They may be writing up a beautiful defense of liberty, due process, and civilian oversight of the military as we speak. That's why I asked.

Wow, that's some hyperbole, there.

First, for the purposes of this contemporary discussion, we're talking about "citizens" that are NOT on US soil. Because of Posse Comitatus, the US military is precluded from engaging in combat or law enforcement operations ANYWHERE on US soil. Whatever the Defense Re-authorization Act says, it DOESN'T cede to the DoJ the authority to "kidnap people from their homes".

However, it does give to the military the EXACT same prerogatives it enjoyed during WWII. You should look up the name Herbert Hans Haupt. Here's a hint: Haupt was a US citizens who was repatriated to US soil by German U-boat in order to perform acts of sabotage against civilian targets. Sabotage, of course, is what we now call terrorism for some unknown reason.

In any event, Haupt and his conspirators (at least one or two of which were also American nationals) were captured and they were tried IN SECRET by a (wait for it) military tribunal. Not surprisingly, they were convicted and after an (by today's standards) incredibly short appeal to the Supreme Court, six of the 8 (including Haupt) were executed - because that's what is supposed to happen to saboteurs/terrorists in a time of war.

If you're an American citizen and you take up an unlawful war against America, then you SHOULD be tried in a military tribunal, and NOT a civilian court. If that standard was good enough for America in WWII, it's certainly good enough today.

"Lindsey Graham said on the Senate floor that this WOULD include US Citizens on American soil. "

Sure, the military tribunals would apply to American citizens if those citizens were apprehended on US soil engaging in acts of war against the US. But, it CERTAINLY wouldn't be elements of the US Armed Forces scooping up those suspects (as the original poster claimed), it would be civilian authorities.

This, by the way, is exactly what happened in 1942. It was civilian police who captured these infiltrators, and shortly thereafter, the feds took custody and delivered the enemy combatants to the military. It should also be pointed out that all of it happened in complete secrecy. People wouldn't find out what happened until after the end of the war.

Imagine if it turned out that, during the Bush administration, American nationals were captured conspiring to commit crimes against America on American soil, and those men were tried by military tribunal, convicted and then executed and it was done all in secret.

Ron Paul's mind would explode, but that is precisely what happened during WWII and I'm pretty sure we didn't lose our collective liberty because of it.

Also, I reread my original post, and I clearly wasn't as precise as I should have been in my opening paragraph, which is what surely led to the confusion.

No, the US Armed Forces cannot "kidnap Americans on US soil", but yes, DoJ elements could apprehend US citizens on foreign soil. And yes, US national apprehended by civilian authorities committing acts of terror, even if they're apprehended on US soil, could be tried by a military commission rather than a civilian trial.

And no, I don't have a problem with any of it.

"Sounds to me like military can pick you, I don't see any requirement that it is civilian authorities. Can you cite otherwise?"

I certainly can understand the difference between the words "detain" and "apprehend". Do you see ANYWHERE in that statute the authority ceded to the Armed Forces for uniformed service personnel to operate on US soil and apprehend anyone on US soil, much less a US citizen?

Yeah, I don't either.

However, I do read that statute as authorization for our military brigs and stockades to detain people. Naturally, that is exactly the authorization that they would need if they were to take custody of US citizens from civilian authorities - which is precisely the intent of this bill.

Furthermore, there is also no language anywhere in that proposed statute that supersedes the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385). In fact, that law isn't mentioned anywhere in the the language of the Bill. As such, that existing law is not being amended, repealed or superseded.

Posse Comitatus clearly prohibits what you're suggesting and Posse Comitatus will be just as enforceable before after this Authorization is signed as it was before this Authorization is signed.

I should have added that neither Haupt or any of his co-conspirators were successful in their sabotage. In fact, they were all capture before they could even attempt their sabotage.

That's right, they were all hanged until dead for thinking about committing sabotage against the US.

Thank God Eric Holder wasn't AG in 1942. Interestingly enough though, Francis Biddle was, and in fact, Biddle HIMSELF argued for the Government in front of the Supreme Court during oral arguments for Quirin.. And after WWII, what did Biddle do? He was one of the trial judges at the Nuremberg trials. Imagine that.

