On the recordDecember 14, 2011
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock). Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for generously yielding to me to offer a dissenting view of section 1021 of the underlying conference report. This is the section referenced by the gentleman from Florida that specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American the government charges with ``substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any associated forces,'' whatever that means. Would ``substantial support'' of an ``associated force'' mean linking a Web site to a Web site that links to an al Qaeda site? We don't know. The question before us is: Do we really want to find out? We're told not to worry, the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law. But wait--there is no existing law that gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process. There is only an assertion by the last two Presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill- defined war on terrorism. But it is a power not granted by any act of Congress until now. What this bill says is, what Presidents have only asserted, Congress now affirms in statute. We're told this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of our Bill of Rights.…
