[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 68-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1110
 REPEALING SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a very simple piece 
of legislation: to repeal the infamous section 1021 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which was quietly signed into law by the 
President on New Year's Day. What a way to usher in the new year.
  Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of 
Presidential authority under the 2001 authorization for the use of 
military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access 
to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides 
for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police 
force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, 
and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely.
  No right to attorney.
  No right to trial.

[[Page 69]]

  No day in court.
  This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that 
Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. A 
great man named Solzhenitsyn became the hero of so many of us when he 
exposed the Soviet Union's extensive gulag system. Is this really the 
kind of a United States we want to create in the name of fighting 
terrorism?
  Some have argued that nothing in section 1021 explicitly mandates 
holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language, 
radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has 
``substantially supported'' certain terrorist groups or ``associated 
forces.'' No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an 
``associated force''?
  Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our 
Constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One Senator even 
said about American citizens being picked up under this section of the 
NDAA, ``When they say, `I want my lawyer,' you tell them, `Shut up. You 
don't get a lawyer.''' Is this acceptable in someone who has taken an 
oath to uphold the Constitution?
  Mr. Speaker, of course I recognize how critical it is that we 
identify and apprehend those who are suspected of plotting attacks 
against Americans; but why do we have so little faith in our judicial 
system? Have we not tried in civilian court and won convictions of 
hundreds of individuals for terrorist or related activities? I fully 
support continuing to do so, but let us not abandon what is so unique 
and special about our system of government in the process.
  I hope my colleagues will join my effort to overturn this shameful 
section, 1021, of the National Defense Authorization Act.

                          ____________________