Ironically, if Biddle was the AG during the Bush administration some 65-years later, and advocated in the same exact manner that he advocated in during WWII, people like the ACLU would be arguing that he should be the defendant at the war crimes tribunal, rather than a judge. That's how far we've fallen since WWII.

"We declared war in WW2. There has been no declaration of war here. "

That's an absolute canard pushed by the Paulbots. There is NOWHERE in the US Constitution any stipulation with respect to how the authorization from Congress to make war on another nation be phrased. IOW, Congress doesn't have to "declare war" per se, they just have to authorize war. This war is CLEARLY authorized, and has been since weeks after September 11, 2001.

"I'm talking about US citizens on US soil being merely accused or suspected of being even a sympathizer of terrorism. "

Haupt was a US citizen, captured on US soil and only suspected of plotting to sabotage US infrastructure. He was still tried in secret, convicted and executed.

What would Rand Paul say about that?

Paul, and many people who are sympathetic to Paul's position, don't believe that this is a war. They think that this is a crime. Those two positions cannot be reconciled with each other. I believe that this is unequivocal war, and I have spoken to enough men that are waging this war against to know to a certaintity that they too believe that this is war.

When fighting a war, either against a foreign or domestic enemy, you should act like you're in a war. Washington felt that way, which is why he sent troops to squash the Whiskey Rebellion. Lincoln felt this way, which is why he suspended habeas corpus, and Roosevelt felt this way which is precisely why he ordered the trial of US citizens in secret, and authorized their execution when they were found guilty.

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I realize you have serious concerns about the possible erosion of civil liberties. But, I think that we're in an asymmetric war that poses an existential threat to entire cities, and even geographic regions. First hand, I have seen the barbarism these people will visit on their own people. They wouldn't lose an hours sleep after destroying a US city. To them, this is a war, and we should reciprocate in kind.

Well, I never called you a Paulbot, but CLEARLY this canard that there was "no war declared" is one of the fallacious arguments that the Paulbots make - frequently.

"Rand Paul didn't take"

That's just not accurate. I have heard Paul make that very same argument on several occasion - both son and father.

"YOU are not addressing the actual language in the bill stating that the military, NOT the DOJ, can permanently detain US citizens on suspicion or accusation of terrorism or related activities. "

Sure I have - at least twice now. What part of "American tried US citizens in secret and in a military tribunal, convicted them and then hanged them until death" don't you understand?

CLEARLY, if it's alright to execute US citizens in secret during a time of war (and Roosevelt felt it was), it's alright to hold them indefinitely, isn't it? At least if they're being held and not executed, there's a chance that they can be released, or face a more traditional criminal trial, after the cessations of hostilities.

"We have not declared war since WW2"

We have declared war five times in 235 years: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II.

Do you see a declaration of war obtained from George Washington when he sent US troops to squash the Whiskey Rebellion? Do you see a declaration of war obtained from Abraham Lincoln to squash the confederacy?

Do you see Thomas Jefferson - a man who was relatively familiar with the Constitution - obtain a declaration of war when he sent six frigates to fight in the First Barbary War? Nope, he didn't. He did however, go to Congress and obtain the "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers". Do you see "war" anywhere in that title?

Did James Madison - another guy who knew a little sumthin' about the Constitution - obtain a declaration of war in the Second Barbary War? Nope, but he did go to Congress to get the authorization to send naval forces once again to battle the Muslim pirates.

Did any president at any time declare war on ANY of the Indian nations? Ever? Nope. In fact, even in the Declaration of War against Great Britain in 1812 in which much of the war is actually fought against Indians, the Indian nations escape mention in that incredibly brief Deceleration. All that is mentioned by name is GB and Ireland.

There is no stipulation in the Constitution about the language of the Act that Congress passes to authorize the use of force. The Constitution says that Congress, and only Congress, has the authority to "declare War". It doesn't say anywhere that there has to be a Declaration of War. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of at least two of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention, Washington and Madison.