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:
Oh, by the way. Does anyone know?
Was Habeas Corpus ever un-suspended?
I remember Bush did for a while there.
This could tie right into that nicely, actually.
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:
Oh thank God.
Official word from the White House:
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.
