Article: PoliticusUSA.com Shills for Obama on Whether NDAA Military Detention Applies to American Citizens.

Who makes the determination, with no evidence, or showing of probable cause required, without right to counsel or any contact with family or friends allowed, that you have "substantially supported...associated forces?" The same government which said it was "100% certain" that Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were a match in the Madrid train bombing, until the Spanish authorities went public with the FBI error after telling the FBI privately, repeatedly, that they had the wrong guy in Mayfield. Mayfield would be rotting in prison this very moment were it not for the Spanish government.

Politicususa.com does, however, use the discredited but still often used analysis quoted in Lawfareblog.com:

"We would also note that, under a plain-language reading, section 1022 would not even cover persons apprehended in the U.S. by the FBI or other law-enforcement officials: That provision applies only to a person "who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF"--and in the case of a domestic FBI or other law-enforcement arrest, presumably neither the arresting entity nor the individual would be engaged in "hostilities authorized by the AUMF." On this reading--which is fortified by the language clarifying that 1022 does not affect FBI authorities--the statute could only apply in the first instance to someone captured by a U.S. agency acting pursuant to the AUMF, which in effect would mean apprehensions by the armed forces overseas."

But real "clarifying language" would say simply: "Nothing in this bill shall be construed to abridge the Sixth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, under any circumstances." Lawfareblog.com's "clarifying language" is about as clear as mud.

Jose Padilla was arrested on American soil, by the FBI, then turned over to the military on the demand of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Remember Padilla is the one who was originally supposed to be plotting to blow up a "dirty bomb" in NYC, which then changed to using gas lines to blow up apartment buildings, neither allegation of which ever made it into the charges when he was finally released to civilian trial 4 years later, to avoid Supreme Court review of his indefinite military detention.

A vegetable by the time of his trial whose "temperament," his attorney said, "was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of "a piece of furniture," Padilla was convicted on the basis of a "CIA agent" who was allowed to remain nameless and testify in disguise including, wig, sunglasses, and facial hair, and a purported "Al Qaeda application form" complete with a line for "Emergency Contact."

In addition the very grounds relied on by the Fourth Circuit was the AUMF, citing World war II precedent in Ex Parte Quinn. So when Lawfareblog says "presumably neither the arresting entity nor the individual would be engaged in "hostilities authorized by the AUMF,-- it presumes wrong.

Lawfareblog says that the NDAA would "in effect would mean apprehensions by the armed forces overseas." But Jose Padilla showed that the whole world was now the battlefield.

So I guess it is no surprise that Politicususa.com never reported that is was a fellow Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Service Committee, who charged that is was Obama who asked him to include military detention of Americans in the first place, which was not originally in the Senate bill S. 1867 or the House bill which preceded. Levin says that Americans were firmly excluded from either a requirement or an allowance that they be held in military custody by the language of the original bills, but the Obama administration asked him to remove that:

Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president):
Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration... that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I'm just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?"