Are you a suspected terrorist (according to the government)

The standards in this new Orwellian bill for identifying potential terrorists are things like having more than 7 days of food in the house, owning weapons, missing fingers, homeschooling, and a slew of other things

This is in the bill? Really?

Once, I knew something about terrorists. As far as I can tell from your info, you do not fit the criteria. I am skeptical about your assertion. Having said it, the current president, if my info is reliable, is fairly serious about terrorist threats,no less than the last two presidents. He may be confused about the economy, he is not confused about the terrorist threat.

Here is Rand Paul reading some of the criteria while arguing against the bill (don’t like the guy, but he’s less of a tool than some of the others).

If anyone is a terrorist, it’s the asshole who made this bill. Fuck everything about this. Might as well just waste every American on sight.~

Rand Paul isn’t a reliable source for facts. Where is it in the bill?

@jaytkay

You are incorrect.

I’m on so many damned lists, I’ve lost track!
Veteran, “prepper,” gun owner, Libertarian, Texas Militia member, more than 7 days of food on hand… the list is long.

Yes. But I’m in good company. And it is 1984 anyway.

Engage.

Snowberry and others here are on the list – for homeschooling. Just trying to help out the Feds. (And give the jellies a head start. Run!)

@CaptainHarley

If I am incorrect, show me where the alleged text is in the bill.

I do not mind being wrong.

Rand Paul is, so far as I can tell, a good source of information on a variety of subjects.

@CaptainHarley hit that one on the head. For instance, I have a copy of a piece of information sent out to military surplus dealers in Colorado for suspicious things to look for in customers. Some of them make sense (like people who talk about attacking things) but some are just things like people who insist on using cash and not wanting to be identified, people who buy MREs, etc.

Also, stories abound now of an LDS cannery being visited by some hostile agents looking for lists of people storing food. I’ll see if I can find one or two of those articles. The Oathkeepers, I believe, put something up about it.

I recently found a bug in my apartment. It’s sitting right beside my monitor as I type this, as a matter of fact. It looks like an SD chip, but with a switch on the side. While fixing the knob on my apartment door, I asked him to screw down the metal stripping under the door, which had started to lift and was catching on the door when it opened. Underneath, he found the bug.

So, yes, I think it’s safe to say that the State has me in its eye. I’m not a US citizen, but I may as well be, given that the police state spans all of North America at this point.

Well apparently I am.

@CaptainHarley Really?

If owning weapons makes one a terrorist, then I guess I’m on the list. I haven’t been getting to the grocery store too much lately, though, so I guess I’m not as much of a terrorist as I was a few months ago when I had more time on my hands.

As for the bill itself, my understanding is that people are worried specifically about sections 1031 and 1032. The text of each section follows, but both seem to have exceptions for American citizens. The Senate also accepted the Feinstein amendment stating that section 1031 is not to be read as changing existing law, though that might not go very far in easing anyone’s mind given that the real problem is supposed to be how these sections interact with pre-existing law (specifically, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists joint resolution of 2001).

What I think the opposition is ultimately getting at, though, is the fact that how the DOJ and DHS decide to execute the bill may go beyond how anyone one of us might read the bland version of the text. If DHS is reading sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA in conjuncton with AUMF and coming up with a justification for keeping lists of people who own weapons, stockpile food, and so forth on the basis of those bills, then there could be a real issue here.

Anyway, here’s the text I promised. A more readable version can currently be found here (but I’m not sure for how long).

============================================================================

SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, 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) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to 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) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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.

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(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) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be—
(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and
(B) a participant 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) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on 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 date.

Thanks. I just sent a note to Joe Lieberman to tell him that if he’s not embarrassed and ashamed of his vote, then I am – more than enough for both of us. I would imagine that the secret police are on their way.

@CaptainHarley Didn’t one of your responses previously say that the information was in other documents of DHS and similar organizations? I realized I responded to that, but now it doesn’t appear to be there, so my last answer was a bit off. Or did I imagine that? Anyway, the information isn’t in the bill itself, but given to agents as standards by which to judge who is suspicious.

True.

Wow…that’s really scary. What the hell?

We own some guns (rifles and shotguns only), so I guess I could theoretically end up on a list, though I doubt it. Whether I’m in any danger from this bill or not, though, I definitely oppose it. I can hardly believe it’s happening in my country. :/

Great. Now the DHS is modding Fluther. I remember seeing that post by @CaptainHarley as well.

The argument is due process. The article is referring to the US Senate rejecting the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The Udall Amendment sought to remove a section of the NDAA that authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism.

Udall wanted to replace that wording with his amendment (which failed) and which sought to devise a timeline to allow further hearings and opportunities for the military to make recommendations on how detainee policy ought to change.

What Rand Paul is referring to and what the HuffPo article got you in such a tizzie about (and one reason I don’t like the HuffPo) is what he deems the DOJ’s definition of a terrorist and/or a suspected terrorist. It has nothing to do with the spending bill or the wording of the Udall Amendment.

Here’s a copy of the NDAA 2012 from Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:6:./temp/~c112LFlhYm::

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

This article is very good: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amendment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language

The “LDS cannery raid” is bunk.

No. No, I don’t like this at all.

@ANef_is_Enuf

No one with half an ounce of sense likes it.

I do believe the Captain and I agree on that, though!

I’ve gotten confused. What specifically don’t you like?

@laureth

Amazing! ; )

@bkcunningham

The provison that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely without cause.

This is the provision that you are concerned with @CaptainHarley S 1031:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1123Ah6cl:e548990:

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.

(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) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) 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).

It’s not the specifics of any one act about which I am concerned. It’s the sum total of a kind of creeping totalitarianism which concerns me. A nibble here, a nibble there, and soon all rights are gone.

I’m not sure.

If I go by what @incendiary_dan said in the question, I’m a terrorist as I’m a quasi-libertarian (slightly down the left slope from the point at the top), and I have food stocked up because I do food shopping once every 2 to 3 weeks, so I sometimes have more than 7 days worth of food on hand. No guns though…in NY it’s illegal to even think about owning a gun…

If I go by the actual words of the law, then nope…not a terrorist :-) I have no sympathies whatsoever for al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and don’t know anyone who’s even remotely connected with them.

I better get rid of all my canned goods and everything in the freezer, huh.

As I am looking for my own little minifarm, I was reading my county’s guide to rural living. It suggests that since rural dirt roads out here don’t get plowed until sometimes many days after a blizzard, rural residents are advised to keep at least seven days worth of food for such emergencies.

Let’s see. I need at least seven days worth of food, but no more lest I be considered a possible terrorist. One must be very careful on grocery trips!

@laureth Phew. Good to hear that. I suspected it was kind of fishy, but couldn’t find anything definitive.

@augustlan I doubt any of us, even me the heavily armed militant anarchist survival teacher, would actually be targeted by it. I just thought the standards they’re using are pretty ridiculous, and kind of funny.

@incendiary_dan

I agree with the “pretty ridiculous” part at least. : )

just thought the standards they’re using are pretty ridiculous

You mean the standards which aren’t in the law?

@jaytkay Yes, those ones. The ones being handed out to various agents when being told how they might have to look for terrorists in the U.S. Those ones. Do you think that somehow the fact that the standards aren’t in the bill itself somehow discredits the concern over it?

I sometimes carry a backpack & wear a week’s stubble.
I also enjoy pwnage sessions in Call of Duty games…..i’m fucking busted!

@incendiary_dan

The question said they are in the bill. They aren’t.

The evidence was, “Ron Paul said it’s in the law”

And he’s wrong (whether he is a liar or ignorant is another question)

Then it was alleged that it is “many publications” and “DHS documents”.

And nobody has provided a single example.

Then there is story of a raid on a cannery.

And it’s nonsense.

Soooo, anyway…

You know how FOX News goes to Occupy Wall Street and interviews some inarticulate guy with a confused message like “banks are bad we rule! And my unpaid student loans are fueling the defense industry!”

Don’t be that guy.

If DHS is overstepping, and the indefinite detention provisions in the law are troubling (they are), then you need to address the facts. Not some Internet rumors.

Sorry to be harsh, but I am putting you people through the wringer only because I think you are on the right track.

