Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case

palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.

Comments

So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Kludge]

So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

Asshole.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Smidge204]

The tragic optimist in me wants to say that Obama doesn't want to open that particular can of worms until he and his staff have had a chance to really examine what's involved.

That's an admittedly optimistic view, though. I'm still worried how it will actually pan out.
=Smidge=

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[bigstrat2003]

Realistically, though, this isn't a change in what we know (or should have known, for those who didn't know this). All Obama has accomplished is shown any supporters who were still blind enough to believe him (after his Senate vote, no less) that he really doesn't support our rights like he claimed he did. His only possible excuse for his actions, that it might sabotage his campaign, has been removed, but his actions have not changed. Surprise, surprise.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[gnick]

The cracks are showing.

It will come as a shock to some that, even though Obama has taken office, a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint. And I've yet to get a raise or better offer this week.

I like the guy and, although some of his plans make me nervous (I'm a pretty staunch fiscal conservative), I'm optimistic that he'll do a good job. But it is kind of satisfying to see him reveal that he's not quite the guy that so many people see up on that pedestal.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[fyngyrz]

The US has devolved into a place where safety trumps constitutional authorization, judicial honesty, liberty, and honor.

The government might as well change the national motto to "Safety at Any Cost."

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[hobbit]

a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint.

As someone who lives in a country with a National Health Service, it tickles me to see it sandwiched between two "impossible ideals".

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[happyslayer]

By temperament and voter registration, I'm a Republican; however, I voted for (and hope for) an Obama win because the path the government has taken over the last 7-8 years has saddened and disgusted me. I'm glad he won.

But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)

If there were ever a prime time to hold your government's feet to the fire over policy, now is the time to do it. Otherwise, it will be fait accompli, and we'll start hearing things from this administration (and its supporters) like, "But we're not Bush; we're better than him!"

Just my inflation-adjusted 2 cents...

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[bencoder]

oh you pay for it. and if you don't go to the doctor much, you probably pay more for it than you would if it was private.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Captain Splendid]

And yet, just like most Americans, he has access to shit TV, unhealthy snacks, cheap drugs and legal pornography. What's the downside again?

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The truly ironic part of course is that such a policy ultimately leads to loss of all safety for those who try to "protect" themselves so.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[eth1]

The government might as well change the national motto to "The Appearance of Safety at Any Cost."

Fixed that for you...

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Chris Burke]

I don't see how requesting a stay in a case involving the potential release of classified information and for which there were in-progress appeals at the moment his government took over is the same as endorsing Bush's wiretapping program...

Sounds to me more like they need more time to consider the case, and don't want state secrets released by default in the meantime. The only thing I see that is in agreement with Bush is that executive privilege exists.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Rei]

Oh come on, it took an entire 3 days for a Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales who is acting Attorney General until Obama's pick is confirmed step on that promise, I think he's doing better than bush already!

Corrected that for you.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[stewbacca]

That's a crock. My wife is having a baby next month and the whole thing will be about $4000. With negotiated rates and my company pitching in $1,000 to my HSA, it is not even a blip on our financial radar (the birth, the baby and next 18 years very much so on the radar). We've had 9-months to save up for it, and long before she got pregnant, we were planning for it. Americans will drop $5k on a 60" hdtv, but don't want to spend a dime on doctor bills to have a baby. WTF?

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Shakrai]

Americans will drop $5k on a 60" hdtv, but don't want to spend a dime on doctor bills to have a baby. WTF?

That sums it up quite nicely I think.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Shakrai]

What's the downside again?

Higher taxes, more governmental control over our lives and less individual freedom?

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[assassinator42]

It might not be a blip on your radar, but what about someone making $20k or less a year? And I don't know anyone who'd spend $5k on a 60" HDTV.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[element-o.p.]

That's a crock.

As long as there are no complications, that is. When my daughter was born, she spent the first five days of her life in the NICU due to a respiratory infection. IIRC, that was around $20K after paying for the birth and related expenses.

While most middle-class Americans can cough up $4K with a little advance planning, a surprise of an additional $20K can be a pretty heavy load.

So, while I really hope your baby is born healthy and there are no unwelcome surprises (I wouldn't wish five days of not knowing whether or not your baby will ever get to go home on anybody), don't fool yourself into thinking that you can plan for all medical expenses by preparing a little ahead of time.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Deagol]

If you have Netflix, stream the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Among other topics, it goes into some of the history of how a natural part of life has been usurped by MDs who think they know better than human nature and how it is now essentially being sold as an illness that needs "fixing". Personally, I think $5k for a uneventful birth is a fleecing upon society.

