rt.com— Protests have marked 10 years since the first prisoners were sent to America’s most controversial prison – Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Barack Obama's promise on his first day in office to close it down remains unfulfilled.
Jan 13, 2012View in Crawl 4
Surprise surprise. An 89 year man who was taken from his village was already suffering from mental illnesses and was taken to one of the worst places in the world. We need to help these people before its us that are unrightfully detain
I'm outraged. The problem is at the same time some of you are outraged about this, you're arguing the very same Government doing this get more regulatory power and more control over health care. You seem to think Big Government is a buffet where you can pick only the things it does that you like and someone none of the abuses, whereas in reality any Government with the power to give you what you want automatically has the power to take what you don't want them to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The jury (well the supreme court) is still out on the constitutionality of the healthcare thing. A variation of that same system also works in many countries - works better than ours.
This particular idiocy is explicitly against the constitution and morality on many levels. And it damages our standing across the world.
Furthermore, how exactly would a smaller government help in the Gitmo case? A smaller government would assert exactly the same powers over potential terrorists. This situation is not the result of an enormous bureaucracy or an out of control government.
Its scary that anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Federal Government's ability to regulate inter-State commerce allows it to compel people to engage in commerce by mandating insurance be purchased. As far as other nation's health care, I guess you'd need to define what you mean by works better than ours. I look and see longer wait times, lower cancer survival rates, and a bunch of Countries on the brink of bankruptcy (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc)?
"Its scary that anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Federal Government's ability to regulate inter-State commerce allows it to compel people to engage in commerce by mandating insurance be purchased."
If the feds can regulate indecency and basically indecent exposure, I don't see how this is a problem. This is just like making people buy clothes.
"As far as other nation's health care, I guess you'd need to define what you mean by works better than ours. I look and see longer wait times, lower cancer survival rates,"
Overall cost, child mortality, access to healthcare, chronic coverage, preventable deaths, etc. By picking and choosing statistics from various nations you can find somebody worse in a public system. But not all public systems are the same, so you are cherry picking cases and at the same time overgeneralizing by assigning problems from one system to everybody.
"and a bunch of Countries on the brink of bankruptcy (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc)?"
LOL! Are you seriously going there? Really? You are connecting bankruptcy to healthcare? Do you have any evidence that the bankruptcy was caused by their healthcare system, or are you just pulling country names out of your ass?
Germany. Done.
"A smaller Government doesn't help with Gitmo per se,but a strict adherence to the principles of due process and the Constitution would."
Fine - then don't bring up smaller government. Red herring.
The problem of comparing healthcare systems is the US is demographically quite different than many other nations with Universal care. We're also fatter than them which causes a lot of additional health problems in the first place.
I brought up smaller Government because Anomaly asked where the outrage is and I was trying to point out that being angry about one bad thing the Government does is sort of counter-productive when many of your other positions involve granting that same abusive Government more power.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Who says the feds should have the right to regulate indecency? From where do they derive this power, and why? Nudity is the natural state of being - to declare that nature itself is in violation of the law is beyond ridiculous. What next, demanding paper bags on the heads of people who don't live up to a certain beauty threshold? After all, an ugly person can be just as offensive to some people as a naked person.
actually as elimgarak said, the states is pretty much dead last in every measure of health. US actually has one of the lowest cancer survival rates. The only ones it has a higher rate for are the ones which are most benign and are screened more highly. aka prostate cancer. 80% of 80 year old men have prostate cancer. <1% of them die of it. Most of europe accepts that. Most of america treats that 80% as having a prostate cancer that needs treatment and that >79% who do not die of prostate cancer are considered cancer survivors even though they would have never died in the first place. Same with breast cancer even though the data isn't as robust for it. This is why the states leads in survival for prostate and breast but is near dead last for every other cancer.
The obesity epidemic in the states is also a problem with overall health care. Lack of access to primary care physicians which actually tell you eating all that junk food is bad. Lack of government assistance for those who can't afford healthy food. Healthy food in schools, etc etc.
And just for comparison, the US isn't THAT much more obese than some other countries. US has 30% obesity. UK has 23%, greece 21.9%. and compare that to switzerland which is 7.7%. If obesity was a major factor you'd see mass differences between european countries as well with a 23% vs 7% difference but you really don't. It's a factor but there are much more important ones.
