McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[Psycho4Bud]

Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke:imp:

Yes, he/she should have due process because they are citizens of this country. That's the key thing here...these people are not citizens of this country and don't deserve the same rights in our courts.

I would like provisions for cases of kidnapping children though. If some assclown has kidnapped children, has admitted to it, but won't disclose the location of where they're hid....I say do what has to be done in order to save the innocent instead of having them starve in some hole.

You're right.. that is the great thing.. All the People of THIS country have due process and can have their voices heard.

This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf:

VERY well stated!:thumbsup: And I have to agree with your idea on treating them as POW's....how many past POW's have found safe haven in our court systems?

In the United States, at the end of World War II there were 175 Branch Camps serving 511 Area Camps containing over 425,000 prisoners of war. The camps were located all over the US but were mostly in the South because of the expense of heating the barracks. Eventually, every state with the exception of Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont had POW camps.
List of POW camps in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution. I think this is where McCains stance is....these people SHOULD be treated as POW's and therefore have rights based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Also concerning the left wing....if I recall correctly during the New Hampshire debate, Clinton stated that torture should be reserved for Presidential discretion if there was imminant danger. Over 18,000,000 people apparently agreed.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Reefer Rogue]

How will these gained rights protect them if they're guilty? I don't see how they can, so go on, someone tell me the worst thing that can happen, now they have the rights, plead the
5th?

Well if you say McCain disapproved of Gitmo then i'll accept that.

[Psycho4Bud]

Keep in mind that some of the people that are being held could have been released but their own governments don't want them back....what do we do with these people? Turn them into U.S. citizens because of the mistreatment that they'll receive when the plane lands in their home country? If their own country won't take them back I'd hate to think that they'd be cruising the streets here!

As for the rest...why should they have the rights of appeals courts, etc...that drags on cases for YEARS? Waste of taxpayer money on a person that hates our system to begin with. How many people are currently on our death rows dragging it out with appeal after appeal?

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

As for the rest...why should they have the rights of appeals courts, etc...that drags on cases for YEARS? Waste of taxpayer money on a person that hates our system to begin with. How many people are currently on our death rows dragging it out with appeal after appeal?

Have a good one!:s4:

The general population does not realize that these things cost money and think that they are just a free resource.

This does nothing but hurt AMERICANS.

Another well put post. :thumbsup:

[THClord]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.



AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

[daihashi]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.

You're ignoring the fact that these people do not fall under the rules of habeas corpus.. and are not Americans for the most part.

Everyone seems to ignore that Bush's approval ratings at the time of 9/11 and going to afghanistan in 2001 was up between 85-90%. People further ignore the fact that Bush's approval rating was between 70-75% in 2003.. even at the capture of Saddam at the end of 2003/ beginning of 2004 was between 50-55%.

We as Americans need to take responsibility for ourselves. We need to at least take as much responsibility as we are finger pointing.

These people are classified as enemy combatants and are in a United States prison Camp. To me this shouts POW... which has it's own set of rules.

What you're suggesting.. we might as well extend rights to anyone who is not a citizen of the US.. Let's just walk into Al Queda's headquarters and just tell them they have rights under our laws..

sure they have a history of bombing embassies and terrorizing us.. Sure they have video tapes announcing attacks and taking credit for attacks against the US, but let's go ahead and give them rights that will further drain even MORE money out of us.

We've gone into major debt over this war.. we're paying inflated prices for oil which in turn effects the cost of everything: gas, food, clothing, luxuries, airline costs, delivery services costs etc etc... We have a candidate, Obama, who wants to increase income tax anywhere from 3-5% for his universal healthcare plan when 70% of americans are already recieving healthcare from their employers (which generally are blanket policies.. meaning you get covered regardless)... on top of that you want to throw away more of our money on enemy combatants who can just drag out the cases in our legal system.

Sorry but you don't have me sold at all. :wtf:

AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

What tribunals are you referring to. Be more specific.

I agree they need better due process, but not under our laws or at the cost of the United States. It should be handled differently all together.

[birdgirl73]

We have a candidate, Obama, who wants to increase income tax anywhere from 3-5% for his universal healthcare plan when 70% of americans are already recieving healthcare from their employers (which generally are blanket policies.. meaning you get covered regardless)... on top of that you want to throw away more of our money on enemy combatants who can just drag out the cases in our legal system.

Not sure where you got your 70% statistic, Daihashi, but it's inaccurate according to the National Coalition on Health Care and the Government Accountability Office (GOA).

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).

You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

[daihashi]

Not sure where you got your 70% statistic, Daihashi, but it's inaccurate according to the National Coalition on Health Care and the Government Accountability Office (GOA).

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).

You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

Sorry.. it appears I misread my data. Caught me


The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5

[daihashi]

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

From nchc.org

The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006. I

n comparison in 1987; since you didn't mention it, the uninsured was at 15.6%. I have this in a pdf file. I can try to find a link for it if you want to confirm this. A rise of less than 6% in 20 years.

