A few things:
1. This is a friendly moderator preemptive reminder to keep comments civil and respectful of others and their cultures/government/political beliefs. Not that I need to remind all of you upstanding forum posters about that, but still...

2. @gtrain83, many Americans (including myself) didn't think it was OK at any point to detain people in Guantanamo without trial.
3. The thought that this could include any Americans for basically any finger-pointing whatsoever (and I could easily see this getting extended to include people in the various Occupy and Occupy-inspired protests) is, frankly, terrifying, and I cannot express my deepest disappointment in my country's politicians.
As an American, I'm appalled.
Full text of the actual bill is here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htmRelevant detainment details are covered in sections 1031, 1032, and 1034.
(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.
The bolded part is what troubles me. What can (or will) be defined as an "associated force" "engaged in hostilities"?
And there's this little gem from section 1032:
(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.
So, from what I understand, that makes it possible for *anyone* to be detained as long as the Secretary of Defense deems it in the best "national security interests" of the US?
Is there anyone out there with plenty of deskwarming time and a better knowledge of politics who could explain this to us?
Edit: Here's a better link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112pmdVdi:e548990: