The Udall Amendment was defeated. Obama may veto the bill, but I doubt it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amendment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/senate-defeats-challenge-to-indefinite-detention-provision/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/senate-considers-bill-authorizing-more-torture.html
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention

Who voted what way on the amendment...
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

I hate spreading fear, but these developments are worth noting. I think most of these provisions have been in place since the Patriot Act from what I understood though, so not sure why the continuing passing of more and more bills taking away our rights.

Notice how everything is based off of 9/11. We are on the right story. The basis of all this mess.
In Modern America, Questioning War Is Considered Terrorism

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=div...

I don't know why his credibility isn't up for review. The Joint Inquiry was the first 9/11 cover up. Government officials like Levin were directly involved in covering up the truth about CIA obstruction in regard to active FBI al Qaeda investigations. At the time Tenet lied under oath about CIA conduct in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The public record strongly supports the notion that some powerful officials in the US government protected these al Qaeda operatives before 9/11.

Let's stop beating around the bush and call a spade a spade: we are talking about a junta here. I think that the most important thing about having a dialog is to clarify the terms up front. Have you noticed people calling Obama a communist or a socialist? That accusation is wrong. We have a fascist system and Obama is a cog in the system so he is not a socialist. In a socialist or communist system the state is the corporation and owns the means of production. In a fascist system the corporations are privately held, outside of state control, which in turn gives them the power to regulate the state. This is an important distinction. Now, in WWII between Hitler and Stalin the distinction was quite clear, however, they each borrowed aspects from their polar opposite which muddied the waters a little and this has led to confusion among some people; an example of this is found among the Nazi's with their National Socialism (NSDAP). There were left wing elements within the formation of the Nazi Party, after all, it was the National Socialist German Workers Party, its formal name. When the Nazi Party coalesced into a national front only lip service was payed to the socialist aspects of the party. One reason for this is: what could be better for the workers than full employment? The other reason that the socialist elements were downplayed was nationalism. The N is NSDAP stood as much for nationalism as national. But despite any rhetoric to the contrary, the Nazis were fascists. They were controlled and funded from outside the government by enormous cartels, the aristocracy (Germany has two classes of aristocrats), the acquiescence of the churches, and the cooperation of the military. Now, in Stalinist Russia the state is the corporation. Businesses are nationalized, farms collectivized, citizens are platooned all for the benefit of the state. Where many become confused is that the next step in either system is authoritarianism and both systems cited above were leaning heavily towards that end, although not completely. So which one sounds relevant to us? Is Goldman Sachs a nationalized corporation like Amtrak? No, the banks and the corporations are all outside of the goverment manipulating the levers of the state.

So why quibble about semantics? Here is why: if you screw up in this country, for whatever reason, and go to jail; the chances are that you will wind up in a corporate prison. In CORRECTIONAL SEVICES CORP. v MALESKO The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a convict had no standing to sue in Federal Court for damages. So, in other words you are remanded to Federal Government with no Federal remedy. The Justices decided that remedy could be available within the State that the prisoner was incarcerated. What has happened here is that the government has "disappeared" you as much as someone who is put into the "Shoe." The court remanded this prisoner to the Federal Prison who in turn "remanded" him to a corporate entity. That is fascism at work. The Malesko case, cited above, and the detention of prisoners in torturous solitary confinement like the shoe is already with us. Now they want to ratchet it up a notch and get the military involved. Why, because they have such a good track record in prisoner management? Just look at Bradley Manning, Gitmo, and whatever other black cites that they have. It is important to understand exactly what systems we are dealing with now and where we are heading in the future.

None of this is new however. For a good look at the Government's willingness to disappear a citizen I highly recommend the award winning movie "Missing" which stars Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. The film was directed by Costa-Gravas a genius in the creation of political films. It tells the story of the disappearance of Charles Horman by the military junta in Chile during the fall of the Allende regime. Watch carefully for some startling symbolism but don't let my "film buff" reverence for this film put you off; this is accessible to everyone and highly entertaining. Another good source about the State disappearances is the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number," by Jocobo Timmerman. This book tells the story of the "desaparacidos" in Argentina and is quite fascinating on many levels.

In English, we borrow many words from foreign languages: detente, coup d'etat, apparatchik,guillotine and now it is time to embrace one more: "Junta" because that is where we are heading. Another one to drop, at least to raise some eyebrows would be "desaparacido" it is succinct and its fluid sound will not be lost on any ears.