On the recordDecember 14, 2011
Mr. Speaker, we are told, and this seems to be one of the principle issues in the debate today, that this bill, with reference to the detention and security provisions, merely codifies existing law. Some of us say no, it doesn't codify existing law; it codifies claims of power by the last two administrations that have not been confirmed by the courts--by some courts, but not by the Supreme Court. Rather terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put Americans in jail indefinitely without a trial even in the United States. Now, I can cite specifics here. The text, for example, says very specifically that Congress affirms the authority of the President, includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war, and then expands the definition of covered persons to people not implicated or supporting or harboring people implicated in 9/11 for the first time. And then we have a provision that says nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the authorization for use of military force. Well, that directly contradicts what I just read, which is a very specific provision. And since the rules of statutory construction always say that the specific controls the general, this provision, frankly, insofar as it contradicts the first, is meaningless. It provides no protection whatsoever.…





