DeanoTheGod said:
Dont forget that the military also come under another set of laws, in which escalation of force, and necessity play a huge part. This doesn't mean that Military Police can just go around arresting people for fun, as they would be court marshalled and punished for the offence. They would have to do it for good reason, and for what rules of engagement apply. I expect it was passed to allow the military police to deal with protestors, and other nuisances more efficiently, without a further risk to operations and or lives. (Some of the things that protesters around airbases do is just plain stupid and dangerous to their own and others lives!)
Remember that the most crucial thing when evaluating a law is not the law's intent, but the unintended consequences. If the intent is, indeed to apply only to protesters around military installations, then that's what's called a compelling interest, but, the law, at least what little I've seen of it doesn't seem to limit itself in that way.
In fact, if I'm reading the information on it correctly, that's not even in the periphery of the intent, it looks like the intent was counter terrorism, which starts to get downright scary when you consider that the military, when it comes to terrorism suspects isn't justice, it's intelligence gathering.
Without stipulations or a supreme court slap-down, what you can expect is the military seizing US citizens, initially in relation to suspected terrorism charges, but, abuses, and a lack of oversight are inevitable.
EDIT: A quick review indicates that this in fact is not the case at all. There's a nominal exemption for American Citizens, it can be found on page 359. Granted this is an arms appropriation bill so the thing runs to 666 goddamn pages (no joke), so I may have missed something.
It does explicitly affect Anons who aren't US Citizens however, if the McCain amendment on cybersecurity is real.