http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/show#

It's the Enemy belligerent, interrogation, detention and prosecution act. Catchy name. Sponsored by McCain and Joe Lieberman and has 9 co-sponsors backing it right now.

The bill in essence states that anybody can be arrested anywhere in the world (the US included) if they are percieved as a threat to the US. They can be detained indefinitely without charges, and whether or not he is actually a terrorist is up to the secretary of defense and the attorney general. If they disagree then it is solely up to the president to decide whether or not you get denied habeus corpus. It specifically states that you can detain you as long as they damn well please without criminal trial, or miranda rights.

I REALLY don't understand the modern conservative mindset. Touch our money and you are a fascist nazi leading us down the slippery slope of totalitarianism, but give the government unlimited power to do whatever the hell it wants with your person, it's for our own good. Shouldn't limited government kind of include not being able to arrest you indefinitely without trial because they suspect you might be an enemy of america, or demanding that you prove your citizenship or be arrested because you have an accent? Why is the threat of increasing taxes the worst of all evils, but ACTUAL 1984-esque authoritarianism considered a damn good idea? If you're for small government stop complaining about your taxes and stop giving them unlimited control over its citizens (and the rest of the worlds citizens).

Conservatives generally value financial fredom, not personal or social freedom. For them the state shouldn't be able to touch your money, but it should be able to arrest you for having consensual sex in you're own house.
Does this law surprise you? Big Brother is watching!!!

That's messed up beyond reason and no sir I don't like it

Why does it seem impossible for people who dislike the Arizona law to criticize it on the basis of what it actually says as opposed to what they imagine it says in their hysterical fantasies?

Anyway, I'd not have such a problem with a bill of this sort if we were actually put on a wartime footing. But we never have been, and so the language of this bill might sound reasonable ("for the duration of hostilities") but it basically means these powers will always be in effect. It's still not quite as egregious as Obama actually putting a hit out on an American citizen, though, and nobody seems as creeped out by that as they probably should be.

So according to that law, my neighbor could be capture and detained forever for no reason if he decided Obama was a bad president.

i dont like the sound of this bill and just to be safe, did i mention that i really really love america?

Wait... he did what?

That... doesn't appear to be what this law saws at all.

All it really does functionally is remove citizenship from people who join terrorist groups (maybe?) and that the Military gets control of people who are terrorists.

Also... it specifically says they CAN'T arrest you indefinitly... it really doesn't change anything with how we actually handle said people.

Removing citizenship is actually a power the government ALREADY has.  This would just "force" the state department's hand in the case of terrorists.

This isn't actually creating any new boardreaching powers... just mandating powers already in existance.  So it's not really an authortarian bill, instead you should be argueing that some powers be revoked.

Also, it should be noted that Hilary Clinton has spoken out in favor of such bills... and various republicans have spoken against it.

So it's not really a "conservative" bill. Hell Liberman is functionally a democrat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html