是1031和1032，但是其实法案说的非常清楚

1031 （e）
Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

1032 (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

美国境内抓的，法案以现有法律为准，军队不能羁押美国公民和合法居民，所以这法案根本没有改变什么东西，一群人不看上下文耸人听闻而已

为什么不可以评论个人行为?因事论人有啥不对

真相出来了*/-18

错误的东西当然要质疑了...故意歪曲事实来抹黑，更要拍砖了

"好笑就继续笑呗~"
大师兄你又开始转移话题了
现在轮到你调皮了

真相已经出现.....

相当熟悉的一套手法

NDAA每年都要通过一次，本来就是个不痛不痒的蛋疼玩意，所以基本上没有什么正经媒体关注，反倒是国内闹的挺凶。

没有仔细去纠结具体条款，修改的那部分大意是：在阿富汗抓了个美国护照的恐怖分子，大兵们你们看着要紧的话就直接审吧，不用关心律师或者羁押时间啥啥的。想想这不是很正常的事情么？境外抓了个恐怖分子的现行，就因为拿着美国护照，军队就不能羁押，还要等国内的律师才能审，这不坑爹么？


美国国内大部分反对的声音都是要求给予美国人特权，即使是境外抓了美国恐怖分子现行，也要走法律程序，不能走军队那一套，这样的意见，这样的反恐背景下国会能通过才怪。

Indefinite Detention without trial: Section 1031
Detainees upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002. In May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture condemned prisoners' treatment at Guantánamo Bay, noting that indefinite detention constitutes per se a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[13] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.[14]

Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force."

[edit] Requirement for Military Custody: Section 1032All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[15][16]

Actions from the White House and Senate leading to the voteThe White House had previously threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[4]arguing that "the authorities granted by theAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk." The White House also argued that provisionsrequiringmilitary detention of terrorism suspects on American soil were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.” After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, and removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[17]
During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, SenatorMark Udallintroduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens;[18]the amendment was rejected by a vote of 38–60.[19]Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible."[20]
A later amendment to preserve current law concerning U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, and others captured within the United States, sponsored by SenatorDianne Feinstein, was accepted 99 to 1.[21]Senator Feinstein has argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, while the Obama Administration and SenatorsJohn McCainandCarl Levinhave argued that it does.[5]
[edit] ControversySection 1021 and 1022, controversial to the general public, were perceived as threats to the Bill of Rights and the freedoms of America.[citation needed] This most recent addition of the NDAA has critics that say it puts not only civil liberties in danger but also that it is an aggressive but futile attack in the War on Terror.[citation needed] Addressed by many major publications negatively, it also received a direct video message fromAnonymousin an attempt to expose the chicanery of the act and its potential consequences.[22][23]In addition, an online petition requesting that President Obama veto the bill was created on the "We The People" section of the White House website. As of December 27, 2011, the petition required 7,730 signatures by December 30th to reach the site's petition threshold.[24]

欢迎理性讨论的朋友

反正就是被口诛笔伐的事件

原文都给找出来了，lz还把wiki那篇到处复制粘贴搬来搬去的。。。*/-15

矮油，留言又被终结了哦*/-19阴谋又没有得逞哦*/-93

我真的不好吐槽了，38楼有法案全文链接，54楼节选1031 1032 section。71楼有总结，自行判断吧，一个说的如此清晰，如此彻底的法案，实在没有辩论的意义

啥子邮报作者的文章，还是天朝网站上找来的翻译版，真的，就别端出来了，有点自降身价*/-91

*/-19xiaoshiqi2007是什么玩意，我怎么从来不知道呢

不客气，5毛和愤青是全民公敌，骂它们是我该做的*/-52

无论美国中国都是乱喷的人居多，甚至有的时候喷着喷着，瞎话就成了多数人的真理。所以无论国内国外，都需要搬出原文，正本清源，拍死胡说八道的。

说的好，不过据说根本就没人说过我爸是李刚、也没人说过放弃救援，这些话都是某些媒体杜撰的或者是误导的。
不知道大家在看这些新闻时有没有保持一颗正本清源的心。