Americans Yawning About Civil Liberties
Via Lisa Simeone, Edger writes on Antemedius about the National Defense Authorization Act (opening with a quote from my former Michigan Senator, Carl Levin, "[T]he language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language, which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section"):

In a startling and heartwarming display of courage and moxy people all over America actually raised their eyebrows for a minute or so last week at the announcement of the coming indefinite detention of Americans section of the 2012 NDAA.

There were unsubstantiated rumors that the Peoria Journal Star newspaper received a panicked call from a local man reporting that a woman in his neighborhood lost control and dropped her nail file on hearing the news, but that after a hurried conference with an unnamed Homeland Security official the Star's editor declined to run the story out of concern that public order might break down in the city.

Fascism obviously has no chance in America. No chance.

People are fighters. They don't just roll over for travesties like this. In some places they even put the words "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. And they raise their eyebrows for a minute. Before changing the channel.

They are secure in the knowledge that Obama will veto the 862 page 2012 National Defense Authorization Act rather than sign indefinite detention of Americans into law creating the most powerful fascist state in history. No way are Americans getting down on their knees for this. They'll change the channel before they'll do that.

More from Mother Jones' Adam Serwer:

But while earlier incarnations of the detention provisions were confusing and harmful, now they're confusing and largely symbolic.

"Those who were big supporters of this provision, well, this doesn't accomplish what they wanted. Their enthusiasm is misplaced," said Robert Chesney, a national security law expert who teaches at the University of Texas School of Law. "Those who are decrying this as the militarization of domestic law enforcement, it doesn't have to be that either."

The new bill still mandates military detention without trial for any non-citizen terrorism suspect apprehended in the US who is determined to be a member of al Qaeda or an "affiliated group." The administration now has several ways to get around that requirement, however. It could issue a national security waiver--a letter from the administration authorizing a trial in civilian court. Alternatively, the FBI could simply detain a suspect up until a determination is made that he can be detained by the military. Even after that, if the administration decides to try the suspect in civilian court, there's still no need to put him in military custody. Under the latest version of the law, someone like underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab could still go from interrogation to trial without ever passing through military hands--and without the need for a national security waiver. (The national security waiver option that has been a part of the Senate bill since the earliest drafts, although the authority to grant the waiver now rests with the president instead of the secretary of defense--a change a Senate aide said was requested by the administration.)

The question is why the detention provisions remain in the bill at all. It looks like Congress, in responding to concerns raised by national security officials, essentially made the "mandatory" military detention optional. The new bill still shifts the presumption towards military custody, and in doing so, sets up a potential controversy every time a non-citizen terror suspect is apprehended in the US.

...Civil liberties and human rights advocates were less convinced that the bill's mandatory detention provisions could be so easily circumvented. A coalition of human rights, civil liberties advocates and national security experts held a conference call on Tuesday morning to warn that the NDAA still carves out a hypothetical role for the military to enforce the law on American soil.