An 11% drop between 1987 and 2007 of people with employer provided insurance and a 6% rise in confirmed uninsured Americans is not much for a 20 year span. This would indicate to me that there is an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed; not the socialization of our health care system.

Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).

I'm not sure if you're talking specifically to me or just in general but I've never said it was ok. I never said "they can afford it" as if I'm so callous; I fall in the middle class like most of America, but I don't agree with the socialization of our health care system.

You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

How do you think this will effect the middle class? Think about this, Obama wants to increase the income tax to provide everyone insurance. Let's assume there's a pay hike.. we'll make it a signifigant amount like a 15% increase; it would have to be signifigant to provide healthcare for 300 million Americans.

Sure you can factor in the super rich which is about 0.7 percent (yes ZERO point SEVEN percent), and you can factor in the rich; which I can't find a figure but we'll say 10% and I feel I'm being generous here.

Do you think 10.7% of Americans with money are going to be able to support the remaining 89.3% of Americans and the cost it will take to maintain their health. Especially considering that the majority of our government officials will fall into the "Rich" category? In reality that's not that much money.

Insurance/Healthcare is a calculated risk business. If everyone is insured the the risk goes up dramatically. Do you honestly think insurance companies will be able to stay in business at a 15% tax increase on 10.7% of the population? Do you think the hospitals are going to be able to lower their operating costs? Things cost money. There is a reason why other governments with socialized health care has tax upward of 50%. Healthcare is expensive, even if you do regulate the insurance companies and regulate the hospitals and the doctors. Healthcare is still expensive.

How do you think this will Impact the doctors? How do you think they'll react. Being accustomed to getting paid well, and rightly so, for what they do.

Any different way I look at this plan I see it just setup to fail.

Think logically.. how is this plan going to work with the income tax increase he suggests... and let's assume he does get it passed somehow. Now we're paying 15% more income tax increase to go to overcrowded hospitals (if everyone has insurance then ALOT more people are going to go for even the most MINOR of problems.) where you're not sure if you're going to be seen in a timely manner if you have a legitimate issue. Doctor's pay would have to drop dramatically, staffing cut because hospitals simply can't operate on the cost of 15% tax increase on whatever 10.7% of the rich provide.

There is electricital costs, insurance costs for both the hospital and the doctors, there is payroll for all the staff of the hospital, stock for the hospital ie: needles, sheets, scrubs etc etc, maintenance and purchasing of new medical equipment, providing meals for patients etc etc. I don't know the in's and outs of a hospital but i know it is an expensive business to run.

Let's factor in getting the money from Large corporations. How do you think this will effect the middle class? Now these corporations are getting heavily taxed. They are naturally going to want to protect their profits and revenue. Less people = less money paid by payroll and less people that they have to be taxed on for this universal healthcare system. Really it's a win/win situation for them. Yes let's create the conditions to breed a unemployment rate increase. :thumbsup:

This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

You have to admit that there are a number of people there, a signifigant number of people who are there for crimes they genuinely did commit. Should we pay for their trial? Should we allow them to drag it on and on. It is throw away money. Also if you've read any of my posts you would realize that I've never been in support for GOING to Iraq. So there is no argument on the us just throwing away money by us going to Iraq. If you were hoping to stupify me by hoping I would realize the Irony then you've failed here. I've never supported the United States going to Iraq and can agree that it's "throw-away money" as you've termed it.

Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

Domestic Economy in general is effected by foreign Policy. This is pretty obvious and I'm surprised you brought it up; but there are people who are unaware of this fact so I guess it's good information to have in this thread regardless. Again I've never supported the United States going to war in Iraq; but there is a need for us to remain there. I've used it as an example several times but look at Afghanistan/Russia... more specifically the formation of the Taliban in Afghanistan and how the country fell after Russia removed their presence. Very similar situations and we would just be creating oppurtunity for extremists who HAVE voiced their hatred towards us to overtake a vulnerable country. If that happens then everything we've done there, the money wasted, the lives lost, everything would have been for nothing. So even though I did not want to go to war, I will GLADLY pay that $200 a month to ensure that country is safe after we went in there and created a mess. I will gladly pay that fee to ensure we don't create yet another Hostile enviorment like with Russia and Afghanistan or even like with the US/Iran during the Carter administration. I'm half Iranian and I'm saying this :wtf:

The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This I cannot argue with because I whole heartedly agree with you here. It's sad but pretty much true. The only thing is that as weird and backwards as it sounds; even if you tax the corporations and rich the middle class are still going to be the people that suffer. It's a snowball effect.

This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

I actually thank you. I don't want to be the source of misinformation. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

[dragonrider]

Lucky enough for everyone here, I have exactly one more week of vacation before I begin my third-year med school rotations. When that happens, I'll go back into "political remission" and you and Dragonrider and others will have to speak for reason and thorough understanding on much of this stuff and encourage people to base their arguments on facts and history rather than on editorial opinions and small electronic newsbytes.

No, Birdgirl! Don't go! It get's lonely sometimes...