PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 24, 2007
Military Commissions Revision Act of 2007 - Amends federal law concerning powers and procedures of military commissions (commissions) to redefine the term "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person who has engaged in, attempted, or conspired to engage in acts of armed hostilities or terrorism against the United States or its co-belligerents, and who is not a lawful enemy combatant.
Repeals the requirement that a finding by a combatant status review tribunal that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant be dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by a commission.
Allows statements obtained by a degree of coercion less than torture to be admitted only if the military judge finds that: (1) the totality of the circumstances indicates that the statement possesses probative value; (2) the interests of justice would best be served by admitting the statement; and (3) the interrogation methods used do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien enemy combatant detained by the United States who has been determined by a combatant status review panel to have been properly detained, unless two years has elapsed since the date of detention, and no criminal charges are pending against the detainee at the time the writ is filed.
People & committees
Rep. Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-47] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2543 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2543 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2543 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2543 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.