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,
“After endless legal battles”
You really want us to believe, at the very best, that an equally gargantuan effort to get habeas would not be required the next time Obama comes down on some “redneck militia”?
I would characterize these circumstances as vague not specific...
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Lots of room to stretch those definitions.