is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

Is this true?? I recently read it from a friend's friend's FB post..... not sure how i feel about it...but it sounds scary

"The newly signed National Defense Authorization Act will allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens."

Re: is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

I've seen a lot of conflicting info about this, but this seems the most clear to me, though I will research it more:

"The amendment about "indefinite detention" is only a small part of the Defense Dept budget bill. And, those who are fear mongering about it are leaving out something very important. The amendment clearly states:

'AUTHORITIES.—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

And.....

APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

The detainee provisions in the bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. The "existing law" is contained within the Patriot Act.

Also, remember that President Obama cannot veto this "provision" without vetoing the whole bill, which would be disasterous. He fought hard to have the language clarified to protect US citizens."

Re: is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

Apparently so

Re: is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

It's really hard to find anything in-depth that doesn't have a definite political spin on it.

Here's a NYT article that mentions it briefly NYTimes article

Obama eventually caved because those minor changes above were made, but many feel they were not strong enough. However, one could argue more damage would be done by vetoing the defense spending authorizations, especially when we're at war.

Re: is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

Re: is it true (warning: may be viewed as political post)

Here's a little more detailed info Lnky