On the recordMay 17, 2012
I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues, Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Landry and Mr. Rigell. I think their amendment is very well intentioned, and they care very deeply about this issue. I've had many conversations with them about it. But the first part of the amendment does nothing. It says the AUMF does not deny habeas corpus or any constitutional rights for any person who is detained in the United States who is otherwise entitled to the availability of habeas corpus or such constitutional rights. In other words, if you have constitutional rights, you have constitutional rights. The second part of the amendment might be harmful. It says: Persons detained by the military are allowed to file a habeas petition not later than 30 days after the date on which such person is placed in military custody. First, the Constitution already gives detainees the power to file a habeas at the moment they are detained. At best, the 30-day window does nothing; and at worst, it can be read to allow the government to deny habeas for 29 days or to deny habeas if the petitioner didn't file until after 30 days. So I would like to express my disapproval of the amendment.
