What I want to argue, and it's with no disrespect to you, is that if you do that and we go against the report now, it means that we have agreed it's not automatically constitutional, because we're accepting the argument of the in camera subcommittee. If we don't accept the report of the subcommittee, then it means we're not accepting it as constitutional. I say that if we are to make a decision, we have the right to study it before deciding whether it's constitutional or not.
On December 11th, 2007. See this statement in context.