A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S126)

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 21, 2010

Prohibits the Attorney General (AG) or any officer or employee of the Department of Justice (DOJ) from initiating a custodial interrogation of, or filing a criminal complaint or indictment (action) against any foreign person detained by the United States because they may have engaged in conduct constituting an act of war against the United States, terrorism, or material support to terrorists or activities in preparation therefor, unless the AG has previously consulted with the following intelligence officials: (1) the Director of National Intelligence (DNI); (2) the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; (3) the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS); and (4) the Secretary of Defense (DOD).

Provides that if any of the intelligence officials believe that any action proposed by the AG may prevent the collection of intelligence related to terrorism or threats of violence against the United States or its citizens, the AG may not initiate such action without specific direction from the President.

Requires an annual report from the AG to Congress on the occasions on which direction for action was sought from the President and the number of times the President directed such actions.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] · R–ME

Committees

Judiciary Committee

4 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jan 21, 2010
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S126)
Jan 21, 2010
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S125-126)
Jan 21, 2010
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in Senate · Jan 21, 2010 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.2943 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.2943, 111th Congress: A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/2943

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2010-01-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s2943/BILLS-111s2943is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:04Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.2943 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.2943 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.2943, 111th Congress: A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/2943

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2010-01-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s2943/BILLS-111s2943is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:04Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2943 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.2943 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.2943, 111th Congress: A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/2943

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2010-01-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s2943/BILLS-111s2943is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:04Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2943 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.2943 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.2943, 111th Congress: A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/2943

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2010-01-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s2943/BILLS-111s2943is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:04Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2943 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.