The Administration line is that giving the transcripts to the Foreign Relations Committee would "compromise intelligence sources and methods." And Richard Lugar is solemnly repeating that line. But the only reasonable comment on this claim is: Huh?
We already know the source of the information: it's a transcript of a telephone conversation. And we already know the method by which it was obtained: intercepting that telephone conversation, as the NSA does routinely. So what's left to compromise?
The only rational explanation I can invent is that the NSA's habit of catching everything that flies, while an open secret, is still officially a secret. And the practice, however legitimate, is almost certainly technically illegal. The wiretapping laws treat a conversation as having been "intercepted" (and, if it's a conversation between U.S. persons and no Title III warrant has issued, illegally intercepted) when the conversation is recorded, not when the record is transcribed. So if, as widely reported, the NSA records everything but only transcribes the international traffic it's legally entitled to listen in on, it's probably violating the letter of the law every day. I'm told that there is, as a technical matter, no way to intercept only conversations that cross national boundaries. Maybe Title III needs to be amended.
Still and all, covering up the fact that the NSA routinely breaks the letter of the law is really not the same thing as protecting intelligence sources and methods. And since the transcripts would be just as secret, legally, after being shown to the Foreign Relations Committee as they are now, it's hard to see the "sources and methods" claim as anything but an insult to the intelligence of the press and the public.
Article comments