Why aren't there mass protests over the NDAA bill?

[JNathanK]

Section 1021

&quot d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Section 1022

&quot a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL"

It says in 1021 that that particular section isn't meant to expand or limit the authority of the president, This is really just a meaningless statement of neutrality, where in the very next section it explicitly gives the president the power to use the troops to detain people, as long as he writes a memo to congress explaining why its necessary.

1021 &quot c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.

This allows the military to detain people without a trial by jury during war-time, which is scary because were technically right in the middle of an era of perpetual war according to the Pentagon. The legalese is fashioned in a way to mislead the casual reader into thinking it doesn't apply to Americans, but its just another neutral, non statement meant to create a loophole.

sec 1021&quot e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States
"

All you have to do is look toward the drone strike in Yemen against Anwar Awlaki and his family to know what the current laws are pertaining to this subsection (e). He's an American citizen who was killed through a super-judicial motion from the white house. The allegation was that he encouraged Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a plot to blow up an American airliner over Detroit, but the government won't even release any of the information that backs up their claim, stating its in the interest of national security to keep it classified. This is what's so backward about the NDAA bill too. It says that people with links to terrorism will be detained until this perpetual war finally ends, whenever that may be. However, without a trial by jury and experts to present evidence that can be rationally assessed, how are we to have any frame work to know that those captured as enemy combatants actually are bad guys working to destroy America?

Its just using wartime, the time when we need our civil liberties most, as an excuse to override the fifth amendment, just as Woodrow Wilson used wartime and national security as an excuse to override the first amendment through the Sedition Act.

Over the last decade, there have been non-Americans indefinitely detained at Guantanamo Bay, and I suppose, this is what Americans get for turning a blind eye to this type of injustice. The same courtesy alloted to foreigners will finally be alloted to us domestically. Throughout the cold war, as well, we turned a blind eye to CIA intervention in the third world in which they overthrew democratically elected leaders and propped up dictators that played directly in the interests of multi-national corporations. Since we ignored this for decades and allowed our government to suppress democracy abroad, it wouldn't be surprising to me if eventually we get a dictator like Pinochet or Suharto running things here.

Again, I don't see why people aren't protesting this legislation in massive numbers, This is a clear attack on our civil rights, a straight forward issue to rally around, and a clear indicator that our government is bought off and leading the public in a charade.