I wonder when this law will be nuffified by New Jersey.

 

The US Constitution refutes the so-called “National Defense Authorization Act” provisions for US military to seize people in America (here, here, here). The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, they damn sure have to demonstrate you’ve committed a crime (my comments). Note that these promises apply to all persons, not just citizens:

 

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/virginia-declares-emperor-has-no.html

 

Subtitle D Detainee Matters

 

Sec. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE

 

(a) IN GENERAL. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

 

(b) COVERED PERSONS. A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

 

© DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

 

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

 

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

 

From S1867 as passed by the Senate.

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112s1867es.pdf

 

 

After reading this AGAIN, I still fail to see anything that permits US citizens to be detained on US soil by the Armed Forces.

 

Since your last link is the only one that actually cites the text, I will only deal with that one.

 

http://www.salon.com...bill/singleton/

 

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, ©:

 

 

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

 

 

When taken out of context, section 1031 could be interpreted to mean that anyone, regardless of citizenship or place of capture, could be taken into custody and held indefinitely without trial simply by being accused of one of the named acts.

 

However, like everything in life, the meaning of a law can change rather significantly when it is used in context.

 

Sec 1031 (e) explicitly states that this section (and thus the ability to lawfully detain a US Citizen or legal alien without trial) does not apply to US citizens or lawful resident aliens.

 

Please do not interpret this to mean that I agree with the indefinite detention without trial of non-US citizens who may or may not be guilty of the crimes mentioned in the act, but the law specifically DOES NOT APPLY to US citizens.