Jim Saxton: “this amendment, while I believe misguided, is nonetheless a very important amendment because it changes the parameters…”

“this amendment, while I believe misguided, is nonetheless a very important amendment because it changes the parameters, or at least it seeks to change the parameters, of the definition of enemy combatant. It seeks to force in this case the United States to treat enemy combatants as criminals rather than as enemy combatants, and it fails to recognize, therefore, one very significant change that has taken place, something that is very different about this war that then existed in any war in modern history, and that is that there is no doubt that the attacks of September 11 constituted acts of war, and, therefore, by definition the United States territory, the 50 States and our territories, are part of the battlefield. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) amendment does not seek to curb the definition of enemy combatant as it applies to Guantanamo or as it applies to Iran or Afghanistan, just the United States. So the gentleman makes a difference between the part of the battlefield that is offshore and the part of the battlefield that is onshore in this case. And I think that goes to create a mistake, because it places 30-day limits on the detention of an enemy combatant by the Department of Justice.”