Many have asked about the definitions of belligerents...and terrorists...that the new NDAA uses.
First, lets go back and look at the ORIGINAL detention act that was proposed last year by McCain and Lieberman. It is located here, and you will see that the acts are very, very similar in layout, style and intent.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text This is the definition of "terrorism" as defined by the department of homeland security in 6 USC 101. Of course, a "terrorist" is someone who does the act:
(15) The term "terrorism" means any activity that - (A) involves an act that - (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (B) appears to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
What about belligerent? What does that exactly mean?
Believe it or not, it is a clearly defined, international standard.
If a state of war exists, the two parties are considered belligerents. If there is a revolt or civil war, the party that is rebelling is legally called an insurgent.
Luckily, we have something else to look back to. The Military Commissions Act of 2006. In this act the due process protections were stripped for alien belligerents. It also expressly exempted them from the Geneva Convention. It is ambiguous about US Citizens, however and this is one of the reasons that the NDAA detention sections were included--to expressly INCLUDE US citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and belligerents against the United States.
A second goal was to remove the requirement for detention by the military (i.e. Guantanamo-esque) so that third parties could serve holders of the prisoner.
In practical applications this means that you are able to be siezed, you are not entitled to Miranda protections, you are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, and you have no right to access the US legal systems. Furthermore, you may be tried by military tribunal. The President has full discretion as to the applicability to US citizens as provided in the act:
who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
These tribunals already exist in the form of the FISA courts and others created by both Bush and Obama.
Also, read this. And you will get an idea of the scope of their plans:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1076.IH:
