If you haven't heard about the NDAA yet (H.R.1540), you had better start researching. Now.
The NDAA is a bill that we pass every year to approve the DoD's budget. But this year, it hass some serious, bonechilling clauses contained within it.
Among other things, it declares that the United States is a battleground and a warzone in the War on Terror. It states that the government can, on suspicion of terrorist activities or, get this, a "beligerent act" against the United States makes one an enemy combatant, and the United States Armed Forces can be ordered to detain you without warrant, proven evidence, incommunicado, without Habeas Corpus or access to a lawyer, until "hostilities cease."
The War on Terror was defined by George Bush as "a war without end."
Under this law, neither "terrorist" nor "beligerent act" are well-defined. A beligerent act can be anything, and a terrorist can be anything from a card-carrying suicide bomber, to a person missing fingers, to a person storing ammunition, to a person with more than 7 days' food in their home.
Oh, this goes for citizens, residents, and foreigners. This attacks the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments viciously.
As if that's not enough, an amendment was passed that requires that the Rules of Engagement for any designated live-fire zone allow military personnel to "proactively defend themselves." There is no word as to who desides what a "designated live-fire zone" is.
Here's the worst-case scenario I can imagine with this amendment:
people gather to protest *something*
The military is called in to keep the peace
The crowd becomes unruly
A riot begins
soldiers begin "proactively defending themselves."
Thus, we see the end of the right to assemble.
This bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 31st, 2011.
He issued a signing statement, which says he was reluctant and held reservations, that he promises not to detain any US Citizens. But as it turns out, he was the one who told congress to write in the contraversial sections. In fact, he threatened to veto it, but not because of its glaring flaws. He wanted to veto it becausee it kept him accountable to a congressional committee once every 3 years.
If only that were the end of it. But it isn't.
Also on the books is HR1981, which spells out the end of privacy on the net as we know it, as it would require ISP's to snoop on our web surfing, and hold records for one year, tying IP's, even dynamic ones, to individuals.
This means that viewing "undesirable material" makes you a suspect, and as a suspect, you can be detained.
Couple this, with the censorship and takedown-without-due-process under SOPA and PIPA, and we see an incredibly terrifying trend coming together.
I'll post sources later. For now, just google. While the media and majority are avoiding the issue, some people are talking about it.
And no, I don't wear an effing tin foil hat. This is real.
