<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Loss of Privacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com</link>
	<description>Keeping you informed on recent losses to privacy and civil rights worldwide.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:47:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lamar Smith violates SOPA by James Berger</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/lamar-smith-violates-sopa/comment-page-1/#comment-24675</link>
		<dc:creator>James Berger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5060#comment-24675</guid>
		<description>Ahhh, but it is the same photo, &#039;cept it&#039;s actually a re-cropped close-up of it.
If I&#039;m not mistaken there needs to be more than one alteration to a photo or painting or even music if I&#039;m correct, before one can call it their own original body of work.
Plenty of musicians take riffs from other musicians, as well, artist may also use bits and pieces from previously rendered paintings. The original idea was of course not their own, they&#039;re merely elaborating on a previously conceived idea that was already on the table.
There needs to be a signifigant number of changes that when the two works are held up side by side, in a court of law an obvious and substantial difference/change to the original has taken place.  To me as a casual observer of this photo...it was obviously swiped and re-cropped. For originality...a negative 10 for the lame-ass wonder we&#039;ll fondly refer to as Lamar! Pull the thorn out of your own eye before picking on others Lamar! Matthew 7:3</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahhh, but it is the same photo, &#8216;cept it&#8217;s actually a re-cropped close-up of it.<br />
If I&#8217;m not mistaken there needs to be more than one alteration to a photo or painting or even music if I&#8217;m correct, before one can call it their own original body of work.<br />
Plenty of musicians take riffs from other musicians, as well, artist may also use bits and pieces from previously rendered paintings. The original idea was of course not their own, they&#8217;re merely elaborating on a previously conceived idea that was already on the table.<br />
There needs to be a signifigant number of changes that when the two works are held up side by side, in a court of law an obvious and substantial difference/change to the original has taken place.  To me as a casual observer of this photo&#8230;it was obviously swiped and re-cropped. For originality&#8230;a negative 10 for the lame-ass wonder we&#8217;ll fondly refer to as Lamar! Pull the thorn out of your own eye before picking on others Lamar! Matthew 7:3</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lamar Smith violates SOPA by not the same pic</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/lamar-smith-violates-sopa/comment-page-1/#comment-24672</link>
		<dc:creator>not the same pic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5060#comment-24672</guid>
		<description>not the same pic</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>not the same pic</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lamar Smith violates SOPA by Lilly</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/lamar-smith-violates-sopa/comment-page-1/#comment-24650</link>
		<dc:creator>Lilly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5060#comment-24650</guid>
		<description>Excellent post! I loved the last sentence of the post: &quot;Luckily for DJ, there are people out there like Lamar making new laws to protect the little guy against online copyright theft. Keep fighting that good fight, Lamar!&quot;

Couldn&#039;t have said better, lol!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post! I loved the last sentence of the post: &#8220;Luckily for DJ, there are people out there like Lamar making new laws to protect the little guy against online copyright theft. Keep fighting that good fight, Lamar!&#8221;</p>
<p>Couldn&#8217;t have said better, lol!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by Rwolf</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24648</link>
		<dc:creator>Rwolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24648</guid>
		<description>Americans Lose Constitution &amp; Country To New Fascist Legislation

Almost every week there are published news accounts of Police Corruption, e.g. Police taking bribes, aiding &amp; smuggling illegal drugs, robbing drug-dealers and committing perjury. ALERT! Perjury by police and their informants may now pose the greatest threat to Americans’ Freedom due to Congress in December 2011 passing (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012. Under (NDAA) Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus; Police that falsify reports and give perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be swept off the street and indefinitely incarcerated for being a suspected terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under (NDAA). 

If that is not scary enough, Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever. To read article, search title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction.
To read the full text of the bill, go here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

Currently there are several Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012.

Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so expansive and vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. The East German Stasi Police used this tactic to create an army of neighborhood and other informants.

The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler&#039;s FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens&#039; Civil Liberties? For example—Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated fines and time limits) that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent.&quot;

Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans (Retroactively) be subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act. 

History Repeats: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security) to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention. 

Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) supported or aided terrorists, provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT! Consider: In mid-January 2012 Homeland Security announced the National Operations Center (NOC) received permission from Washington to monitor journalists and retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms. Could this Homeland Security spying, tracking Americans result in Citizens abstaining from visiting and posting comments on websites? It is not clear why Homeland Security wants to track users of social media and online networking platforms. You may read, search title:  Homeland Security Monitors Journalists 1-7-12 at:
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/ 

It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Americans Lose Constitution &amp; Country To New Fascist Legislation</p>
<p>Almost every week there are published news accounts of Police Corruption, e.g. Police taking bribes, aiding &amp; smuggling illegal drugs, robbing drug-dealers and committing perjury. ALERT! Perjury by police and their informants may now pose the greatest threat to Americans’ Freedom due to Congress in December 2011 passing (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012. Under (NDAA) Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus; Police that falsify reports and give perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be swept off the street and indefinitely incarcerated for being a suspected terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under (NDAA). </p>
<p>If that is not scary enough, Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever. To read article, search title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction.<br />
To read the full text of the bill, go here: <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166</a></p>
<p>Currently there are several Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012.</p>
<p>Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so expansive and vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. The East German Stasi Police used this tactic to create an army of neighborhood and other informants.</p>
<p>The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler&#8217;s FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens&#8217; Civil Liberties? For example—Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated fines and time limits) that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans (Retroactively) be subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act. </p>
<p>History Repeats: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security) to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention. </p>
<p>Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) supported or aided terrorists, provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT! Consider: In mid-January 2012 Homeland Security announced the National Operations Center (NOC) received permission from Washington to monitor journalists and retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms. Could this Homeland Security spying, tracking Americans result in Citizens abstaining from visiting and posting comments on websites? It is not clear why Homeland Security wants to track users of social media and online networking platforms. You may read, search title:  Homeland Security Monitors Journalists 1-7-12 at:<br />
<a href="http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/" rel="nofollow">http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/</a> </p>
<p>It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by Rwolf</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24633</link>
		<dc:creator>Rwolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24633</guid>
		<description>Americans Lose Constitution &amp; Country To New Fascist Legislation

Almost every week there are published news accounts of Police Corruption, e.g. Police taking bribes, aiding &amp; smuggling illegal drugs, robbing drug-dealers and committing perjury. ALERT! Perjury by police and their informants may now pose the greatest threat to Americans’ Freedom due to Congress in December 2011 passing (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012. Under (NDAA) Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus; Police that falsify reports and give perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be swept off the street and indefinitely incarcerated for being a suspected terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under (NDAA). 

If that is not scary enough, Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever. To read article, search title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction.
To read the full text of the bill, go here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

Currently there are several Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012.

Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so expansive and vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. The East German Stasi Police used this tactic to create an army of neighborhood and other informants.

The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler&#039;s FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens&#039; Civil Liberties? For example—Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated fines and time limits) that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent.&quot;

Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans (Retroactively) be subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act. 

History Repeats: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention. 

Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) supported or aided terrorists, provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT! Consider: In mid-January 2012 Homeland Security announced the National Operations Center (NOC) received permission from Washington to monitor journalists and retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms. Could this Homeland Security spying, tracking Americans result in Citizens abstaining from visiting and posting comments on websites? It is not clear why Homeland Security wants to track users of social media and online networking platforms. You may read, search title:  Homeland Security Monitors Journalists 1-7-12 at:
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/ 

