Civil Liberties: NDAA and Indefinite Detention: Someone please clear this up for me

[Wolf]

Today I watched Ron Paul's floor speech calling to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA 2012. The subject horrified me. I decided to look into it. So I read the text of it, and I read the revisions.

I've read Obama's promise about his administration never using it against a US citizen.
I've read that it could legally be used against any US citizen.
I've read that it could only be used against a US citizen abroad.
I've read that it's not even a new power, as 2001's Authorization the Use of Military Force granted the same power.

My head is spinning.

I don't know how to interpret it. See, the problem is this : "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
I'm a 20 year old chemistry major; I'm not familiar with all existing law on this matter. And every article I read is telling me something different.

I thought I read a pretty convincing article here. But if the law really cannot apply to US citizens, why is Paul moving to repeal it?

 

[tonypeck]

This may not answer all of your questions, but I found it to be a pretty good analysis of the often confusing language used in this bill (and bills in general):

http://www.infowars.com/myth-busted...to-americans-and-heres-the-text-that-says-so/

 

[RonPaulMyPresident]

I've read Obama's promise about his administration never using it against a US citizen.

Yes he promised he wont use that bill against U.S. citizens that's why not many people are making noise about it but what if we have a nutjob President like Gingrich in the future who'll be like kill 'em all.

So anyone who they perceive as a threat can be a victim of this NDAA law. Presidents can abuse this law, and can detain innocent citizens without trial. I would never think this kind of bill would be passed in the Land of the Free. Everyone deserves a trial, especially American citizens in their own country.

 

[PierzStyx]

Paul lays it out pretty well in his speech. The NDAA says that it doesn't apply to US citizens in one place but in another says ANYONE who is either suspected of terrorist activities or of supporting forces "associated" with terrorism can have the NDAA applied to them. Americans count as part of "anyone". Obama also likes to argue that because the government doesn't HAVE to apply to US citizens then its OK. Its not OK. Even if it didn't apply to US citizens it would be unconstitutional. After all the 5th Amendment says "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law" something the NDAA's indefinite detention powers clearly violate.

 

[donnay]

Yes he promised he wont use that bill against U.S. citizens that's why not many people are making noise about it but what if we have a nutjob President like Gingrich in the future who'll be like kill 'em all.

So anyone who they perceive as a threat can be a victim of this NDAA law. Presidents can abuse this law, and can detain innocent citizens without trial. I would never think this kind of bill would be passed in the Land of the Free. Everyone deserves a trial, especially American citizens in their own country.

If he is not going to use it on Americans then why did his administration demand it be put in?

 

[rambone]

The Section 1021 removes the requirement to use the military against U.S. Citizens, not the option.

 

[row333au]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?334789-U.S.-Senate-93-7-passed-a-bill-that-ends-the-Bill-of-Rights-in-America.