I am not alone in that analysis.
As Wired noted on December 1st:
It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.
The ACLU notes:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.But you don’t have to believe me. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Another sponsor of the bill - Senator Levin - has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“Is this that America that you know and love?
Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor - John McCain - said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo!
Yes, you could just disappear.
Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:
NO DUE PROCESS = POLITICAL PRISONERS.One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence assessment was published to the Internet this week, warning that opposition to federal government policies could foment a resurgence of "rightwing extremism." The DHS report is the latest indication that many law enforcement agencies regard advocacy groups as intelligence targets and lawful political dissent as a potential sign of terrorism.
Yes, exercise your right to free speech and free assembly, then you can be deemed a "terrorist" and you loose every right given to you by the Constitution of the United States.
Some conservatives and libertarians take the report as an indictment of their values. However, this is not a left-versus-right issue, and those blogs framing it that way are missing the point. Rather, the real problem is figuring out how lawful dissent squares with efforts to fight terrorism and the persistent inability of domestic intelligence agencies to adequately draw the distinction.
Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitari
That day is TODAY!
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. - Voltaire”