Not to mention the US spends twice as much as any other country on health care.
The difference between 30% obesity and 23% obesity is huge, we have over 30% more obesity than the next fattest nation you list. That increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and increases health care costs.
The difference between 30% obesity and 23% obesity is huge, we have over 30% more obesity than the next fattest nation you list. That increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and increases health care costs.
The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations including People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation such as Bradley, Scaife, Koch, John M. Olin Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Castle Rock, and the JM Foundation,
Here's data from a non-biased site. You can check stats from a few diseases and US is far away from leading in survival in any of them and rank badly for most. Like I said before cancer stats is actually the least reliable, specifically prostate and breast.
And like I said. Do you see any correlation with life expectancy from the 7% to the 23/21% difference in obesity between switzerland and greece/UK? thats greater than a 300% difference and we see pretty much ZERO difference attributed to it on a population scale. 10x greater than your 30% difference.
Conservatives do the exact same f**king thing, though. They say they want less government, but then quickly make all kinds of exceptions once they're in power and go at great lengths to explain why those exceptions are absolutely necessary for the good of the country. Meanwhile, we never see any actual cuts made to either spending or government power while they're in charge.
"The problem of comparing healthcare systems is the US is demographically quite different than many other nations with Universal care. We're also fatter than them which causes a lot of additional health problems in the first place."
And the access to healthcare index? What about the amount of money spent vs. childhood mortality? Number of preventable deaths per capita with medical intervention?
With regular checkups the fat people would be less fat. And their doctors would catch fat-related diseases quicker, resulting in an overall health increase. Basic preventative steps would take care of a huge number of problems.
"I brought up smaller Government because Anomaly asked where the outrage is and I was trying to point out that being angry about one bad thing the Government does is sort of counter-productive when many of your other positions involve granting that same abusive Government more power."
No, you specifically talked about "Big Government". For some reason you also said that giving government specific powers is equivalent to giving them ALL powers. Which is at the very least a case of the slippery slope fallacy.
Someday my grandkids will read about this embarassment in their history "books." In a couple of 100 years, it will be a footnote in the chapter about the decline of the US.
They're all innocent because we haven't had a trial to prove any of them guilty. If we really believe these are really such bad and dangerous men we should present the evidence to a jury and let them decide. If we don't have evidence, then we have no reason to believe they are terrorists.
I don't think the issue is innocent or guilty (it will be later). At present I see the bigger problem as us completely ignoring the rights of detainees. We just sort of decided they're in a special class that don't get a trial or defense which is pretty much at odds with everything we stand for.
IF they are pronounced guilty. With the way that Bush's people f**ked up the legal cases, most of them may have to be let go. Criminal court rules do not allow torture confessions.
funny, the article doesn't have any proof that majority of the prisoners are innocent. it presents an isolated case, and even at that, it doesn't provide evidence of his innocence, it provides a sob story.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
They were all just visitors at an Al Qaeda tupper-ware party.
But seriously folks- this is Al Qaeda's script. It's what they are trained to say. They are also trained to claim that they were tortured and to use the courts and lawyers against the United States. That's why they at Gitmo and not a super-max in Nevada.
Yes, yes... The Constitution Project is obviously liberal propaganda... We should definitely look at the horses**t you dug up from WND or CNS instead because The Constitution Project is a... No, never-mind, you are simply too far gone to even attempt to reason with. Go back to watching Fox news and yelling during your little hate break...
I wondered where the "innocent" quote in the title came from:
"While hundreds may have protested against Guantanamo prison in the US, investigative reporter Jason Leopold told RT that the majority of the public tends to ignore an issue that stains their country's reputation."
“It is an issue, an abuse that we condemn other governments for. However, what’s happening now is that we have come to accept indefinite detention,” he said. “I think that people are willing to accept it now, it doesn’t affect them. Let’s face it – they look at this as an issue that they do not need to be concerned about, because they still see the majority of people there as terrorists, even though we have seen evidence surface over the years that the vast majority were in fact innocent.”
To a degree I understand their perspective. After being kept in a hell-hole for decades, while being innocent, I too would get pissed off and think about fighting the US.
What same comment? Checking a source of something? I don't understand what's unusual about that. "Innocent" is pivotal to the story, but there doesn't seem a credible source that says they were/are innocent.
