The result of Jackson's so-called "best thing he ever did" was this:
That's only a seven year economic depression. No biggie. And like I said, it wasn't even mostly a policy decision. Jackson hated the guy who was running the bank at the time and ended the charter to get back at him.
I couldn't agree with Walrus more. It is so much easier to categorize things as good and bad rather than see the grey in them. I feel like most of the media (including online) does it as well. Any time I want to look up something, I have to go through several sources before I actually find details. Details which tell a very different story than the short news reports tell.
Everyone was so upset about the Patriot Act renewal, but if you actually read the three provisions that were renewed, they are a far cry from the general term of "unconstitutional spying".
The same goes for the NDAA. Everyone likes to say, "the NDAA allows the US to detain citizens, who are abroad, indefinately. That is clearly 100% bad". But dealing with terrorism overseas is extremely complicated. It's not like we have the resources to build a case by the book against people who are half way around the world (not to mention to do it safely). Should we put the lives of law abiding citizens in jeopardy in order to protect the liberties of a citizen who has left the country to take up arms against it?
I don't necessarily agree with all of these policies, but I think they have legitimate arguments to make.
Yes, this is a TV show and the subject is slightly different, but I think it's a good scene that somewhat illustrates my point.
Today, WikiLeaks posted video of a U.S. Army helicopter opening fire, unprovoked, on a group of about a dozen people in New Baghdad—a group that included a Reuters photographer and his driver, who were both killed, and several children, who were injured. According to a New York Times article published at the time of the incident, “American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.” WikiLeaks also notes that “the military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured. After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own ‘Rules of Engagement.’”
Originally Posted by JamesBW43
The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces."
The NSA doesn't give a **** about the constitution or rights, if they want the information they are going to get it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. I believe it is honestly all a shell game and there is a modus of operandi in place to ensure information and intelligence can be gathered without the publics scrutiny.
a) The FBI rises to power collecting and gathering huge amounts of sensitive information leading to eventual public scrutiny
b) The CIA enters the picture as a young start up hardly drawing public attention while the FBI is hammered in openly public investigations
c) The Department for Homeland Security is a young start up agency hardly drawing public attention while the CIA is hammered openly in public investigations.
It just passes along the ability to operate outside the bounds of the constitution and anyone who thinks agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland, etc...don't operate outside the constitution is a fool.