On the recordJune 13, 2013
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Goodlatte and Chairman Smith and I are in agreement, I think, on the goal, though I think the three of us mutually disagree on elements of this amendment. The amendment, while intended to enhance protections for U.S. citizens, in fact does the opposite. Right now, Americans on U.S. soil cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Rather than affirming this fundamental principle, the amendment implicitly authorizes the military to detain Americans on U.S. soil indefinitely by premising its protection on the mistaken assertion that the AUMF, the Authorization for Military Force, allows such detention--which I disagree with Chairman Smith, it does not. No such authority exists. The AUMF does not grant this authority, and we should do nothing to suggest otherwise. In fact, we should be taking clear and immediate steps to ban indefinite military detention altogether. The Smith-Gibson amendment, which I support, takes a good first step in doing this by prohibiting the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the United States. We should also pass my No Detention Without Charge Act, which would cure the problem altogether by preventing indefinite detention without charge or trial for all persons in U.S. custody, at home or overseas. Secondly, this amendment would create greater uncertainty in habeas corpus cases and raises significant constitutional concerns.…





