I guess I should then, if I weren't this damn lazy...
This though: "As Congress considers the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2012 fiscal year, a handful of senators have turned the bill into a vehicle for dangerous provisions that would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial."
Source: http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-detentio ... zation-act
Comes close to what I was saying.
The thing with laws is that it often suffers from function creep, meaning it will be used outside the vision with which it was initially created.
Ok so instead of reading 565 pages, I'll use wikipedia xD:
"Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, includes any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF] .." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.
Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law. ."
"All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the military an option to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without access to legal councel and requires the military to detain foreign persons. The law does extend to U.S. citizens the same as non-U.S. citizens. There is debate over the wording of 'requirement' in the revision under section 1022. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States.""
Basically, they CAN indefinitely hold someone, as they are doing in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, or be tried by military tribunal which is far from a fair process according to civilized standards. Also they can basically send anyone they'd like to wherever they like to torture them as has happened to several terrorist suspects. All that is for them to be required is to declare war, and as we've seen they have taken the liberty to not only declare war upon nations, but also on more liberal definitions of hostile entities as in "groups of people" or ideologies.
The horrors to which this law can extend into are unbelievable. They can declare war upon each and everyone and use this law to rain down terror. You ask anyone? Yes anyone, because as we've seen they are capable of forging false claims such as brought up against the Iraqi's.
Even more, they can stretch the meaning of a belligerent act to any length they desire.
But the main question remains, why do they want this law to be applicable inside America? Is there any serious threat conceivable in the coming future that will grant such desperate measures inside America? I cannot think of anything with which organizations like the Department of Justice, police, FBI and homeland security would not be able to deal with inside America?
So why make this law applicable to American citizens?