Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I think court that decides whether or not the government has -- right to spy and you spice that stands for the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
And is rulings and interpretations of our nation's laws are highly classified.
But now a new bipartisan bill is looking -- change on that -- So we can take a look at how some of these decisions are being made Alaska senator mark they -- Democrat.
Cosponsor of the bill he's a member of the homeland security committee as well senator nice -- back on the program.
Thank you very much it's an honor to be here always good to talk with your folks well this -- you very much snow this despite -- -- Was created back in that late 1970s.
And it was traded for the very reason.
That were asking questions about today to take a look at add the government's decision making when it comes to use surveillance on the public.
But it -- I think created by a president.
Or a totalitarian government it was -- by congress so.
Why do you want some changes made now.
Well actually I've had a record since I've been here I've voted six different times and how to get more transparency.
Obviously this kind of court as well as voting against five sided support -- And it came up for reauthorization last year.
And it because of all the reasons were now certain to see I mean we don't know how they're developed being.
Their opinions they give them this broad.
Effort to look at your phone records my phone records americans' phone records millions of phone records and emails and my point on it is look we understand we gotta have strong security in this nation but we also have to protect.
The privacy that is chairs in this country and in Alaska it's imbedded in our constitution there's only one other state.
That has privacy -- in their constitution that's Vermont we we understand the value of our personal privacy.
But also we understand the need have a balance between security but.
Without knowing those opinions and how they're deriving.
Their decisions and as we just found out the broad sweep of millions.
Of -- Americans emails phone logs phones.
Are being tapped into and reviewed that's not what I understand the way -- -- was originally set up many years ago.
Senator do you have any sort of evidence or.
Fact based inclination that somehow this court is abusing the power that has been given to it by congress.
Well there's two parts -- first there's one part obviously we get confidential reviews and commentary so we can tell you all have Bible tell you.
That we now -- seen millions.
Being invaded their privacy be invaded by review of their phone as well through emails -- I -- some that I know we have an issue with.
Individuals want to harm this country no harm to Americans but it's not in the millions that live in this country and so.
I'll buy that fact alone their wide sweep is I think beyond.
Where they we're originally set up many many years ago -- the game.
You can why the -- where I could just -- in their -- on because a lot of us were going off -- this.
This leaguers report in this one journalists I want it -- that context our conversation because there's a lot we just don't know here.
But one -- -- -- because we we don't know about that -- little boy went and I think that it's being reported.
-- NSA or this surveillance program that's in place -- largest target but actually -- And the State Department came out just recently and said there's been a big resurgence -- state sponsored terrorism.
From Iran in the past year and so one to look at that and think well maybe it's not millions of Americans that are having their phone records.
I mean I'm do surveillance may be this is sad how validating.
This program you know should -- take some confidence from that that that may -- this program is actually working.
Well then in that case we should have as much transparency as possible to show us recognizing we have national security protected.
You know the legislation that I'm a cosponsor on.
Walk through those steps very carefully but to understand how the courts are determining.
These decisions I think is important for us because if they've gone beyond what the law's intent was.
-- we have to have a whole new discussion and right now we're not clear because it is not.
Transparent as we all would like it to be now again we recognize.
That their needs to be a security level a high security level but.
This -- continue to expand the ability for the court's jurisdiction without even knowing how they're deriving that jurisdiction.
Is a problem and I think Americans need to have a balance approach here sure that's what our legislation is trying to do.
If there is that editorial in the New York Times today that said the greatest threat to civil liberty is not this surveillance program.
But another attack like 9/11 where the public becomes so paranoid or so you know rightfully fearful that we give up willingly.
A lot of our privacy.
Just to make sure that those attacks don't happen again so what about the security risk here senator about looking at these opinions and exposing more -- and then.
-- -- anyways what about that part of that comes.
In the legislation we've sponsored in were part of makes it very clear the attorney general has steps and procedures to ensure that it -- Endangers national security has issues with our security overall that there's only a summary provided or.
How they come up with the opinion of how they expand their surveillance.
-- it's very carefully crafted to make sure we protect our national security.
But had seen some understanding of how the courts come up with their decision to look at millions of records I think that's a fair statement we're not saying.
That they give us the names and all the -- were saying is help us understand.
How broad you have made this because that's what the American people are getting nervous about and so we made it very clear protecting national security.
Plots ensuring there's an understanding -- how -- expanding the court's authority here and making sure it matches what the law originally said.
I fear that they are gone beyond what the parameters -- law was originally set up to do well.
Take a closer look at that as we see what happens -- legislation senator we look for having me back and checking in with you on this topic and others I think so much for the time today appreciate it.
Absolutely thank you.
Filter by section