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
I really cannot figure out exactly what the amendment does, to tell the truth. The legal significance of the amendment is an absurdity, really. It is from the Constitution. I just see it as a legal absurdity.
I rise with the support of several Members of this amendment. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I are offering an amendment that would…
I, too, believe the best way to address climate change is to first recognize the overwhelming evidence provided by scientists throughout the world that our planet faces severe consequences if we do not take action.
I sincerely hope that this Committee is not beginning and ending its record on climate science in the 112th Congress with this hearing.





