’ health care costs $17B
- Lawmakers say answering Census survey should be voluntary
- Virginia company targets military, families
- U.S. coal exports undermine clean air efforts, experts say
- Tentative deal reached on VA reforms
- U.S. coal exports undermine energy efforts, experts say
- Feathered dinosaur fossil found
- Glenn Beck takes on Common Core
- House, Senate chairs offer competing VA bills
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- Data on impact of Colo. gun law, background checks questioned