[nkurz]

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.

The "tilt" appears to have been caused by your lack of acknowledgement that the quoted statement was inaccurate. Distinct from this particular instance, "dragonwriter" is asserting that contrary to your statement, the NDAA is legally applicable to a wider class of people than just members of al Qaeda.

Do you agree that one may be subject to the NDAA without being (or being even accused of being) a "member of al Qaeda" and that there are cases where the NDAA can be used as basis to "detain US citizens without counsel"? If so, please correct the tilt by acknowledging the correction. If not, perhaps further explain your position?

[tptacek]

You make the list of organizational affiliations that can subject a US citizen to the indefinite detention provision of the 2012 NDAA and then decide for yourself how misleading my use of the term "Al Qaeda" was.

And, no, I do not agree with your second paragraph.

Finally: this has nothing to do with the comment I made upthread. Jose Padilla is literally the motivating example for the 2012 NDAA provision!

[nkurz]

Thanks for the response. I don't know enough about the issue to agree or disagree with you personally. I merely hoped I understood it well enough to explain why 'dragonwriter' reacted as he did. From the outside, including the Taliban and "associated forces" seems like an important addition, especially if ever applied by a future administration guided by the text of the law rather than the origin story.