Suspending habeas corpus and enacting martial law?

Under NDAA Section 1031, permits American citizen imprisonment without evidence or trial. The bill that passed Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. The text of Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act". We only have to be ACCUSED, because we don't get a trial.
..
An interesting article that may be worth a read on the subject: Journal Inquirer Archives Chris Powell Suspend habeas corpus and enact martial law?
..
An interesting video on the same subject: Obama Watch Obama strips language shielding Americans from bill
..
4 Retired Four Star USMC Generals say the bill is a bad idea [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper]
Why??
(1)The bill would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Current law allows the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would extend the battlefield to include US soil.
(2) The bill would require military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on our military responsibilities they did not seek. With such a move, why would we need the F.B.I. and local law enforcement efforts in domestic counter terrorism, which gives incentives for suspects to cooperate (e.g. better sentencing terms);
(3) Mandatory military custody may eliminate the role of federal courts in terrorism cases, where the convictions have been higher. In federal courts over 400 have been convicted. By using untested military commissions, only 6 people were convicted on terror-related charges;
(4) The bill would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future, which can only bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts.
..
Blogger Bob's comment: After all these years, why is this now getting traction? It passed the Senate 93-7 !! Is there a threat level are we not being told about ?? Or is this a power grab to create power to punish peaceful opposition. You'd think there would be an effort to allay that concern, yet there seems to be no such effort--could it be precisely what the civil libertarians are saying it is (going to be used for)?