[arderkrag]

The idea is that they would not be REQUIRED to incarcerate a citizen. But it leaves the door open to be able to if necessary because it does not say that they CAN’T.

RG has the right of it - the possibility and the empowerment are both there.

[Retain Mike]

The word “requirement” bothers me also until I link it to the title of Sec 1032 that is “Requirement for Military Custody”. So then I see how any reference to U.S. citizens just disappears.

But then I can also see your points about how failing to include a passage that says something like “no way in hell” is also a problem.