Bush arrested a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and held him without a trial

[ProSense]

20. Actually

"The law as now signed says it is A-OK."

...the law does not say that.

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

Some Senators insist the existing law does, and the need for clarification arose because of the ambiguity fueling the interpretations of existing law.

<...>

But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.

“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.

Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.

The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1

Also, as pointed out in post 3 in this thread, the SCOTUS rejected Bush's interpretation.