If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?
It is said that the enemies of the USA hate the USA for its freedom. Well, what you describe is American freedom, freedom for Americans to abuse non Americans on non American soil, with the backing of American law and power.
I have to be honest here, I too hate those freedoms.
No, I think that's the picture. It's already happening in those "black sites" we hear about and the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. It's the government complicity in each of those locations that allow these things to happen.
I.E. Not technically detained by the U.S. but they are detained the request of U.S. officials. It's the most flagrant (and disgusting) use of plausible deniability.
> the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known.
By the way. These sites in Europe were discussed, could be/are widely known, but I really do not see anyone here up in arms against these sites. On the contrary, a lot of people think of them as something good, as they are clearly there, to get rid of some nasty terrorists. And that only. And as long, as it is the poster-boy for democracy (the US) doing it and not say China, nearly (a very little exaggeration) everybody just goes along.
If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?