You know, we want to listen to the terrorists. We want to know who they are talking to. If they are talking foreign to foreign, we clearly have the right to listen in. If they are talking foreign to domestic, we want to listen, but we want a judge to review that. The idea is to have in this separation of powers between the judicial and the executive branch the oversight that the Framers had in mind for our constitutional system. At the end of this war on terror, it is really about whether we have preserved the constitutional system that is going to win the hearts and minds of the world to our point of view. It is crucial that we do that here tonight by voting to see that we have judicial oversight.
Bob Inglis: “You know, we want to listen to the terrorists. We want to know who they are talking to. If they are talking foreign to…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for judicial oversight in surveillance related to the war on terror.
Share
More from Bob Inglis
If 98 doctors prescribe one treatment, and 2 doctors prescribe a different treatment, who are you going to follow?
Climate changes is a cancer, and we don't cure cancer by refusing to test for it, calling the doctor a liar, and refusing to consider any treatment.
I would ask, second, would it be permissible for me to enter into this record an encouragement of the Centers for Disease Control to consider allocating funds to groups, such as PFOX, that promote abstinence as a means to prevent the…
It is my understanding that any group which is responsible for conduct covered by subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act would be excluded from the protection of the bill. The language was inserted to…





