Detention Bill Specifics

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

  Glenn Greenwald

That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 [...] But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror.

Greenwald doesn't highlight what looks like a very importantly broad and vague phrase in the bill:  "any person who has committed a belligerent act."  Even if your attorney can argue that the belligerent act does not include sitting in Occupy Wall Street protests, but must be linked to aiding "such enemy forces,"  we have heard our "leaders" innumerable times accuse even each other of giving "comfort" and "aid" to the enemy by mere speech or thought.

Joe McCarthy is dancing in Hell.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.