This is some scary stuff, and to think that it passed WITHOUT much of the public knowing. I heard, as of today, it goes into effect. So, a citizen of the U.S. may be subject to this without habeas corpus. The bolded parts is the part I am emphasizing.
On closer inspection of Carl Levin via Wiki.Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021
The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text 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".
Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.
An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.
According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section". This was entered into the Congressional Record on November 17, 2011. (Note that section 1031 of the Senate bill became section 1021 in the final bill and law.)
National Defense Authorization Act 2012
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (the main annual bill used to fund the US military) Levin and Senator John McCain (ranking Republican on Armed Services Committee-AZ) initially proposed to permit the indefinite detention of American citizens by the US military, without charges or trial, solely on grounds of suspected terrorist activity. After objections were raised that such detention would violate Americans' constitutional rights, Levin agreed to include ambiguous language (to section 1031, later 1021, of the bill) which specifically exempted American citizens, however on closer inspection (of the language of the following section, 1032, later 1022) it becomes clear that American citizens can in fact be detained indefinitely without charge and subject to torture. Levin has cited 'the Supreme Court' in support of his language authorizing indefinite detention (see box above). The quotation he cited is of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's minority opinion in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. However, O'Connor also stated in the same opinion, "...although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." In Hamdi, the court ultimately ruled that "detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge". Levin's selective quotation obscures the indefinite - and therefore unconstitutional - nature of the detention allowed by the language he inserted, and runs counter to the actual outcome of the Hamdi case. "War" has historically been defined as "Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations." The language offered by Senator Levin may broaden the definition of "war" to include criminals (including terrorists) not employed by any government, and thus permits the US government to apply the laws of war against American citizens.