Indefinite detention is a legitimate part of the laws of land warfare when it comes to actual enemy combatants.
The question then arises over how and who and when military officials will determine that someone is an enemy combatant. Now in the case of the Al-Queda recruits, if the criteria are honestly applied, then the indefinite detention is legit.
If however, the detention is based on lies, innuendo and some off hand drunken remarks made in a chatroom somewhere, that is another matter entirely. I know for a fact that the US Attorney's office in Oregon has in the past allowed agents to lie in order to use additional resources to go after targeted individuals, but the lies about said individuals being "connected to Al Queda" were reviewed by military authorities, found to be false, and the terrorism case dropped before it got very far specifically because the individuals involved were in the military, had not professed any conversion to Islam and had volunteered for deployment to the sandbox.
In the meantime, the US Attorney decided to take a different prosecutive approach. I also got an unconfirmed report of a government attack on the law office of an attorney in Eugene Oregon that was ransacked by the feds. The door was breached with an explosive entry while the office was not occupied, files taken and then the lawyer notified of several restrictions on the manner of communication he could have with his client. That being in the 2004-2005 time period. Again, military not involved. That was all under existing law.
We also know how the case of Mark Koernke was prosecuted. A cop was given a false BOLO on him, then went after Koernke on a false bank robbery allegation, then Koernke was convicted and imprisoned for getting away in a high speed car chase, which was prompted on false allegations. Once in prison, situations were manipulated in such a way the Koernke got extra prison time and there were several attempts on his life made in ways that were supposed to appear either accidental or inmate vs inmate violence. Again, all under existing circumstances and law, and I think mostly even before the Patriot Act got put into play.
Right now in the sandbox, military intelligence people are dealing with the fact that Iraqi criminal informants are pulling the same stunts that criminal informants do in the US, selling false information for real money, often just turning in some sucker for reward money and what ends up in government custody a lot of the times are unpopular cab drivers and goat herders who just got sold down the river by double agents working for whoever pays at any given time. One week they are scouting US military convoy routes for placement of IEDs, the next week they are attempting to gain the trust of those same commanders they set up ambushes against by turning in the names of some local inhabitants that someone else is also willing to speak against.
The new bill not only changes very little in the real world, but it gives what some of the loudmouths in the Militia movement have asked for: POW status.
The US government also has a history of allowing for or calling for the assassination of various outlaws and terrorists. In the old west, this was done with "wanted dead or alive" posters. US Marshalls put up the reward for various rogue Indians and outlaws and while perhaps the actual operations to kill or capture the individuals were technically secret, the causes were fully public and known.
The question then becomes one of whether or not someone is openly or secretly declared a legitimate target of the state. What we know is that at the criminal level, there is such a thing as a "death warrant" given in various extreme cases, special language used in a "Be On the Lookout". It is quite likely that such language was used in the warrants when Charles Dyer was on the run and that explains to some degree the treatment of Debbie Swan.
What we are also being told (so far) is that everything against Swan and Dyer is coming from the Justice Department, not the military. Dyer did go through a military sedition trial and was found not guilty, with that determination unlikely to change any time soon, his entire case was shunted over to the Justice Department which is proving at this point to be willing to play dirty pool just to prosecute a targeted individual "legally". I personally don't think it qualifies as a presidential death warrant.
