" wrote:

Here we go again. Using Infowars as a source for this is the first
obvious red flag as they are loons who believe in every wild
conspiracy theory under the sun, including that 911 was a govt
job. Second is that there is that the article does not quote
what is actually in the legislation.

A quick google produces this:

(...)

I did grab a pdf copy of this 682-page bill, and read the sections that
you quoted.

Unless there is something else somewhere in this legislation,
Infowars is flat out lying. The fact that the short section
was never quoted suggests that is exactly what they are doing.

I agree there appears to be a specific exclusion for US citizens, but
still there is mention of the Udal amendment, which has been described
by the ACLU as:

===========
The Udall amendment would strip sections 1031 and 1032 from the bill and
in their place, mandate a process for Congress to use to consider
whether any detention legislation is needed. If enacted, sections 1031
and 1032 of the NDAA would:

(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely
imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up
inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be
outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the
United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial,
investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and
responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
==========

I'm also not sure how to read section 1031 to see if it essentially does
repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military
to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.

The way I read some of this bill, it does seem to give
self-authorization for the US military to conduct operations across the
entire globe to "go after" terrorists in such a way that removed the
typical requirement of "declaring war" on a given country in order to
deposit troops into said country. There does not seem to be a
distinction between inside and outside US territory in this regard.

This is the law that presumably should have been in place before US
troops entered deep into Pakistan to "extract" bin laden. Perhaps there
is some retro-activity contemplated within these 682 pages.

Of course, the legitamacy of one country enshrining in it's own laws the
legal authority to place it's military in any country unilaterally to
conduct this or that type of activity has got to be the height of
arrogance and beligerance.