there is an explicit bright-line prohibition against reverse targeting in the current bill. As the DNI said, it would be in violation of the fourth amendment. But Senator Feingold wants to replace this test with one that would make analysts engage in mental gymnastics, trying to figure out if ``a significant purpose'' is to target someone inside the United States. This significant purpose throws in an additional concern: The analysts who gather and examine intelligence need clear rules, not an ambiguous significant purpose standard. The adoption of this amendment is seriously detrimental to the operation of our analysts and the DNI and the Attorney General would recommend a veto if it is adopted. We worked hard, and we have a good bipartisan bill that significantly adds to the protections of civil liberties. We need to pass this bill. I join with my colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of the committee, in urging our colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over an amendment related to intelligence gathering and civil liberties.
Share
More from Julian Bond
Absolutely. Absolutely. As more and more people think, 'Gee, that guy who sits next to me in church, he's gay, and he seems to be OK.'
I know the tide is changing. I can see from poll results where the support for same-sex marriage used to be minimal. It grew. It grew and grew.
Of course. It is exactly the same. It's a right that all Americans have, and no reason why gay and lesbian people ought not to have these rights, too. These are universal rights.
I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the…





