Americans tend to know full well what they think of government surveillance programs of the sort that Russian immigrant Edward Snowden exposed to public scrutiny before he left the United States:

Those among us who prioritize privacy concerns understand that these programs — to the extent we know how they work — might easily infringe on citizens’ rights. The shaky leg of this argument, though, is the privacy lobby’s inability to point to any pattern of such infringement. Where are the horror stories of the feds using this information to crush civil liberties? The greatest threat beyond the indignity of having one’s telephone records swept up and analyzed, then, is the potential for the government to pry without suspicion into citizens’ lives. And potential abuse, while scary, isn’t abuse.

Those among us who prioritize national security value these programs — again, to the extent we know how they work — and accept the Bush and Obama administrations’ claims that these explorations of communications data enhance Americans’ safety. The shaky leg of this argument, though, is the national security lobby’s inability to cite specific cases that would prove this point: Where are the terror plots that were foiled because the feds found clues in these personal records? That the U.S. generally has enjoyed domestic security since 9/11 doesn’t mean the data-miners deserve the credit.

Until now, at least, Americans have told pollsters they don’t strongly object to surveillance that, arguably at least, keeps them safe. Decision-makers at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue also have stood behind the provisions under which federal agencies operate: Since its creation in 1978, presidents of both parties have supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that evaluates surveillance proposals, even though the court’s very existence hems in the executive branch. And most members of congressional oversight committees haven’t squawked — some because they support current law, others arguably because secrecy protections limit what they can say in criticism.

The future of surveillance, though, is uncertain. In late July, following heated debate, the U.S. House voted — by a skimpy 217-205 head count — to continue the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic communications data; 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats would have gutted the program.

And on Friday, President Barack Obama said he will work with Congress to add an independent voice to the intelligence court’s review process. He was less specific about how this might work than he was in discussing his motive: to be sure that someone interjects civil liberties concerns into proceedings that now include the Department of Justice and the 11 judges who serve limited terms on the court.

Expect debate over Obama’s proposal for privacy ombudsman to devolve into conjecture. Because the court’s deliberations need to be secretive — no sensible person wants intel sources and surveillance targets openly discussed — it’s impossible to know how much debate privacy concerns already receive.

Critics complain that the court approves the overwhelming majority of requests it receives. But how often the judges push back is unknown — as is the question of whether the court, in its 35-year history, has created so much case law that a federal agency contemplating a surveillance application knows whether the judges will accept or reject it. That sort of self-policing by the agencies, with the court making sure they reach legal and privacy-conscious decisions, would be the ideal protocol.

In this collision of two crucial priorities, privacy and national security, one pragmatic concern applies. A president’s duty to protect his country and the government that serves it is paramount; without that American bedrock of an intact society and functioning governance, federal assurances of civil liberties and other important protections become unenforceable.

We can see benefit in having another voice speaking when the intelligence court hears arguments, as long as Congress and the White House settle on a procedure that won’t delay decisions. By definition the process of locating surveillance targets, winning court approval and executing intel collection missions has to proceed swiftly.

The president is trying to assure Americans that such missions also can be mindful of their privacy. That’s a valid concern. The unacceptable outcome would be a process so slow that by the time the court can rule, the surveillance targets have gone dark.

The above editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on August 13.