" 

 ==Misleading intro text== 

 Here are the final two sentences of the opening paragraph of this article, as they currently stand... 

 ""Because under some versions of the bill those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources. But the final version of the bill drafted by the Senate-House conference committee exempted U.S. citizens from the requirement for terror suspects to be held in military custody and included language stating that the bill did not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens."" 

 This is highly misleading because it makes it sound like the final version of NDAA doesn't state that the President can have the military detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely - which it most certainly does. Let's examine the above sentences more closely: First it begins, ""Because under some versions of the bill those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens..."" No - the final version of the bill states that anyone may be held indefinitely, and that includes U.S. citizens.  Here's the second problem: the second sentence begins with ""but"". This implies that the content of the second sentence will contradict and supervene what immediately preceded. In other words, it promises that the following sentence will somehow answer the critics complaining about detention of citizens mentioned in the first sentence.  But what follows is a statement that ""the final version of the bill... exempted citizens from the REQUIREMENT for terror suspects to be held in military custody, and included language stating that the bill did not extend NEW authority to detain U.S. citizens.""  This is no counter to at all, if you understand the structure of NDAA.  

 What NDAA does is (1) Say the president can indefinitely detain anyone, (2) Requires that he do so when it comes to non-citizens, and (3) exempts the president from that REQUIREMENT when it comes to citizens.  In other words, the President stated to have the OPTION to detain citizens indefinitely - and THAT is what the critics are opposed to - NOT the REQUIREMENT that the president do so, but the statement that he MAY do so. The second part of the second sentence above, says, ""included language stating that the bill did not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens"". This too is irrelevant in that even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that it is another piece of legislation that ALLOWS for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens, even if other legislation before has done so too. 

 The phrasing of these two sentences leaves the reader with the POV impression that this is a bill that had some versions of it before completion that caused controversy, but which was changed in the final version to leave out what the criticism was about - and that is completely misleading. It also makes me think the author may not understand the true nature of the legislation. 

 Here is what I propose as a replacement for the final two sentences (which I will do myself if I get no further input)... 

 ""Although the final version of the bill does not require indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. The Act has therefore received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources."" 
   "