Naomi Wolf: "U.S. is sleepwalking into becoming a police state ... the president can lock up anyone"

[JNathanK]

55. The language is just too murky and even downright missleading.

Section 1021, when explaining covered persons that can be detained , says that current laws concerning American citizens won't be affected. It almost makes it sound like American citizens are protected, but its really just a neutral statement devoid of any meaning. Its just like the part that says that the section is not intended to limit or expand the power of the presidency. Its somewhat comforting until you get to 1022, and it says that the president, can by a waver, issue the military to detain covered persons.

Really, the bill doesn't even make any sense if it only applies to detaining "covered persons" (those deemed as terrorists and those belligerent to the United states) overseas, because who else would detain perceived enemies outside of the United States but military personnel?

Putting into context the the drone killing in Yemen of Anwar Al Alwalki, a US born citizen, who was put to death by a super-judicial NSA request that superseded habeas corpus, the implication could be interpreted that the current laws concerning Americans could allow a US citizen to fall under the category of "covered person", as explained in section 1021.

Its so convoluted, though, that a casual reader may interpret the bill to only apply to foreigners. Personally, I think foreigners should be subject to constitutional protection too, being that all human beings, despite what borders they reside in, deserve certain inalienable rights. Anyone who says otherwise is just being jingoistic. An accused terrorist should have rights to a trial by jury, not to protect terrorists, but to protect those falsely accused of being criminals or terrorists.

Of course, Mccain, a co-author of the indefinite detention provision, seems to miss this nuance.

I don't trust Obama's word either that he'll interpret the bill that protects American rights, anymore than I should have trusted him to keep his campaign promise that he'd close down Guantanamo bay or end the Iraq war within several months of taking office. I shouldn't trust that anyone will, being allowed to have an exorbitant concentration of power over others, use that power in a beneficent way. You're at their mercy under this constitutional onslaught, just as an absolute monarch's subjects are solely at his mercy.