Here's my take on this because when reading it I thought of a few things right off. First, it has the words "Sex Offenders", a horrible offense that instantly grabs onto emotion and crosses political boundries. Second, was what would we be hearing if it said this instead:
Would we still be fine with it?Supreme Court: Terrorists can be held indefinitely
The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some terrorists behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "dangerous" in the future.
"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.
Redress actually made a sentiment in this thread which I think explains the view of some people who don't exactly like the way we've handled terrorists or terrorist suspects but don't also throw a huge fit about it:
I think if anything this is a good way for some people to possibly get in the mind of posters who are willing to possibly tempt that slippery slope and the precedent it sets with regards to terrorists because...like many with sexual predators...they detest and despise terrorists and thus have a hard time getting worked up over issues that involve them getting punished.
Just a thought.