"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans"

[ddickey]

32. It does authorize the detention of American citizens; it simply doesn't "require"'it

Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution allows Congress to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. Article 1 deals with the congress; article 2 deals with executive powers. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, infringing, as many believed, on congressional privilege. The rights of the congressional branch vs. the executive branch in this matter has been an issue since 1862, when Lincoln acted as he did.

What these provisions in NDAA do are two fold: 1, it permanently codifies the clause in article 1, section 9, suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus for certain individuals indefinitely; and, 2, they split the difference, so to speak, between Presidential and Congressional authority. But the problem with this provision is that it is unconstitutional--and it's been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court n the past. "After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex parte Milligan (1866), ruling that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional." (source and quotes: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html)

To exempt American citizens in these provisions defeats the purpose of including these provisions in the bill. As it states, detaining a US citizen is not a requirement; that implies that American citizens can be detained. And, since the language is so broad, American citizens can now possibly be detained for a variety of "reasons"; Obama may be rational in that he probably won't abuse these provisions; but an irrational President, someone who responds viscerally or emotionally, someone who kowtows to ideologues now have legislation on the books, legislation no one will challenge--even though similar actions in the past have been deemed unconstitutional.