It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Americans Lose Constitution &amp; Country To New Fascist Legislation</p>
<p>Almost every week there are published news accounts of Police Corruption, e.g. Police taking bribes, aiding &amp; smuggling illegal drugs, robbing drug-dealers and committing perjury. ALERT! Perjury by police and their informants may now pose the greatest threat to Americans’ Freedom due to Congress in December 2011 passing (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012. Under (NDAA) Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus; Police that falsify reports and give perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be swept off the street and indefinitely incarcerated for being a suspected terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under (NDAA). </p>
<p>If that is not scary enough, Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever. To read article, search title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction.<br />
To read the full text of the bill, go here: <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166</a></p>
<p>Currently there are several Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012.</p>
<p>Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so expansive and vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. The East German Stasi Police used this tactic to create an army of neighborhood and other informants.</p>
<p>The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler&#8217;s FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens&#8217; Civil Liberties? For example—Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated fines and time limits) that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans (Retroactively) be subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act. </p>
<p>History Repeats: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention. </p>
<p>Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) supported or aided terrorists, provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT! Consider: In mid-January 2012 Homeland Security announced the National Operations Center (NOC) received permission from Washington to monitor journalists and retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms. Could this Homeland Security spying, tracking Americans result in Citizens abstaining from visiting and posting comments on websites? It is not clear why Homeland Security wants to track users of social media and online networking platforms. You may read, search title:  Homeland Security Monitors Journalists 1-7-12 at:<br />
<a href="http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/" rel="nofollow">http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/</a> </p>
<p>It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New Illinois state law requires photo ID to purchase drain cleaner by Drainguy</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/new-illinois-state-law-requires-photo-id-to-purchase-drain-cleaner/comment-page-1/#comment-24626</link>
		<dc:creator>Drainguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5035#comment-24626</guid>
		<description>If you think this law is ludicrous, won&#039;t prevent criminal activity, or will cause more harm than good - sign the petition below:

http://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-illinois-legislature-repeal-the-act-restricting-drain-cleaner-and-caustic-chemical-purchases?share_id=TjZoPIlyOG&amp;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you think this law is ludicrous, won&#8217;t prevent criminal activity, or will cause more harm than good &#8211; sign the petition below:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-illinois-legislature-repeal-the-act-restricting-drain-cleaner-and-caustic-chemical-purchases?share_id=TjZoPIlyOG&#038;amp" rel="nofollow">http://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-illinois-legislature-repeal-the-act-restricting-drain-cleaner-and-caustic-chemical-purchases?share_id=TjZoPIlyOG&#038;amp</a>;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by Rick Baggett</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24615</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Baggett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24615</guid>
		<description>Do not, I repeat, do not trust the present governmen
t. I say, BRING IT ON.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do not, I repeat, do not trust the present governmen<br />
t. I say, BRING IT ON.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by DEE DUNBAR</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24607</link>
		<dc:creator>DEE DUNBAR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 05:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24607</guid>
		<description>Besides this don&#039;t you think he also has another motive behind this and that is to trick US into due process for illegals also?????????There is more to this than what WE see on the surface!He&#039;s going some where with this beside locking US citizens up in camps. always a trick to everything he does! WE have to READ between the lines. I recall hearing about Gitmo prisoners and TRIALS for them????? It may be all linked together!Just a thought!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Besides this don&#8217;t you think he also has another motive behind this and that is to trick US into due process for illegals also?????????There is more to this than what WE see on the surface!He&#8217;s going some where with this beside locking US citizens up in camps. always a trick to everything he does! WE have to READ between the lines. I recall hearing about Gitmo prisoners and TRIALS for them????? It may be all linked together!Just a thought!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by Saturday 07.01.12 &#8211; Unfiltered News Compiled by G. Edward Griffin &#124; The Inner Circle Group</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24606</link>
		<dc:creator>Saturday 07.01.12 &#8211; Unfiltered News Compiled by G. Edward Griffin &#124; The Inner Circle Group</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24606</guid>
		<description>[...] US: The Enemy Expatriation Act, now in committee, allows the government to strip away US citizenship...[Those terms are not defined and can be interpreted as any criticism of the actions or policies of those who rule.] Loss of Privacy 2012 Jan 1 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] US: The Enemy Expatriation Act, now in committee, allows the government to strip away US citizenship&#8230;[Those terms are not defined and can be interpreted as any criticism of the actions or policies of those who rule.] Loss of Privacy 2012 Jan 1 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act, Engage in or support hostilities against the US and lose your citizenship by Richard M</title>
		<link>http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/01/h-r-3166-enemy-expatriation-act-engage-in-or-support-hostilities-against-the-us-and-lose-your-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-24605</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lossofprivacy.com/?p=5014#comment-24605</guid>
		<description>So if the bill passes, does that mean we can expatriate Obama because he&#039;s causing harm to our country?  Just a nice thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if the bill passes, does that mean we can expatriate Obama because he&#8217;s causing harm to our country?  Just a nice thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

