very confusing, i certainly misread it the first time and i am EXTREMELY skeptical of the government and would be the first to accuse it of overstepping its bounds. the way this was written was to confuse… but its true. they can detain you indefinitely, and if they can get a waiver, they can detain you via the military. 

FUCK.

heres the bill text in reference to this:

S.1867National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)
Subtitle D–Detainee MattersSEC. 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.(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1127tPipD:e462417:

Would you vote for a third party candidate for mayor of your town?  For governor of your state?  For your congressional representative?  All of those offices have more impact on your personal life and business than whatever schmuck gets elected president.  You can write “I GO POGO” on your presidential ballot for all the good it does you.

who says you’re going to get one?

While it isn’t a waste, picking a loser is certainly justifiably called “losing.”

At this point, being a US citizen could justifiably be called “losing” too.

Maybe I’m just biased by the people I know, but it seems to me that “strategic voting” — i.e., not voting for the candidate that you want, but voting to make sure the less-evil candidate gets elected — really started taking off in the late 80′s/early 90′s. It also seems to me that things also started deteriorating at about that time. Maybe it’s a coincidence, but it at least makes one wonder.

I also think that this is one of the reasons that the Republicans have been eating the Democrats lunch a lot lately, despite the fact that their candidates are laughable. Almost every Democrat I speak with goes to great length to vote strategically, whereas the Republicans I speak with vote their desires.

The Democrats shoot themselves in the foot more often than not.

(And the Republicans shoot everyone else in the foot, for which see my above comment about being a US citizen.)

A few election cycles ago I spoke to a lot of Democrats who were really, really  excited about Howard Dean. In fact, almost every Democrat I spoke with was really excited. But in the end almost none of them voted for him, because they were afraid he would be “unelectable” in a general election. Maybe they were right, but I know he’d be unelectable if not nominated, and IMO if the Dems would have voted for him (like they wanted to) we wouldn’t have ended up with Bush

I used to think a 3rd party vote was a “wasted” vote. But you know, I just don’t think either side sas a “winner”. Both are going to be as equally shitty, just in different ways. I am thinking maybe – just maybe – if enough people vote for a 3rd party it will energize more 3rd party runners, and to have Rep. and Dem. acting more moderate.

And so, if I do vote for a third-party?  My vote has been wasted.  And so would yours.

Since when it using your vote to express your conscience a “waste?”

I don’t know what you learned in civics class, but apparently mine was substandard. They never taught me that voting was about picking the winner, and that voting for the looser was a waste.

You mean like when the Nader crowd put Bush into office?

Perhaps, but that also played a part in getting Obama in office (you know, sometimes have to get really, really bad before people notice).

Now, the Obama thing doesn’t seem to have worked out, but the point still stands: until we start taking a long-term view (like, if we vote our conscience, what will things be like in 16 years?, as opposed to the next election), our long-term prospects will suck.

You know, a lot of folks justify the OWS movement not because they’ve necessarily accomplished anything tangible, but because they’re changing the conversation. And that isn’t necessarily an unreasonable position. Voting third-party can change the conversation too. The two main parties control the current conversation — they’re in bed that way. And that’s not a good thing.

So yea, if you vote for a Nader you’re voting for a looser, but in today’s political climate, perhaps that should be a point of pride.

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting — where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance — saying his colleagues had “a spirited discussion” about Udall’s amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/17/1037457/-White-House-threatens-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-over-military-detention%C2%A0provision