Isn't it interesting the huge amount of air time and media attention paid to a faux crisis - the fiscal cliff - while not a peep has been uttered or attention paid to the NDAA, which represents a further incursion on our rights and freedoms?

Unfortunately, the Feinstein amendment fails to address a central concern raised in the public debates: the specter of the military being used to police our streets and detain individuals on U.S. soil. The bill also unintentionally reinforces the false and discriminatory notion that due process protections are only afforded to some - not all - persons within the United States. For these reasons, while we very much want to work with the sponsors of the amendment and are open to supporting a revised version of the Feinstein amendment, we oppose the amendment in its current form.

The constitutional requirements of due process of law apply to all persons within the United States. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states that "No person shall be...deprived of...liberty...without due process of law." Moreover, we are very concerned that the Feinstein amendment implicitly authorizes domestic military detention. By seeking to protect only United States citizens and legal permanent residents, the amendment could be read to imply that indefinite military detention of any other persons apprehended within the United States was authorized in 2001 and was lawful. In addition, the clause "unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention" could be read to imply that there are no constitutional obstacles to Congress enacting a statute that would authorize the domestic military detention of any person in the United States.

So, what's the clause that's in the NDAA?

"Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA 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 for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights."

Here's some analysis you may want to weigh in on (link):

...we offer another interpretation from Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the group of journalists and activists suing the government over the 2012 NDAA.

Afran explained that the new provision gives U.S. citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on "any [applicable] constitutional rights," but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.

[snip]

Afran noted that the newest version actually goes further than the NDAA that's now in effect.

"The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far," Afran said. "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."

[snip]

The newest version of the NDAA seems to be equating the AUMF and section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA--which the government has argued all along--and thereby codifies precisely what the plaintiffs are fighting in court.

[snip]

The bottom line, according to Afran, is that the NDAA "is still unconstitutional because it allows citizens or persons in the U.S. to be held in military custody, a position that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is unconstitutional."

The $631 billion bill clocked in at $230 million less than President Obama's budget request, and the Senate's bill is about $3 billion under the House version.