Not to worry. Cons majority on SCOTUS will uphold NDAA. - indefinite detention.

You've definitely got that right! - sm

Hold on... - Zville MT

I think I found it, but I'd like some help. - Zville MT

Subtitle D Sec 1031 line 10 pg 428 is specifically addressed in - Obama's signing NDAA statement

as follows: 

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

The entire signing statement can be found here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

I think existing legal precedents relative to the language found in sections 1021 and 1031, and particularly with regard to the PLAIN ENGLISH found in the signing statement, are fairly straightforward and should put to rest any concerns or extrapolations thereof (such as those recently voiced by Ron Paul and in the original post), not to mention relegate Conservative liberal hero Chris Hedges’ lawsuit to the frivolous, been-there-done-that category.