What Exactly is Unclear About “Expressly” and “Shall Not”?

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


Adam Serwer has a helluva strange piece up today about Dianne Feinstein’s recently passed amendment blocking indefinite detention of US citizens and legal residents captured on US soil. Here’s the nut of the thing:

The question of what the Senate actually did hinges on language in the amendment that reads: “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention” (emphasis mine). It’s that “unless” that the supporters of indefinite detention latched onto.

“Senator Feinstein’s amendment…does not prohibit military detention if it is expressly authorized by law,” said Levin, “which I read as a statute authorizing the use of military force itself or some other act of Congress.”….But Feinstein said that the Levin interpretation was incorrect, and that based on a federal court decision in the case of Jose Padilla (the only American accused of terrorism to be held in military detention in the US) the 2001 AUMF doesn’t count as an authorization to detain US citizens captured on American soil indefinitely. 

This is just….weird. I can imagine thinking that an authorization of military force could also be interpreted as an authorization for indefinite detention, except for the fact that Feinstein’s amendment explicitly says that an authorization of military force “shall not” be interpreted that way. Only an act of Congress that “expressly” authorizes indefinite detention may be interpreted to allow indefinite detention.

On a related note, why is Feinstein relying on the Padilla case for backup? That was a pretty fuzzy opinion, wasn’t it? Isn’t Hamdi more on point? And who cares anyway? Feinstein’s amendment would supersede any court ruling based on statutory grounds, and wouldn’t matter if the Supreme Court ever ruled that indefinite detention was OK on constitutional grounds. What am I missing here?

What’s independent journalism worth to you?

Our news will always be free to read, watch, and listen to online. But what is its value?

Unbiased reporting on the issues that billionaire-owned newsrooms won’t touch. Fearless research into the dark corners of government and corporations. Ferociously fact-checked news that focuses on the facts, and the facts alone.

It IS free for you and every reader, viewer, and listener to utilize. But it’s not free for our team to make. So, what’s it worth to you? Let us know by making a donation: Make a one-time donation today to support this work. Or make a monthly sustaining donation to help us plan for the future.

Whatever you choose, know that you’re supporting more independent, investigative journalism in a time when we need it most.

What’s independent journalism worth to you?

Our news will always be free to read, watch, and listen to online. But what is its value?

Unbiased reporting on the issues that billionaire-owned newsrooms won’t touch. Fearless research into the dark corners of government and corporations. Ferociously fact-checked news that focuses on the facts, and the facts alone.

It IS free for you and every reader, viewer, and listener to utilize. But it’s not free for our team to make. So, what’s it worth to you? Let us know by making a donation: Make a one-time donation today to support this work. Or make a monthly sustaining donation to help us plan for the future.

Whatever you choose, know that you’re supporting more independent, investigative journalism in a time when we need it most.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate