View Single Post
Old 10-25-2012, 02:49 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Originally Posted by bronislav84 View Post
And ruin life for the poor, who are NOT a minority.

You forgot:

4. If you have Medicaid, there is a waiting list for lab tests and people could DIE while waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Or something like that. Massachusetts is already on this system.
EMTALA ensures that the poor will be stabilized at the cost of your tax dollars. It is an erroneous assumption that you have to wait for anything. We treat medicaid patients the same as private patients and charity patients (covered under EMTALA) with the difference in that we answer to teaching attendings for the continued care of medicare/medicaid patients vs private attendings (and in my hospital, the teaching attendings are better doctors than the majority of the private attendings, but don't go to Lutheran, go to Maimo if you need anything, bro, since Maimo has Jewish backing and should probably have more cash flow than we do).

We treat the poor very well, if they come to us. Our clinic down the street on 2nd Avenue "costs" the people who go there a free metro ticket. That is, we give them a metro ticket for coming to us in addition to the care. The most copay I've seen is 20 bucks at the 6th Avenue clinic and the 7th Avenue clinic. For people who are underinsured like me, 50 bucks copay minumum and I can't go to their dentists.

Medications for poor patients have two major restrictions: the drug must be a generic and the drug must only cost 4 dollars a month. We have social workers actively looking for these deals for patients. This does mean that sometimes we have to use relatively inferior products or tried and true products over sometimes more superior brand named products (or new and risky products), but those come fairly rarely and I can only think of maybe 2-3 cases that has had this problem.

Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
The NDAA bill does not enable indefinite detention to U.S citizens, but only to foreigners (read the bill itself). He watered-down the Patriot Act, and, as far as I can see, has not promoted drone strikes on U.S citizens.
Originally Posted by Section 1021
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United

of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
The bill does in fact allow for indefinite detention of a person as deemed forth by the military in the circumstance that there is a potential conflict. For example, if I assume someone to be a terrorist, I can detain him as long as terrorism exists, which is forever.

The exception rule states explicitly that this exemption only applies if both conditions are satisfied. That is, you must be an American Citizen and you must be captured in the US to be explicitly exempted from indefinite detention.

Originally Posted by Section 1022
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.
This subsection does not have a broad statement like in section 1021, to which the rules here are completely exempted for US citizens. Instead, military detention is not a requirement for suspected citizens. What is it meant by not "required"? It certainly is not, "you cannot do military detention", but rather "you can do military detention if you want, but you are not required to do so". In this sense, this provision allows for detention of US citizens on US soil provided that you are suspected to be a terrorist. This detention is without trial.

Therefore, under these provisions, I can detain you as a criminal of war without trial if I suspect you to be a terrorist. To which then you are no longer considered an American citizen, since you are to be dealt with under the law of war. And under these circumstances you are then detained indefinitely. It is written very unclearly and specifically allows for these interpretations to be used.

Examples of drone strikes on US citizens:
Anwar al-Awlaki (40)
He is a confirmed US citizen. Even if he IS connected to terrorists, he should have been captured and tried for his actions, not executed via drone strikes without trial.

Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Aulaqi (16)
Son of Anwar, who was in Yemen for obvious reasons. Born in Denver and was obviously an American citizen. He's a freaking kid who doesn't know anything for goodness sake.

Promotion of drone strike usage was in the third debate itself. President Obama has set precedence over this matter with drone strikes on US citizens abroad already. He needs not say any more.
Reply With Quote