by Cog » Mon 02 Jan 2012, 12:24:33
Review the 4th Circuit court of Appeals Jose Padilla v Rumsfeld where it was held that Padilla, a US citizen could be detained indefintely by the US military. The fact he was later transferred to the civilian court system was not ordered by the Court but by political pressure brought on GWB.
What this latest NDAA does is codify that the USA is now designated as a battlefield and its entirely within the executive branches power to determine what is a terrorist and what is not on US soil. It mandates the military detention of any person with ties to a terrorist group or associated with one.
What you see as an exclusion for US citizens:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
This does not forbid the detention of US citzens by the military for an indefinite period of time. The 4th Circuit has already ruled that the executive branch can already do that.
What is dangerous about the NDAA is the mandate for indefinite military detention on US soil of anyone with terrorists ties or even suspected military ties. US citizens could have easily been excluded from this requirement by this language:
US citizens shall not be subject to military detention.The NDAA
allows US citizens to be held without trial for an indefinite period of time if the executive branch decides its in the national interest to do so.
Legal language has meaning. Shall, require, and allow have very different meanings under the law. It was no mistake that Levin/McCain wrote the language the way they did.
I have no problem with non-US citizens being seized and held by the military indefintely either in the USA or outside it. However all US citizens should have the benefit of protection of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the ability to have right to counsel in a civilian court.