because this issue has been so distorted by hyperbolic scare-mongering. Good to have some rational review.

But I would still appreciate a thorough 3-rd party analysis to verify whether some of the provisions in this bill could be “selectively interpreted” in the future to subvert the inent and allow some to justify government overreach.

The citizen detainee provison may come in more useful in an uncertain domestic future.

I think one of the main concerns is the federal government will be able to circumvent the US citizen exemption by labeling the person a “suspected terrorist.”

I too want a responsible, third party analysis.

Ya see Buck, you are a member of Congress and, as a Committee Chairman, you must of sold your soul a long time ago to the Party establishment who has gotten us into mess we are in. As such, you would be hard pressed to convince me the sky is blue.

Plus, I would bet Rick Perry $10,000 that one of your flunkies wrote this.

Well, didn’t they?

I’m disturbed that you didn’t address this.

And thank you for your endorsement of Governor Romney for President.

Governor Romney needs all the help he can get with people of all political and ideological stripes spreading lies about him.

I really appreciate all that you have done for your party and for the 25th Congressional District in California!

If rounding up Al Qaeda-allied terrorists is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.

Sorry Congressman, but you and your colleagues suffer from a credibility deficit. This is because Congress has passed laws without reading them and also passed laws that continue to chip away at the Constitution.

What’s next, you telling us that U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by our government?

The provisions within this bill that “protect American citizens” is on the surface fine. However, suppose an American citizen is suspected of either plotting or assisting in a blot to harm citizens on American soil? Does his status change from American citizen to domestic terrorist? If he is declared a domestic terrorist, does he still have Constitutional rights or are those forfeited under Title 18 USC?
MY problem with this whole scenario is this; I have already been declared a “domestic terrorist” because I believe in God first, Country second, I believe the second amendment to the Constitution is my conceal carry permit. I believe that there is no separation between the “Church and state” with the exception that the state will not demand a specific national religion or official religion.
Millions of us have been labeled as “domestic terrorists” because of our beliefs and our pasts, and our associations.
The few provisions written in supposedly to protect me, don’t.

and upon examination of the language in 1031 and 1032 it is easy to see why.

Section 1031 refers to the explicit grant of authority. It says nothing about U.S. citizenship one way or the other. However, in Hamdi, the Supreme Court concluded that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority, that authority extended to U.S. ciktizens. Simultaneously, however, Hamdi left open questions regarding AUMF detention authority in other contexts and the relevancy of citizenship in those contexts.

Section 1032 is the mandatory detention provision, the notion that a coterie of detainable persons are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention, until one of several dispositoon options including civilian custody for criminal trial is selected. 1032 then goes on to delineate that U.S. citizens are exempt from this mandatory detention requirement.,

Thus while 1032 dpes rule out mandatory military detention for U.S. citizens, it does rule in the idea that baseline detention authority granted in 1031 DOES in fact extend to citizens. If this was not the case, there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in 1032, which is a subset of 1031.

In conclusion, it appears that while U.S. citizens are exempt from the mandatory detention of 1032, they are in fact NOT exempt frpm 1031 authoritzation for indefinite detention. Hence, the military has the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, biut is not compelled to unless ordered to do so.

Let’s get our panties in a knot because we might not Mirandize those terrorists.

when we feel strongly about an important issue, such as our liberty, the debate can be muddled by sloppy legislation. Unless I am mistaken, your sloppiness extends to your post here, as page 656 in the conference report begins Section 1022. Your posting your references in reverse order is more cause for alarm.

On page 655, Section 1021, paragraph (e) states:
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.

Notwithstanding your obligatory nod to the burgeoning horde of illegal invaders of our sovereign borders, your legislation has at one level put United States citizens on a par with terrorists who have managed to gain access to the United States, while simultaneously negating (in writ, if not fact) the presumed intention of this law in relation to those terrorists on American soil.

The legislation says the requirement to detain a person in military custody does not extend to citizens of the United States. But what about the option to detain?

Again, it’s worth noting your obfuscation in the reversal of references. Section 1021 does not state “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” This is Section 1022, and is, in fact on page 657.

Now it is entirely conceivable that existing law and authorities (local sheriffs, maybe) defer to the federal agents when they arrive to take custody of a suspected terrorist, therefore, no affect to existing law or authorities. Here we arrive at Section 1022 and find that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens. Yet there is no language to preclude military detention of US citizens by the Armed Forces if the President considers it an option.

Now, please tell me this only happens in the movies.

Some time back when the sky-is-falling crowd came out of the woodwork over this, I immediately examined the law myself and drew the same conclusion. US Citizens and LPRs are exempt. But, this will not satisfy everyone. On the upside, this frenzy means that Americans are vigilant and jealously protective of their rights That’s fine by me. We need that, even if hyperbole often takes hold. Given the esoteric nature of the legislation’s wording, misinterpreting the law is understandable. Glad so many folks are being watchful.

This is my response to a family member who sent me this link when I stated that the NDAA should be vetoed:

I’ve read these rationalizations before (although not these particular ones), and I find them lacking. Firstly, our rights as citizens go beyond habeus corpus. Rep. McKeon states:

“Anyone -foreign born or not- who is detained by the military or civilian law enforcement, is free to openly challenge their detention before a federal judge. ”

If a citizen is arrested on suspicion of a crime, he has the right to be released after 72 hours if no charges are filed. He also has the right to simply walk away from a “detention” if not under arrest. The last two defense authorizations (this one and the last one) puts the burden on the individual to file a habeus corpus challenge in court and win in order to be released, which I find unacceptable.

He goes on:

” The provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

More talk of “the provision”. The summary document posted on his website doesn’t have any actual citations in it. Too bad for the amateur activist who wants to care but has to make a living. Lucky for me I am very good with Google. The most relevant provisions are §1021 and §1022 (of the conference report). The exception of U.S. Citizens referred to by Rep. McKeon only applies to §1022, but here are how “covered persons” is defined in §1021:

6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.

This is where it gets uncomfortable. Elsewhere (in §1024 or §1025, I think), the NDAA simply says that the president has to submit within 30 days a process for determining whether an individual is covered or not under this requirement. To my mind, this provision also should have had a citizen exemption because it gives the executive too much discretion over who’s covered, particularly under subparagraph 2 above (beginning line 12). What happens when an overzealous prosecutor makes the case that indirect financial aid or even public speech is an excuse to detain someone under these requirements and the weight of inertia in the government is with him? It will be too late and too hard for congress to do anything about it. This was their chance.

I will admit that these are murky waters that have to be tread carefully, but I don’t think the GOP is doing enough to draw clear bright lines around our historical and fundamental liberties so that they won’t be encroached by well-intentioned efforts to provide adequate national security.