Originally posted by kingster129
Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.
It's like reading a #ing Shakespeare play
Plain English Translation:
The government will not be allowed to claim that any part of the wording in AUMF or NDAA really means that the government can deny a US Citizen or Resident their habeas corpus rights or any other Constitutional rights in our normal court system as is laid out in Article III of the US Constitution, basically pretending those two new laws don't exist.
Might I suggest:
Side-by-side of all three courts
So, assuming some other bill isn't out here that says its a-ok to try us in the non-Article III courts then we should be fine, just fi........oh, wait, wasn't there part of NDAA that redefined the concept of enemy combatant or material support? What bill was that?
Seems that this law is a backflow filter on our legal system: the citizenry may, under circumstances not detailed here, flow into the military courts; but, the military legal system may not flow back into our Article III courts. In other words, the military can (based on other laws passed) drag you kicking and screaming into their court system, but they can't muscle they're way into civilian courts and change how a criminal or statutory proceeding is handled.....yet. Give it time.