Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss, made this statement during the a hearing to question Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan: "The main benefit I saw in [the CIA's detention program] was the ability to hold and question individuals about whom there was significant intelligence that they were terrorists, but not necessarily evidence that could be used in a court of law."
Exactly how 'significant' is that intelligence if it cannot even be used in a court of law?
Is this the same intelligence used to execute persons via drone strikes and the like?
Are laws being made to fit the standard of evidence this intelligence provides (such as the Patriot Act, FISA, language inserted into the NDAAs, etc), rather than the previous standard courts had accepted?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime