This amendment gives the FISA Court the option of preventing the Government from using information on U.S. persons that it has collected using targeting or minimization procedures that are later found to be illegal. As the legislation now stands, if the Government uses procedures that are later declared unlawful, there is nothing to stop it from using the information it collected illegally. This does not make any sense, and it takes away any incentive for the Government to develop lawful procedures the first time around. It is also not consistent with the approach FISA takes with other illegally collected information. If the Government conducts emergency surveillance that is later found to be improper, FISA already prohibits the Government from using that information. Importantly, under my amendment, information about foreigners or information that indicates a threat of death or bodily harm could always be used by the Government, even if it were collected under illegal procedures. The FISA Court also has the discretion to allow the Government to use illegally collected information about U.S. persons. So it is an extremely modest safeguard, a very reasonable amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Russ Feingold: “This amendment gives the FISA Court the option of preventing the Government from using information on U.S. persons that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Use Limits Amendment related to FISA during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Russ Feingold
I found that troubling as well, and taking this idea of being careful way too far.
Well, any example like Cassidy, where somebody is willing to stand up and go against their party, even if it`s on a procedural vote, John F. Kennedy wrote in 'Profiles in Courage' about those senators that had the courage to go against…
You absolutely count to 50, but some of the names that have been put around already are people who have received votes from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
It would be crazy for people to not do something strong now and make sure voting rights are protected out of some kind of a fear of what Mitch McConnell would do in the future.





