The Cost of Safety

On December 31, 2011 American president Obama signed and passed the NDAA 2012 bill. The bill attracted a series of statements in opposition and demonstration within America due to a clause which grants objectionable and sweeping powers to the American president over its citizens.

Below is a small fictional excerpt depicting a conversation between a Senator and an Assisting Adviser over an evening some time before the bill was passed.

    - Albert Shades
    - Senator Brendan Mc Gill 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Entering) Evening Senator.
(Busy) Grab a chair, you brought something?
(Rummaging through files) Yes, I prepared a draft with my assists, and there was something...
You want coffee?
(Starts to say something) Actually...
(Cuts him out) See, I need to leave early tonight. I have a dinner so let's get this started.
(Finds the file, hands it over) With wife Senator?
Wife? Fuck, who goes to dinner with wife..
(Senses the mood, drops the subject and starts to look around the room at portraits and antique vases)
(After a while) Sirrr??
Hmm...
Don't you think... I mean... I was thinking, maybe we are stretching this NDAA thing a lot, you know, maybe we are extrapolating too much.
(Lifts his eyes, looks above the horn-rimmed glasses) How long have you been working with this department? 
6 years.
Then, why are you asking question like a loony 4th grader.
(Goes mum ... develops a deep interest in a tiny dot on the wooden desk.)
(Looks at Albert's unsettled face, continues) It's about strategic planning and long term national interests, something you shouldn't think too much about. Besides, it's not my call, I too have to answer to somebody. (Goes back to the file)
(Decides better not to ask the senator whom does he answer other than American people, continues otherwise..) But, you do acknowledge that people will object.
Look, people object at the color of my shit. Its democracy son, let them object. Who gives a damn.
(Goes back to the observation mode. Some time passes.)
(Finishes his cursory glance and hands over the file) Hmm... this looks good, send it to other three members. I am meeting them tomorrow. We'll try and have it on the table ASAP.
(A little worried) Senator, do excuse me but this is still an early draft, does this need to be so fast. Is this a good time to..
(Cuts him) This, Albert, is the best time. Its holidays, people are busy homecoming, buying gifts and enjoying, they don't have time to follow some random bill. We won't have much attention and we'll soar the bill through assembly. And since elections are due next year, president can't veto on this.
(Still uneasy, collects his things)
(Standing up) This is war, son. We have to ensure the safety of American citizens and our way of life, and for that, we have to engage with the enemy. The war-on-terror can't be fought with sympathetic attitudes. (Hurries out)
(Stands there, trying to interpret and sink in the absurd change in senator's statements)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The bill was relatively easily cleared by the senate and was signed by the president. The objectionable clause 1031 gives president the power to treat any individual on the war-field as a potential terrorist and hold him in detention until the hostilities end solely on account of 'suspicion'. The war-field here is the whole world and the hostility is the war-on-terror.

So in simpler terms, if the American president wishes, he can detain anybody on this whole planet, irrespective of the person's nationality or residence for an indefinite period of time without any charge or privilege of a trial in any court. Does that make you scared? Wait, there's more.

Since the description of a potential terrorist can be quite broad according to some US security guidelines, you may well already be one. For example, if you pay for your purchases by cash or happen to have more than 7 days of food in your house, you could be a potential terrorist. So beware when you go to the supermarket next week, you could end up in Cuba.

A common dictionary entry defines 'Terrorism' as 'The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.' 
What would you call the above?

P.S: I don't encourage foul words. But I'll try to get away this time citing 'the scene needed it' excuse.