Did the Washington Post defame this guy? Maybe he's your pal "Jason"l ... but he appears to be the only source saying that masses of GITMO prisoners are innocent and there's no other source or link. Does no one else check veracity here?
Businessman91Jan 13, 2012
Surprise surprise. An 89 year man who was taken from his village was already suffering from mental illnesses and was taken to one of the worst places in the world. We need to help these people before its us that are unrightfully detain
johnnysoftwareJan 13, 2012
QQ Iran...
Dazza_TucieJan 13, 2012
I would never take an 89 year old man to Scotland against his will how cruel
chadpyleJan 13, 2012
Who needs GITMO when we can indefinitely detain people right here at home!
johnnysoftwareJan 13, 2012
good question
bestenemyJan 13, 2012
Our prison guards cost more.
ncmusicJan 13, 2012
You don't know how expensive gitmo is >$1million/year per prisoner.
kyzzyxxJan 14, 2012
800K/yr. But that's bad enough
anomaly100Jan 13, 2012
Where is the outrage?
barackalypseJan 13, 2012
I'm outraged. The problem is at the same time some of you are outraged about this, you're arguing the very same Government doing this get more regulatory power and more control over health care. You seem to think Big Government is a buffet where you can pick only the things it does that you like and someone none of the abuses, whereas in reality any Government with the power to give you what you want automatically has the power to take what you don't want them to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 13, 2012
The jury (well the supreme court) is still out on the constitutionality of the healthcare thing. A variation of that same system also works in many countries - works better than ours.
This particular idiocy is explicitly against the constitution and morality on many levels. And it damages our standing across the world.
Furthermore, how exactly would a smaller government help in the Gitmo case? A smaller government would assert exactly the same powers over potential terrorists. This situation is not the result of an enormous bureaucracy or an out of control government.
barackalypseJan 13, 2012
Its scary that anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Federal Government's ability to regulate inter-State commerce allows it to compel people to engage in commerce by mandating insurance be purchased. As far as other nation's health care, I guess you'd need to define what you mean by works better than ours. I look and see longer wait times, lower cancer survival rates, and a bunch of Countries on the brink of bankruptcy (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc)?
A smaller Government doesn't help with Gitmo per se,but a strict adherence to the principles of due process and the Constitution would.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 14, 2012
"Its scary that anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Federal Government's ability to regulate inter-State commerce allows it to compel people to engage in commerce by mandating insurance be purchased."
If the feds can regulate indecency and basically indecent exposure, I don't see how this is a problem. This is just like making people buy clothes.
"As far as other nation's health care, I guess you'd need to define what you mean by works better than ours. I look and see longer wait times, lower cancer survival rates,"
Overall cost, child mortality, access to healthcare, chronic coverage, preventable deaths, etc. By picking and choosing statistics from various nations you can find somebody worse in a public system. But not all public systems are the same, so you are cherry picking cases and at the same time overgeneralizing by assigning problems from one system to everybody.
"and a bunch of Countries on the brink of bankruptcy (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc)?"
LOL! Are you seriously going there? Really? You are connecting bankruptcy to healthcare? Do you have any evidence that the bankruptcy was caused by their healthcare system, or are you just pulling country names out of your ass?
Germany. Done.
"A smaller Government doesn't help with Gitmo per se,but a strict adherence to the principles of due process and the Constitution would."
Fine - then don't bring up smaller government. Red herring.
barackalypseJan 14, 2012
The problem of comparing healthcare systems is the US is demographically quite different than many other nations with Universal care. We're also fatter than them which causes a lot of additional health problems in the first place.
I brought up smaller Government because Anomaly asked where the outrage is and I was trying to point out that being angry about one bad thing the Government does is sort of counter-productive when many of your other positions involve granting that same abusive Government more power.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leodinJan 14, 2012
Who says the feds should have the right to regulate indecency? From where do they derive this power, and why? Nudity is the natural state of being - to declare that nature itself is in violation of the law is beyond ridiculous. What next, demanding paper bags on the heads of people who don't live up to a certain beauty threshold? After all, an ugly person can be just as offensive to some people as a naked person.
bobbi21Jan 14, 2012
actually as elimgarak said, the states is pretty much dead last in every measure of health. US actually has one of the lowest cancer survival rates. The only ones it has a higher rate for are the ones which are most benign and are screened more highly. aka prostate cancer. 80% of 80 year old men have prostate cancer. <1% of them die of it. Most of europe accepts that. Most of america treats that 80% as having a prostate cancer that needs treatment and that >79% who do not die of prostate cancer are considered cancer survivors even though they would have never died in the first place. Same with breast cancer even though the data isn't as robust for it. This is why the states leads in survival for prostate and breast but is near dead last for every other cancer.
