I went to a town hall meeting with my senator (Kirk-Illinois) and actually got to ask him about the bill allowing US citizens to be arrested and held by the military.
It seems that the actual bill has language in it that practically forces a US Supreme Court ruling when it is first used (if it ever is). This is why most voted for it as it turns out the legislative branch couldn't decide so they crafted a bill that basically forces the judicial branch to rule on its constitutionality.
So this sort of blows up your whole post. Especially your comment that it somehow violated the separation or powers. [..]
My answer is this:
I'm not a professional journalist and this means that I rely on other media. So, thanks for the info and I absolutely support your commitment. But I don't see how this helps much. I commented before (paraphrased):
1) I don't care whether this bill is illegal/unconstitutional or not. It is wrong.
2) Just because all branches agree to violate separation of power doesn't mean that it isn't a violation. The new law would enable the executive to detain citizens indefinitely without being affected by the judiciary!
3) The loss of life during the 'war on terror' on US side which happened on US ground (not fighting Taliban or Iraqis), is minimal. Yes, 9/11 was bad. But the probability to die to a terrorist attack in any year is lower than to die due to crossing streets. It's neither a danger for any specific US citizen nor does it threaten your way of life in any way - unless you do away with your way of life on your own.
The war on terror is fear mongering to get votes. Anybody who is even a bit skeptical of government should be appalled by this, in my opinion.
This still stands. I can't understand how redistributing wealth is too much government but to allow the government to enter your house, shackle and detain you indefinitely without access to a lawyer or any person other than the one who brings you your meals is not. Everybody can be suspicious of terrorism. If somebody told the goverment that he thinks that you are a terrorist - you are already suspicious! And, afaik, the law in no way demands that the government actually investigates the suspicions!
The bill has, by the way, been signed by the President after a few minor modifications. This would make President Obama unelectable to me. But then, the alternatives are unelectable, too.
I honestly don't know what the US is thinking. This bill - if it is declared constitutional - is a dramatic violation of civil liberties and separation of power - and without any reason. I could maybe understand this if the Taliban had just invaded California and are estimated to reach Washington in two weeks or so ...
I'll finish by quoting the article I linked before:
---As President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural speech said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.
Edit: Apparently the modified bill does not necessarily(?) apply to US citizens anymore. There also seem to be legal loopholes which might(?) allow the FBI or local police to take over. In my defense: the whole thing seems to be so damn complicated that among other news papers The Guardian as well as the New York Times had and still have problems understanding it and all its possible consequences; especially when seen in context with existing law. (link1) (link2)
In any way this is a public relations disaster. But maybe the US has become immune to this kind of disaster by now ...