I'd note that that bill is intended to
force the military to hold Al-Qaeda members in military detention. It seems to be a move to block civilian trials or detention. It does, however, contain an exemption for US citizens and lawful resident aliens. I believe this is a relatively recent change (last fortnight or so).
The full text has been copied
here and the committee report that lead to it is
here. From that report;
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Armed Forces of the United States to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces of the United States do not need specific statutory authorization to detain enemy belligerents under the law of war when they are captured in the course of any lawful armed conflict. Because the long-term nature of the current conflict has led to the detention of a number of individuals for a period that is not likely to end soon, the committee concludes that such statutory authorization is appropriate in this case.
Required military custody for members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities (sec. 1032)
The committee recommends a provision that would require military custody for certain unprivileged enemy belligerents detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), subject to a national security waiver. The requirement to detain individuals under this provision would apply only to unprivileged enemy belligerents who are determined to be members of al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity and participants in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Under section 1031, the Armed Forces of the United States would have the authority to detain, but would not be required to detain, unprivileged enemy belligerents who do not fall into this category.
They then go on to discuss Guantanamo Bay, stating that the DoD can't fund any transfers to other US facilities without explicit congressional approval.
It seems to me this is an attempt to support military detention and Guantanamo while making it harder to close the prison.
Overall I don't like the bill, but for two main reasons;
1) Mandating military detention for terrorism suspects.
2) Making transfers out of military detention hard.
However, I don't think that having formal legislation about detention is a bad thing. Right now the US is broadly working from legal opinion that came out of the Bush administration, largely unconstrained by congress and all too often deferred to by the courts. Even formalising the current regime (which this bill sort of does) would drag the debate out of the murk and into the legislative sphere. If we can do it without the restrictions on transfers that would be nice.
So basically this.And as an extension of that link,
the proposed amendment is a good idea. Not for the reasons all too often given for it, which are at least partially bullshit, but for the reasons given there.