The obesity epidemic in the states is also a problem with overall health care. Lack of access to primary care physicians which actually tell you eating all that junk food is bad. Lack of government assistance for those who can't afford healthy food. Healthy food in schools, etc etc.
And just for comparison, the US isn't THAT much more obese than some other countries. US has 30% obesity. UK has 23%, greece 21.9%. and compare that to switzerland which is 7.7%. If obesity was a major factor you'd see mass differences between european countries as well with a 23% vs 7% difference but you really don't. It's a factor but there are much more important ones.
Not to mention the US spends twice as much as any other country on health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg
But this is all a side note so I'll let you guys continue your discussion on general government control.
barackalypseJan 14, 2012
"The data show that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else on the globe. "
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
The difference between 30% obesity and 23% obesity is huge, we have over 30% more obesity than the next fattest nation you list. That increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and increases health care costs.
barackalypseJan 14, 2012
Wrong:
"The data show that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else on the globe. "
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
The difference between 30% obesity and 23% obesity is huge, we have over 30% more obesity than the next fattest nation you list. That increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and increases health care costs.
bobbi21Jan 14, 2012
wrong.
The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations including People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation such as Bradley, Scaife, Koch, John M. Olin Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Castle Rock, and the JM Foundation,
Here's data from a non-biased site. You can check stats from a few diseases and US is far away from leading in survival in any of them and rank badly for most. Like I said before cancer stats is actually the least reliable, specifically prostate and breast.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/Details/Health/mortality-circulatory-diseases.aspx
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer
And like I said. Do you see any correlation with life expectancy from the 7% to the 23/21% difference in obesity between switzerland and greece/UK? thats greater than a 300% difference and we see pretty much ZERO difference attributed to it on a population scale. 10x greater than your 30% difference.
leodinJan 14, 2012
Conservatives do the exact same f**king thing, though. They say they want less government, but then quickly make all kinds of exceptions once they're in power and go at great lengths to explain why those exceptions are absolutely necessary for the good of the country. Meanwhile, we never see any actual cuts made to either spending or government power while they're in charge.
elimgarakJan 14, 2012
"Who says the feds should have the right to regulate indecency?"
Dunno. But if you want to contest something, start with the indecency. And the law has been around for ages.
elimgarakJan 14, 2012
"The problem of comparing healthcare systems is the US is demographically quite different than many other nations with Universal care. We're also fatter than them which causes a lot of additional health problems in the first place."
And the access to healthcare index? What about the amount of money spent vs. childhood mortality? Number of preventable deaths per capita with medical intervention?
With regular checkups the fat people would be less fat. And their doctors would catch fat-related diseases quicker, resulting in an overall health increase. Basic preventative steps would take care of a huge number of problems.
"I brought up smaller Government because Anomaly asked where the outrage is and I was trying to point out that being angry about one bad thing the Government does is sort of counter-productive when many of your other positions involve granting that same abusive Government more power."
No, you specifically talked about "Big Government". For some reason you also said that giving government specific powers is equivalent to giving them ALL powers. Which is at the very least a case of the slippery slope fallacy.
craig1958Jan 13, 2012
Someday my grandkids will read about this embarassment in their history "books." In a couple of 100 years, it will be a footnote in the chapter about the decline of the US.
barackalypseJan 13, 2012
They're all innocent because we haven't had a trial to prove any of them guilty. If we really believe these are really such bad and dangerous men we should present the evidence to a jury and let them decide. If we don't have evidence, then we have no reason to believe they are terrorists.
dirtyfriesJan 13, 2012
I don't think the issue is innocent or guilty (it will be later). At present I see the bigger problem as us completely ignoring the rights of detainees. We just sort of decided they're in a special class that don't get a trial or defense which is pretty much at odds with everything we stand for.
