Due process what?

NY Times: Court Urged to Reverse a Ruling on Terror 

 This article continues the ongoing issues that arise from the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act and Judge Katherine b. Forrest's ruling that "blocked a statute authorizing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects" which the Obama Administration claims "has jeopardized its ability to continue detaining certain prisoners captured during the war in Afghanistan." An act and issue that any American that values their rights to due process and the First Amendment should keep an eye on.

It would seem that the Government feels that National Security should and does override any rights the Constitution grants. (Though, if they have enough evidence to detain you as a traitor, why not have that trial? Innocent until proven guilty anyone?)

In our Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both contain Due Process clauses. This is taken to include procedural due process, or in other words, the right to a trial (civil or criminal). With Obama's signing of the NDAA, the government is now allowed to detain Americans without this right.

No trial.

Detained indefinitely.

On the Government's say so.

Have I made that clear enough yet?

So.... why do we have a Bill of Rights again if the government can pass legislature that just take away those rights that are guaranteed by our constitution? Who is to say that those being detained are supporters or part of these terrorist groups? Right, the Government, which of course, they don't have to prove, as there's no trial. (No tinfoil hat jokes here.) Sure, sure, the detainment is only to last "until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF." but ah, given the nature of these groups, that is going to be for a very, very long time.

It would indeed seem that journalists may have a reason to fear this, despite the assurances provided by Mr. Loeb et al. that they had no reason to. As the statute suggests that mere supports could be indefinitely detained, can those that associate with these terrorists groups not be considered as supporting? If they write articles that include the groups' propaganda, could that not be taken the same way, even if the rest of the article may be refuting it? Our government has occasionally been known to have on blinders, and selective vision, seeing only what it wants to, and forget the rest until it is absolutely unavoidable anymore.

Given the legal complications with non-Americans, there's not too many who've caused a stink over this indefinite detainment and no trial provisions from Authorization for Use of Military Force. But this statute includes that Americans can be detained. On US soil. For supporting a group of people. It doesn't even limit the level of support. Which is what has these journalists up in arms.

How does this not worry you?