Towards the end of the article:
“Feinstein’s amendment says that American citizens and green-card holders in the United States cannot be put into indefinite detention in a military prison,but carves out everyone else in the United States.
The Feinstein amendment may imply that the military has the right to act within the United States.”
So it is NOT to detain citizens. (Opps - I missed the word “INDEFINITE”. So if they say I’m to be put away for exactly 5 years for posting on FR that would be okay?! Seems to me it IS. Otherwise they would have left that word out).
I just caught that upon review, but lets say that it was NOT meant to EVER detain citizens.
But it is using the military. So I suppose a likely scenario would be if the military helps along the border and catches an illegal coming across (say a muslim with some containers of sarin gas) - they could detain him. But then that brings up using the military on U.S. soil.
But I imagine that in the past where the military (National Guard) has helped with riots, etc. they have detained people and turned them over to police for booking and a trial. (Is the national guard in those cases not really the “military” as they are under the governor of the state?) This amendment sounds more like keeping the entire thing “in-house” under the military.
And while I don’t think having the people get dumped into the black-hole of a military justice system is good - on the other hand we had that one terrorist held in Guantanamo that they wanted (or maybe they did?) tried in a public court in New York City. Although that guy was captured out of our country I believe.
In the article the ACLU lawyer says something like “the Constitution applies to ALL people in the U.S. - not just its citizens.” I’’ll show my ignorance and ask if that is true? I’m guessing that in a lot of cases it is such as free speech, search and seizure, etc. But they obviously shouldn’t vote, etc.
“So it is NOT to detain citizens.”
Now prove that you’re a citizen.