Quote from achilles28:
Your interpretation is wrong, for many reasons. The original Bill covered Americans in both 1021 and 1022. Riders that specifically *exempted* American citizens from both were introduced by both the House and Senate, and were overwhelming defeated. Carl Levin, the traitor, specifically said Obama told him and McCain to ensure the NDAA covered American citizens. McCain basically admitted as much in a debate with Rand Paul on the floor. You didn't even quote 1021 in its entirety. What you did quote was the Feinstien rider, which was a compromise for dissenters, who wanted specific protections for Americans included in the bill. That's why it reads like mush and the language is purposefully vague. The section that reads "this in no way expands existing law" doesn't provide an exemption to Americans. It merely says it does not change prior law. Again, on the floor, McCain and Levin argued the President already has the authority to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely - without a lawyer or trial - from the Jose Pedia and some other case. I forget, which one. This is not speculation. All the CSPAN tapes are up on youtube where McCain specifically argued that power already exists with the Feds, the Supreme Court upheld it, and this particular section in the NDAA is a codification of that case law. That phag, Lindsey Graham affirmed as much. He said, if you're an American citizen and arrested with terrorist links, you don't get a lawyer. He also said the NDAA declares the Homeland "a battlefield". As far as amendment 1022, again, you didn't read it correctly. The language says the US military is "not required" to cover Americans. But it doesn't say they're not prohibited either. Think very carefully about what "not required" means. Not required means optional. The IRS is *not required* to perform an audit on every American that earns under 30K. But they can, if they want! Again, you need to look at context AND INTENT. Many attempts were made to protect Americans from these amendments, but they were struck down. What does that tell you about intent? Levin specifically said Obama told him to make sure it covered Americans. What does that tell you about intent? Obama included a signing statement (which are totally unconstitutional to begin with) that said his Administration won't arrest or detain Americans without a trial. Why would Obama even write that if the Bill didn't include that power, to begin with? And the bill does. That's why guys like Andrew Napaletanio, a former judge, are flipping out about this.
I'll be around next week and will write a more detail reply then, with all the youtube links, so you can see and hear it from the horses mouth. Youtube them now, if you want. None of this is conjecture.
