Hacker News Reader

Comment by morpher | Hacker News Reader

In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states:

(e) 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.

So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizens? (The oft quoted 'slippery' line about not requiring detention Americans is from the NEXT section, which is specifically about requiring detentions in some cases.

View on HN

Ok. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying:

(A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other persons who are caputred or arrested in the US)

B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US

If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed.

"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed."

Seems like they already are.

How much do these provisions of the NDAA really matter? They are still trumped by the Bill of Rights, which clearly forbids indefinite detention of citizens without trial. (The Sixth Amendment, in particular.) And the Bill of Rights can't be superceded except by a new amendment to the constitution. I still wish these provisions weren't there, because they seem insane to me, but I'm wondering if they're really of very much practical consequence.

I agree that the bill of rights supersedes and I also think that the court would most likely assume that the intended interpretation of the clause above is (A). But, I feel bad for the guy waiting in jail while the case runs through the court system...

If this applies as you say, what's the purpose of Obama's signing statement? It seems like it would be unnecessary.

(You're right that this is in the bill, as I just verified here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-11...)

Because the president says so. Seems to be the justification for a lot of things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com