Thanks to you, actually me, not a legal scholar, but it does look to me like this most recent make of the bill does exclude US citizens and even lawful foreign residents from the military detainment. The only sites I can find that talk about that though consistently couch the subject in their own pet conspiracy theories, and I haven’t been able to find a truly plain, basic look at this. if there is no judicial review, then definitions don’t matter., because we need follow so many instructions, crystal awards

There’s still a chance to fix this!

Help eliminate indefinite detention and restore due process by contacting your representatives and urge them to support the bill H.R.3676.

H.R.3676 is a one page bill that in clear, unambiguous language amends the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3676/show

Here is a must-read article on the NDAA:

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/01/what-the-ndaa-is-and-isnt/

I hope that those nasty unconstitutional provisions in this bill are challenged in court and removed ASAP.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
22 ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the

page 363

1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

Note that this doesn’t forbid the military from detaining US citizens, it instead only makes it so that the military doesn’t have to detain US citizens. It says nothing about the military not being allowed to indefinitely detain US citizens, except that they can choose not to. The language here is tricky.

@jongaskell,

The scope of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has not been limited since the Patriot Act. This means U.S. citizens can fall under section 1031. Go read the updated comments and find out how others interpret the language.

The quote “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand authority…” does not explicitly say — U.S. citizens are not subject to this bill! Because they absolutely are subject to military force under the Patriot Act, and they are currently, they will be in the future.

You have to take the whole bill into context, and read the comments by other people to get a clear picture about what this bill is saying:
“You will be detained if you aid al-Qaeda, even if you’re an American (Sec. 1031). There will be no trial by jury, and you will only have access to military counsel (Sec. 1035). The penalty is death (Sec. 1037).”

jongaskell,
The problem is, all they have to do is say that you are associated with a terrorist group and you can be killed/detained indefinitely. Imagine I was President I can say “jongaskell is associated with al-qaeda, he can now be killed or detained indefinitely”. See the problem now? Have you woken up yet??

A defense authorization bill in 2005 (HR 1268) gave us unconstitutional REAL ID. With over 1,100 pages this one has now been exposed as also doing negative things to our liberty. The House must strike the necessary portions.

You can’t trust the mass media on this bill. They’ve all been lying about it. Read the official government summary and if you have questions on a section you need to check it out. All of the mass media that doesn’t show their quotes and sources have betrayed this country. Don’t fall for them the way I did on this one.

“Lindsey Graham, R-SC, stated that the ’battlefield has been extended to U.S. soil.” found on: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/detainee-bill-raises-serious-constitutional-questions

Does this mean that this bill makes all U.S. military personnel Federal tax exempt whether or not they are deployed overseas?

What were these people thinking? Could they actually be so naive as to think that legislation such as this would never be used against the people of this country? Tea Party members have already been referred to as “right-wing terrorists” by the administration. If the government declares you a “terrorist” then this bill applies to you. Am I missing something?

I am thoroughly scared at this point….
If they are given the ability to arrest ANYONE suspected of terrorism, with out fair trial, things are going to get ugly… Plus, there is a reason they are now making FEMA camps available for use…. It’s the end of our beautiful country… it’s the end, and it’s coming fast…

Sections 1031 thru 1047 do not belong in an appropriations bill. They grant new powers to the Pres/DOD and address legal rights of “unpriviledged enemy belligerents” subject to arrest or currently detained.
Section 1245 is equally dangerous! It allows sanctions to be imposed on Iran and it’s central bank. It gives powers to the Pres to carry out foreign policy up to and including the seizing of monies from national and international entities determined to have financial interests in Iran, and allows for broader powers to be used to sanction the purchase of Iranian oil by foreign interests if the Pres deems others sources to be readily available, at a comparable price. The report used to base such a sweeping squeeze on global oil markets (by way of limiting the activities of central banks across the globe) was published only ten days before this policy was written into this appropriations bill. Can this be our best response? Shouldn’t such a policy be open to debate before enactment?

I wondered that too but found this link http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf.

I’m sorry, but I can’t find the link to the full text of this bill. why is it not showing up on the main bill page?

Today, thanks to all of you, the sun has begun to set on our republic. Once the bill gets passed into law(and it will), the floodgates allowing the misuse of power by law enforcement officials. Abuse brutality and death of the Sovereign Citizens of this nation will surely follow on a scale no less appalling than genocide. You have unanimously begun the dissolution of the principles the founding fathers gave their lives for. You have usurped, defiled and committed an act of terror against we the people .
ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE INCARCERATED, WITHOUT FORMALLY BEING CHARGED, DENIED THE RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND EXECUTED FOR GRAND TREASON AND SEDITION using the provisions set forth by senate bill 1867. We the people would like to make a citizen’s arrest against the progenitor’s of Fascism, Our Elected Officials!

We could debate the Patriot act again too, but…

ACLU Sues Government to Find Out Secret Interpretation of Patriot Act

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-government-find-out-secret-interpretation-patriot-act

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04043716279/nytimes-sues-federal-government-refusing-to-reveal-its-secret-interpretation-patriot-act.shtml

It doesn’t matter how the bill defines a “covered person”, if there is no judicial review, then definitions don’t matter. This bill is a death blow to the American republic. If it passes, I fully expect political assassinations and a military coup in the US by 2030.

I have done some reading on this bill so far. What I find interesting is that many from both sides of the political spectrum are saying it is bad, but for different reasons.

I second the comment on the “secret interpretation” of the Patriot act.

Was not there a reason laws are supposed to be written in common language?

It looks bad to me.

IMHO, a careful reading of 1031 and 12032 shows that, though pretending to protect US citizens, the law actually does the opposite. I write more about this in detail at: http://tinyurl.com/NoS-1867

1032 only “exempts” citizens from US military protection, mandating that the military turn-over citizens it may be holding for rendition as determined by the national executive.

What it does is to make sure that members of US military will violate their Oath to defend the Constitution, including those provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting us from arbitrary executive power.

This is yet another assault on the Constitution by the Bush/Obama right/left neocon cabal.