On the recordMay 17, 2012
Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that folks want to always talk about the terrorists, and absolutely we all should be concerned about the terrorists. But how about the citizens of the United States who have to worry about now being arrested when they don't know what it is they've done wrong? In the court case that set aside 1021 just yesterday, the court points out that, they ask: Can you tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces? The representative of the government says: I'm not in a position to give specific examples. The court says: Give me one. And the gentleman, the representative of the government, says: I'm not in a position to give one specific example. The problem is that we have citizens who may be caught up unintentionally by this bill or by 1021. We must protect the citizens of the United States from an overreaching bill that has been ruled unconstitutional. And what else is interesting is the definitions aren't in 1021. The court points out in that case that in 18 U.S.C. 2339 and 2339(a) there are definitions. We need definitions. We cannot leave liberty to inference.
