Basically, there is a bill that passed in the senate the other day 93-7 allowing the military expressed rights to quickly and without trial contain and imprison "supposed terrorists," supposed being that these people can also be United States citizens.
Now, the bill has since been changed, but a part of it still remains worded wonky and could potentially give the government the power to dictate who is and isn't a terrorist and throw you in jail without reason.
Here's where we are on the information:
Perhaps you forget that in 2006 your rights of Habeas Corpus were suspended in our "War on Terror" so that anyone with a "just and reasonable cause" to be marked as a terrorist could be captured and held without a trial, even if they were US citizens just on the supposed reason they were a terrorist.
Sure, maybe I overreacted in a sense, but who's in charge of that? Honestly?
I never typically react with the idea of revolution. I'm usually a very level-headed thinker, but you're right, the way it was worded did spark this resentment. Now if someone could clear up that Habeas Corpus has, in fact, been restored since the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, then I'd probably have toned it down.
By the way, if you had read the further discussion, I did ask that very question:
That was my first assumption, never once did I read the article. I read original plans of the bill, which have been revised since then, thankfully, that did not list the offenders of said bill as "supposed terrorists" but rather as "United States citizens who are accused of supposed terrorism." Wording means a lot in legal sense, as you obviously understand. That was my rant. That was my rave. That this bill came to exist with the words that would basically target the freedoms of all U.S. Citizens.
Now, as for the veto, yes, I also knew that, again, if you had read further:
The White House has stated it will veto the bill due to the provision, but not necessarily for the reasons most critics are concerned with. They instead believe that the bill takes power away from the president and hands it to the military: “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.”
So long as Obama keeps his end of this statement up, they may very well be able to kill this thing after all.
So basically, I was getting angry at this bill existence, not what it's become, but rather what it started out as.
I'm not a conspirator, I promise you, and I am willing to learn from mistakes (if you had read, basically everything you stated I'd already answered for myself).
Now, you're right. I got worked up over nothing, I learned that already. You basically came in with old information, at least, for me. Right now we're talking about communism, lol.
So yeah, I apologize for the abundance of rage in my thread here, it just caught me off guard when I read the original wording of the bill that I was outraged. But yeah, basically everything Titanium said. I'm a history major you see, and I've seen literally the spiral our country can take due to political corruptions (see Rockefeller, Calhoun, etc). I humbly step off my soap box.
I still stand by a change in powers though. I can't stand any of our elected officials. Obviously not through bloodshed, though. But still. We could use a nice clean sweep of new, less corrupt faces.
Personally I consider WIRED a major news source, or at the very least a credible one. They'd have no reason to lie.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/
Secondly, thank you, we've already figured that out several pages back.
So long as Obama keeps his end of this statement up, they may very well be able to kill this thing after all.
Again, I've already "calmed down". It's just that this bill does exist. The problem I had was the way it existed when it was first drafted in the wording that it included "all American Citizens" as the supposed target. That has since changed thankfully and now it only targets people who are assumed terrorists. Now, mind you, if the government really wanted to, under this bill they could walk into your house today, label you a terrorist, and sweep you away.
That's still concerning to me. I mean, sure, it's no longer a direct violation of human rights, but it bothers me.
Now, I'm not actually naive to think that might even happen, it's just that a lot of stupid things have happened in the past during war time, and considering the "war on terror" is a fictional never ending "war" this could be considered "war time" to them.
Now before you get all uppity about nonsense again, let me be the first to say I don't believe this bill stands a chance in the House, and even if it does, the President will veto and it'd be political Self Delete from the American people (i.e. they'd all lose their jobs come next term election) to over turn that veto.
Oh, I wouldn't disagree on it. Though, I doubt Obama was able to persuade the entire House who have a republican majority to pass this legislation. Maybe the senate, but that's doubtful. I'd hope he has better things to do with his time than call 200 plus people and persuade them to pass a bill.
Anyway, here's my main concern.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/war-on-terror-doesnt-justify-retreat-on-rights/
Rand Paul, whatever your feelings on him are, does have a point about the wording of this one part of the bill. If Titanium had realized, he even said it himself. They only can do anything to you if it's "suspected" terrorism. But my point still stands, who gets to decide what suspected terrorism is?
Like, if a stupid kid ordered parts online to make a makeshift bomb. While he only intended to use the thing to blow up, like, his dad's shed or something, the government gets whiff and "technically he's a terrorist to them."
Again, I'm not a conspirator, I don't believe the government would ever use this power to just start labeling people as terrorists and sweeping them off to jail for no reason, it's just that this sort of hearkens back to the whole "communist quest" of the 50s. McCarthy labeling people as communists and they'd be taken off and put on trial and possibly jail if they were suspected as communists. It was that same mentality. We were in a cold war with Russia and McCarthy labeled them all as "spies" if they even so much as attended a communist rally. Which, by the way, was entirely unconstitutional. Didn't see the supreme court step in on that one.
I'm saying this now: as a student of history, I see these deadly signs of that all forever true "history repeating itself" all the time. It's why I got worked up. I've already apologized for getting angry, but this bill in its current state without proper clarification can be just another thing you might have to worry about if you're an enthusiast of explosives.
It's not as bad as I had originally anticipated, but it's still a major offense to American citizens if it isn't vetoed.