Them being innocent just makes it all the worse.
Closed AccountJan 13, 2012
okay give em a criminal trial. that way when they're pronounced guilty we can hang them legally.
elimgarakJan 13, 2012
IF they are pronounced guilty. With the way that Bush's people f**ked up the legal cases, most of them may have to be let go. Criminal court rules do not allow torture confessions.
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012
Facts shmacts!
reaper527Jan 13, 2012
funny, the article doesn't have any proof that majority of the prisoners are innocent. it presents an isolated case, and even at that, it doesn't provide evidence of his innocence, it provides a sob story.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
angrycat70Jan 13, 2012
yeah- sure they are.
They were all just visitors at an Al Qaeda tupper-ware party.
But seriously folks- this is Al Qaeda's script. It's what they are trained to say. They are also trained to claim that they were tortured and to use the courts and lawyers against the United States. That's why they at Gitmo and not a super-max in Nevada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda_Handbook#
http://www.justice.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferJan 13, 2012Submitter
Try the FACTS instead of the propaganda, lil darlin' and then actually pay attention
http://harpers.org/archive/2012/01/hbc-90008390
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/guantanamo-numbers
www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf
a PDF so you might have to try just a bit harder
angrycat70Jan 13, 2012
whose propaganda- yours? I've seen it right from the horses mouth. I've read the copy left behind by Mohammad Atta.
Don't need your politically motivated bulls**t.
(I ain't your darlin f**k-wir)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleJan 13, 2012
Wikipedia articles aren't generally considered "right from the horses mouth".
shakagoogooJan 13, 2012
Yes, yes... The Constitution Project is obviously liberal propaganda... We should definitely look at the horses**t you dug up from WND or CNS instead because The Constitution Project is a... No, never-mind, you are simply too far gone to even attempt to reason with. Go back to watching Fox news and yelling during your little hate break...
ereneeJan 13, 2012
find it hard to accept so-called facts from a russian source.
neotechniJan 13, 2012
I seriously doubt it
Ouzel7Jan 13, 2012
I wondered where the "innocent" quote in the title came from:
"While hundreds may have protested against Guantanamo prison in the US, investigative reporter Jason Leopold told RT that the majority of the public tends to ignore an issue that stains their country's reputation."
“It is an issue, an abuse that we condemn other governments for. However, what’s happening now is that we have come to accept indefinite detention,” he said. “I think that people are willing to accept it now, it doesn’t affect them. Let’s face it – they look at this as an issue that they do not need to be concerned about, because they still see the majority of people there as terrorists, even though we have seen evidence surface over the years that the vast majority were in fact innocent.”
----------------
Looked into the source of that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neotechniJan 13, 2012
"even though we have seen evidence surface over the years that the vast majority were in fact innocent.”
I havent seen any.
I have seen evidence that those who did get released, were recaptured with their al qaieda buddiesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicJan 13, 2012
Have you seen evidence that all or most released prisoners were recaptured. Otherwise your sample is too small.
elimgarakJan 13, 2012
To a degree I understand their perspective. After being kept in a hell-hole for decades, while being innocent, I too would get pissed off and think about fighting the US.
That doesn't prove anything.
neotechniJan 18, 2012
Touche.
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012
You know what? Quirk used that same comment. Isn't that something. You two have soooo much in common.
cosmicsurferJan 14, 2012Submitter
Separated at birth?
Ouzel7Jan 16, 2012
What same comment? Checking a source of something? I don't understand what's unusual about that. "Innocent" is pivotal to the story, but there doesn't seem a credible source that says they were/are innocent.
Just read the link.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 16, 2012
I have and it's the same one Quirk used to use in an attempt to defame Jason. And the same words.
Ouzel7Jan 16, 2012
It's just the Washington Post.
Did the Washington Post defame this guy? Maybe he's your pal "Jason"l ... but he appears to be the only source saying that masses of GITMO prisoners are innocent and there's no other source or link. Does no one else check veracity here?
Don't you find that weird?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 16, 2012
Now you're just boring me (again). You're so transparent.
Ouzel7Jan 16, 2012
Well... maybe don't respond. That would surely prove your boredom.
Kinda funny, that.
Have a good MLK day.