Back on topic here... forgive me for posting from a source that contains such obvious agendas... but getting past all that, I think this article has some good info. MP-Ryan, care to comment on this guy's handling of the English Language in reviewing this bill?
http://www.mathaba.net/go/?http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
Sure!
In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:
Wrong! Actually, a legal interpretation of the section says that it places no limits and simultaneously does not expand the powers of the President. What does that mean? It means precisely that the President has not gained or lost any legal powers from s.1021 of the NDAA - in other words, the section exists solely to clarify powers which already exist. That means that anything in s.1021 has to actually be authorized somewhere else.
In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.
So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."
The author makes this sound a lot more nefarious than it is. (e) is just more of (d), really - clarification that s.1021 does not change anything from the status quo before it was enacted.
So, to wrap up on the s.1021 of the NDAA aspect - it has no new implications that did not exist before it came into being, it's sole purpose is to set out definitions. s.1021 of the NDAA is not unconstitutional and does not suspend habeas corpus, etc - which is what the thread started off about.
Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens
As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.
Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)
Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."
Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.
Wrong again. Presidential powers must be supported in law. Without going into the specifics of the Patriot Act (which I am not intimately familiar with), let's just say that the author is taking a very loose interpretation of what the existing authorities are. And let's not forget - those are problems with the Patriot Act (a shoddy, rushed, ill-considered piece of legislation signed into law by George W., not Obama) and NOT the NDAA. That's a whole other discussion entirely.
And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:
• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.
None of this, or any of the rest of the article, is sourced to legislation. Without references, I'd treat it as what it appears to be - ill-informed, inflated trash. Actually, I'd treat the whole article that way - the only legal reference in the whole damn thing is to two subsections of the NDAA which actually point out that the NDAA has no effect on the legal situation of US citizens, US residents, or other persons captured/arrested in the US.
So the article really doesn't have much in the way of good information, other than an allusion that restrictive powers may be found in the Patriot Act.
