Americans can now be locked away on the basis of fear

...the government has the right to seek civil commitment of mentally ill people who pose a danger to the public.

Very sad indeed.

Why don't they allow indefinite detentions of captured Islamic extremists and radical jihadists?

The law allows the government to seek civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons, just as the government has the right to seek civil commitment of mentally ill people who pose a danger to the public.

as we saw with the Soviets the term "mentally ill" is extremely fluid when it comes to justifying locking people way.

So, you are arguing that the constitution has no meaning? And the courts are more than willing to lock up anyone without evidence if the government simply says they are "mentally ill"?

as we saw with the Soviets the term "mentally ill" is extremely fluid when it comes to justifying locking people way. The slippery slope expectation is born not only for what they did, but for what our own government has done with their flimsy justification for war as well as the assassination and internment of so called terrorists.

The statute provides that the prisoner "shall be represented by counsel" and shall have "an opportunity" at the hearing "to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine" the Government's witnesses. §§4247(d), 4248(c).
If the Government proves its claims by "clear and convincing evidence," the court will order the prisoner's continued commitment in "the custody of the Attorney General," who must "make all reasonable efforts to cause" the State where that person was tried, or the State where he is domiciled, to "assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment."

Those are significant safeguards that militate against the arbitrary usage of the state's power to commit people involuntarily.

considering that the state has no way to know who will offend again, that all they have his the profile groups likelihood, this is completely arbitrary. It would be the same as locking up every Mexican looking person in Arizona because we know from the profile group that there is a high chance that a Hispanic person is criminal (illegal alien).

I am not in favor of that, we would find out about that particular person. If we cant find out then we don't detain them, the individual has the right to freedom unless we can prove that they should not.

Proving that that persons peer group tends to be bad does not meet the standard....freedom is too important to let such sloppiness stand.

Are you saying that the statute judges sex offenders as a group? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The fate of the so-called Baxstrom patients is illustrative of these problems. In 1966 The United States Supreme Court ruled that 650 people incarcerated in “maximum security” clinics for the criminally insane were to be transferred to “ordinary” psychiatric hospitals. All 650 had remained in detention after expiration of their sentence as they were considered too dangerous to be released. After four years only 20% of these people were reported to have displayed aggressive behavior, whether inside a psychiatric hospital or outside of it. This implies that 80% no longer displayed dangerous behavior.

Queensland was the first State in Australia to successfully introduce legislation, the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA), allowing the continued detention and supervision of offenders beyond the expiration of their sentence. Since the enactment of the DPSOA the numbers of offenders on orders has steadily increased. To date 93% of all applications made under the DPSOA have resulted in an order being made and in the last four years of the operation of the DPSOA this has been 100%. As at 19 June 2008 there are 53 offenders on DPSOA orders either in the community or detained in correctional facilities.

Proving that that persons peer group tends to be bad does not meet the standard....freedom is too important to let such sloppiness stand.