Indefinite detention for US civilians in your Congress?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yep. The survivalist crowd just switched their votes. Mormons too.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bastards the lot of them. All of them.

You guys see the bit about how one is defined or could be defined as a 'terrorist'.
The missing fingers, ownership of ammo and weatherproof guns, and of course seven days of food on hand.
wtf.

Im threw with all this bullshit. This has made me sick. And I am now going to just live. Yup. Just live and try to be happy and try to slowly get off the grid.
And when they come for me-well, my camp location will be six feet under.

Fucking bastards they are. Bleh.

Waitaminnit, missing fingers and seven days worth of food is considered criteria for terrorists?    :vomilulz:

So, all carpenters, machinists, Mormons, and Alaskans?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, FFS, who doesn't have a week's worth of food on hand? I generally have about two months' worth, and that's just because I do a lot of canning and buy in bulk. So is everyone with a Costco membership on the suspect list?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Ill be on the list after this weekend then since im signing up for bj's membership.

plus isnt stocking up on food a good thing in case theres some sort of emergency? 

[Cain]

Irony alert: I'm fairly sure I remember Tom Ridge instructing Americans to stock up on at least a week's worth of food, back in 2002 or so.  Along with duct tape.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Also, FFS, who doesn't have a week's worth of food on hand? I generally have about two months' worth, and that's just because I do a lot of canning and buy in bulk. So is everyone with a Costco membership on the suspect list?

It's not about fitting the profile. It's about making sure they have "justification" if and when they decide they don't like you. Same as it was never about terrorism or communism before that or witchcraft before that. Basically if you piss off the powermongers, or their goons, or the friends or associates of their goons you will be burned at the stake. It's the way it's always been. And don't think you can dodge the lynch mob by cutting off the extra finger or covering up the mole on your nose. Their criteria are carefully selected in order to include everyone. Hence the "homo-sapiens who eats food all week" thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, FFS, who doesn't have a week's worth of food on hand? I generally have about two months' worth, and that's just because I do a lot of canning and buy in bulk. So is everyone with a Costco membership on the suspect list?

It's not about fitting the profile. It's about making sure they have "justification" if and when they decide they don't like you. Same as it was never about terrorism or communism before that or witchcraft before that. Basically if you piss off the powermongers, or their goons, or the friends or associates of their goons you will be burned at the stake. It's the way it's always been. And don't think you can dodge the lynch mob by cutting off the extra finger or covering up the mole on your nose. Their criteria are carefully selected in order to include everyone. Hence the "homo-sapiens who eats food all week" thing.

Well, yeah. Obviously. I'm just surprised they're being so incredibly blatant about it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Also, FFS, who doesn't have a week's worth of food on hand? I generally have about two months' worth, and that's just because I do a lot of canning and buy in bulk. So is everyone with a Costco membership on the suspect list?

It's not about fitting the profile. It's about making sure they have "justification" if and when they decide they don't like you. Same as it was never about terrorism or communism before that or witchcraft before that. Basically if you piss off the powermongers, or their goons, or the friends or associates of their goons you will be burned at the stake. It's the way it's always been. And don't think you can dodge the lynch mob by cutting off the extra finger or covering up the mole on your nose. Their criteria are carefully selected in order to include everyone. Hence the "homo-sapiens who eats food all week" thing.

Well, yeah. Obviously. I'm just surprised they're being so incredibly blatant about it.

Why not? Takes effort to be subtle and it's not like it'd make a difference. Joe public doesn't give a fuck. All the govt needs to do is poke them with a stick and they'll beg for even more of their rights to be removed.

[Suu]

I know I'm coming into this a bit late, so I don't know if it's been brought up or not.

The bill, by law, is made publicly available to read, so, by law, my boss and I at the newspaper sat down last week and read it. THE WHOLE. FUCKING. THING. Why? Because our uber-liberal senators in Rhode Island voted for it. Which made us feel sick, because it was wicked out of character for them.

It says, under covered persons, that members of the US Armed Forces are NOT covered. (It says NOTHING about anything civilian, at all.) In other words, the media picked out the stupidest senator they could find who had not read the bill, or did not read it thoroughly, about what it was about, and this is what happened. The mistruth spread like fucking wildfire via Huffington Post (who are notorious for not backing up their stories) and went viral.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73053672/Udall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions

There it is. Have at it.

And the White House response: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I read it too, but it smells like legislative/lawyer weaselry. I have to defer to law scholars on this because it seems like it was very well designed and uses ambiguity in the legal system that most people cannot decipher in order to achieve its ends.

There are some fairly straightforward laws that actually have fucked up legal implications that laymen just cannot grasp. For example, there is a law regarding what constitutes an agent of the media in Oregon that sounds very open on the face of it, but legally it is much more constrictive.

It also seems highly plausible that the law was explicitly drafted to be nebulous so that the courts have to sort it out. The problem there is that the courts have already consistently supported indefinite detention, so there is a strong precedent already in place that most people are not aware of.

Did you find section 1031, though? It didn't seem to be available via THOMAS.

[Cain]

Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The AUMF is this

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The NDAA 2012 I believe changes the definition present in the AUMF to essentially cover all persons suspected of carrying out terrorism against the USA's interests, or at least being suspected of doing so.

[Cainad (dec.)]

So this basically exists to get around the "inconvenience" created by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, from my semi-informed viewpoint. Is that correct?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

So this basically exists to get around the "inconvenience" created by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, from my semi-informed viewpoint. Is that correct?

No. It is the codification of what has been occurring under both the Bush AND Obama administrations for around a decade.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Check this link out...haven't had time to verify, but 
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/whos_a_terrorist.htm
FBI & Sheriff's Terrorists Definitions

ACTUAL QUOTES FROM DEFINITIONS:

"What are Some Characteristics of Terrorists?"

•"Nice-guy image"
•"Property Rights Activists"
•"Environmental and Animal Rights"
•"Influence governmental of social policy"
•"Undermine confidence in the government"
•"Anti-government and Militia Movement"
•"Create an atmosphere of anxiety amongst the public"
•"defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN"
•"Common Law Movement Proponents" who "Request authority for a stop" who "Make numerous references to the US Constitution" and "Attempt to 'police the police'
•"Will employ a variety of vehicles and communicate predominantly by cell-phone, E-mail, or text messaging services"
•"Trained to be physically aware of their environment, whether it be a 747 jumbo jet or a court house"
•"May appear 'normal' in appearance... tourists, student, or businessperson

[Triple Zero]

Good thing none of us appear 'normal' in apparent appearance, apparently!