I am extremely thankful for the Tenth Amendment Center bringing my attention to this, earlier today they sent me a link to an article by TAC legal analyst Blake Filippi which explains the loopholes in the Feinstein NDAA amendment. The article was so good that we reprinted it at TWTC, please be sure to read it and share it to as many people as possible. (And talking it over with your family and friends one on one is always a good idea too, incidentally.)
Just to give you a snippet, Filippi writes:
The operative language of the Feinstein amendment is this:
“(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or a similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charges or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” . . . .(b)(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.”
How does the Feinstein’s amendment actually affect the 2012 NDAA? It still allows indefinite detention upon the express authorization of Congress, and it says that the amendment should not be construed to authorize such detention. Yet, section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, intended to clarify the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, specifically authorizes such indefinite detention.
Section 1021 applies broadly to include all persons, including those within the United States (as advocated by the Obama Administration and numerous members of Congress). Thus, section 1021 may still be interpreted as a specific enough authorization under the Feinstein Amendment for indefinite detention of persons within the USA, making the Feinstein Amendment worthless.