[TigersEye]

Essentially recognizing that this bill reaffirms powers regarding detention, for the President and Congress, that they have already had. Neither Turley or Limbaugh can show that this bill gives the Execute or Legislative Branch detention powers, regarding US citizens, that AUMF 2001 and Patriot Act did not already give them.

So it's all good because they already assumed the power to detain American citizens indefinitely without a lawyer, without a trial or any other semblance of habeas corpus?

[emax]

Not entirely, but it does show that the NDAA 2012 is not a revolutionary bill that is unique in terms of power it gives the govt to detain Americans. And also, the power the govt has reserved to detain American citizens has also been limited to very specific circumstances-which is why there have always been huge legal hassles and fiascos whenever the govt tried to detain an American without a trail. See the Padilla case, which was moved to civilian court after endless legal battles. or Hamdi case, where the US govt lost a case before the Supreme Court when it tried to suspend Habeus Corpus. NDAA 2012 does not change this,