In summary, the NDAA detainee provisions do not create or expand the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens. In no way does the NDAA negatively impact or change the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Instead, section 1021 strengthens the military’s authority to detain individuals who are members of or substantially supporting al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.

Legalize make me crazy but for me Charles Stimson makes a good enough argument I'm willing to put this one to rest. I also see this subject has disappeared from the ACLU main site and is only being kicked around in their blog.

"...and some have claimed that this bill creates or expands federal authority to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and without due process. Those claims are false."

True, as the IRS already took care of that detail.

Seems to me if you are suspected of a terrorist act they can detain you, and ship you off to where ever they want.

On December 31 and after signing the NDAA 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed the issue of detention of terror suspects and other provisions within the bill.

President Obama stated, "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

So I read this as it being open to interpretation. If not why state it that way way? Why not just say we can't detain US citizens indefinitely?

What about future administrations?

Has President Obama never lied?

Has he never "changed" his mind? After all he first stated he would veto NDAA 2012.

Also section 1021 paragraph (e) states, "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".

Seems to me a US citizen traveling anywhere outside of America can be arrest by the US Military and detained until the end of hostilities. In case of the war on terror indefinitley.

Seems to me a US citizen traveling anywhere outside of America can be arrest by the US Military and detained until the end of hostilities. In case of the war on terror indefinitley.

#3 | Posted by Tedly at 2012-02-20 04:00 PM

Anwar Al-Awlaki was a US citizen who maintained a pro-jihadist online magazine and Youtube channel. He was killed remotely, by drone in Afghanistan. He was not charged with any crime, and did not receive due process.

I won't pretend to stick up for Al-Awlaki but really he could have at least been charged and tried in absentia.

Well that article sure cleared up a lot for me. Sec. 1021 doesn't give the military the right to detain citizens as they already have it. Sec. 1022 also doesn't give the military the right to detain citizens as well, unless waived by the president.

Meant 1022 doesn't give military right to hold them in custody.