National Security Letters and Administrative Subpoenas (CRS)
National security letters are investigative tools used in foreign intelligence investigations to compel the disclosure of certain transactional information such as financial records and communications data.
NSLs have become controversial due to their increasing use by government agencies (primarily the FBI), and because of the non-disclosure requirements and the limited judicial oversight involved in their use.
A new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service sorts through the five statutes that authorize the use of National Security Letters, including the latest amendments which provide for a measure of judicial review.
See “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments,” March 17, 2006.
An abbreviated version of the same report, without footnotes or appendices, is “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments” (pdf), March 21, 2006.
Administrative subpoenas used in criminal investigations are approximately analogous to national security letters used in foreign intelligence investigations. They are the subject of another new report from the Congressional Research Service.
For extended background on administrative subpoenas, see “Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: A Brief Legal Analysis” (pdf), March 17, 2006.
An abbreviated version of that report is “Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: A Sketch” (pdf), March 17, 2006.
CRS does not make its publications directly available to the public. Copies of these reports were obtained by Secrecy News.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.