General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)where it reads "the Armed Forces of the United States <i>shall</i> hold a person described in paragraph..." where the "person described" is someone directly involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda, currently at war against the US.
The qualification is that this requirement to detain doesn't apply if the person is a US citizen, or a legal resident - to whom military detention doesn't apply. In those cases, civilian law would still apply, of course, where there are different sets of rights and protections that the bill has no bearing on.
If you go a little farther into the bill, if a "covered person" is detained, and isn't exempted by section 1032, then section 1036 details the rights and recourse of that person, in keeping with the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war.