Don’t give people the opportunity to write you off as an ineffectual confused whiner. You need to have your facts straight and you need to go after the House and Senate to fix their crappy law, or go after Obama to veto it.

@jaytkay Actually, I didn’t put anything about the standards being in the bill in the original question, but I was vague. Nobody said that Rand Paul said it was in the law, either. You’re reading quickly and remembering things how you want, which would explain your confusion between Ron Paul and Rand Paul (two men whose politics I wouldn’t quote, but I trust their abilities to accurately read from a memo). The cannery story, while related, was just and interesting aside that turned out to be false.

I get what you’re saying, but you’re also barking up a tree that isn’t there. I appreciate the thoroughness, though.

“His thoroughness.” I did all the work. Geez.

Actually, I didn’t put anything about the standards being in the bill

Really? How about this? The standards in this new Orwellian bill…

Nobody said that Rand Paul said it was in the law, either

Rand Paul said it was law, in the linked video.

@jaytkay Well then, I’m just not careful. That “in” was supposed to be “of”. As I said, I read one of the documents sent out by the Colorado FBI and similar ones (that’s just the one I can find easiest right now), so I wasn’t attempting to say it was in the bill, being well aware that the standards come from agencies.

But no, Rand did not say that in the video linked.

@bkcunningham Sorry I didn’t explicitly give you cred.

If we’re going to dispute credit, may I just point to this? I don’t think @bkcunningham noticed it.

@incendiary_dan

You link to the OathKeepers. The Tim McVeigh wing of the Republican Party.

Maybe that is an actual government document. But without corroboration from an honest source, it’s useless.

@jaytkay

I am a member of Oath Keepers. You are terribly, even laughably wrong.

@CaptainHarley that’s what I was thinking. Oath Keepers Republican? Lol, no.

I was just teasing and playing, @incendiary_dan.

What have we become in this Nation when an organization of veterans, active duty military, and a few police and firemen, all pledge to honor the oath they took when they first signed on to serve… when that organization comes under attack? Vapid “news” people have tried repeatedly to vilify both the oranization and its founders, totally without being able to prove that we are other than what we claim to be.

We are the very people who have pledged to save the lives of civilians, lives that may be threatened by foreign attack, subversion, fire, flood, crime, and even their own government, should it come to that. All we have done to join Oath Keepers is pledge to honor the oaths we took when we became public servants and protectors.

I never even knew about the Oath Keepers. But from what @CaptainHarley has said, it sounds like a good organization that can wind up with a few ugly fanatics here and there…just like ANY organization.

BTW..has any one told you thanks, @CaptainHarley? Thanks!

@Dutchess_III

You’re very welcome. I was honored to serve.

@incendiary_dan & @whoever_else_was_involved – Awww, you guys had a flame war and I missed it!

I feel left out now :-(

@HungryGuy It’s wasn’t a flame war, not even really hostile besides my first irritated comment. It’s actually ridiculous the further ones were moderated, because they were completely non-hostile and kind of amusing.

A better story about the intersection of the bill, the law enforcement standards, the seemingly false cannery story, and the real Tennessee “preparedness checks” that seem kind of fishy. My main issue with this is the seeming assertion that only conservatives stock up on things for emergency.

As for the Oath Keepers, they seem like a fairly benign constitutionalist group of military folks. Nothing more or less.

@incendiary_dan – Yeah. The censorship, er, I mean heavy-handed moderation, er, I mean moderation here on Fluther annoys me too…

@incendiary_dan I’m not the mod who removed the exchange, but it is fluther mod policy to remove every direct reference to a moderated comment, so it’s not unusual for something like that to happen, even if the rest of the exchange is funny or benign. Just fyi.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard – mmmkay :-)

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard That’s kind of Orwellian. He who controls the past, and all that.

So does that mean your comment must be removed, @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard?

[mod says] C’mon, folks. Let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Uh… I’ve forgotten what it was! LOL!

Ok, I’m back. Apparently the Government had to chec {redacted}

Update: seems the white house isn’t planning to veto this bill, since the change in language makes it clear that they have ultimate say. The indefinite detention without trial part is still kind of vague; one part says that current laws are unchanged in reference to American citizens, but another says that the President can easily override that.

Just one more step toward a totalitarian system.