My wife went all natural with our 2nd (her 1st being too big to turn, resulting in a C-section). No drugs (pushed on us), no C-section (pushed), no epiziotomy (pushed), not even a circumcision for our son (gently pushed). We were insured at the time, but the costs were still mind-boggling, coming in around $5k. The doctor alone billed $1500 to "catch" (as my wife likes to say) the last 15 minutes of a 6-hour event. To add insult to injury, I didn't get a discount for cutting the damned cord myself! This didn't even include all the prenatal checkups/procedures, the costs of which elude me at the moment.

But birthing is just one example.

Other routine, low-risk, easy procedures cost an arm and a leg. I've had two extended family members get appendectomies over the last few year: $15k each. WTF is up with that?!?

My guess is that doctors/hospitals bill so much because they can, due to near-ubiquitous health insurance in our country. Most people don't pay bills like these directly, so it's like monopoly money to them. They don't care. So a doctor can -- and will -- charge the standard $1500 fee for a delivery, then pocket the $1000 insurer is willing to pay. However, if an uninsured person tried to pay $1000, they turn it over to collections. The US health care system is so completely fucked it hurts to think about it.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[TheRealMindChild]

Anyone who has ever had a child can tell you one thing with certainty... you might THINK you know what it costs to have a child, but no one REALLY comprehends the magnitude of it until it happens.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[jo_ham]

The "long waiting lines" in the UK and Canadian health care systems are a myth perpetuated by US propaganda from certain special interest groups who desperately hope that the US system stays as it is.

Sure, in a system that's not perfect you are going to see some waits, and it's not going to be quite as "lick your ass service" as a private healthcare clinic in the US (but really, how many Americans actually have access to that service).

The national insurance that I pay is a tiny amount compared to my salary, and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish]), but we have ways to offset those costs.

There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.

The US insurance companies may try to play the "omg, free healthcare means crippling taxes for all citizens, even if you don;t get sick! Then you're paying for your friends and neighbours when they get sick and you're healthy! How unfair is that! It's totally like communism! Buy our healthcare and $400 prescriptions!"

When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Abcd1234]

And yet, statistically speaking, the poor are having far more children than the rich. Somehow they're affording it.

No they're not. They're just not going to the doctor. Which means no prenatal care. Lucky! And when labour hits, they just go to the emergency room, since the hospitals can't turn them away. And once the child is born, they can't afford a doctor, so the child won't get proper preventative care, such that they'll only see a doctor when... yup, you guessed it, they have to go to the emergency room (and, BTW, that applies to their own healthcare as well)!

Yup. It's a great system you Americans have... at least double the cost of every other universal system out there, while excluding millions. Brilliant!

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Manchot]

A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, "Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment...Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services."

emphasis mine. Canada is the exception, not the rule.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[Shakrai]

and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish])

So your taxes aren't that much higher than the US except where they are that much higher than the US? Is that really your argument?

There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.

Well bully for you. I on the other hand make a whooping ~$30,000 and between income/social security/medicare and state/local taxes I'm paying nearly 30% of my income out in taxes. I don't know about you but I feel more confident in my ability to spend some of that $9,000 for my own benefit than I do in the ability of some government bureaucrat to spend it for me.

When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.

Windows XP costs <$5 in Cuba and China but that doesn't mean that cost accurately reflects what it cost to produce that product. I'm no big fan of the pharmaceutical industry and would like to see many reforms (starting with patent reform) but this idea that they can't charge a fair price for their product is absurd.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[jo_ham]

These are the stories that people need to see. The old adage that anecdotes are not data just can't really apply here. There are thousands of families in exactly your position across America who are crippled by the healthcare system, but that doesn't matter - even if there's only the one family, it's too many and you really have to look at changing it.

America is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, and yet, it is the same country that puts altered, injured and confused patients into cabs and gives the driver $15 to drop them off on the street outside homeless shelters wearing nothing but a hospital gown because they have no insurance and no family to pay the bill.

And the gap between medicaid, the so-called solution for those who can't afford insurance, and the level of income you need to be able to afford insurance creates an *enormous* poverty gap like an open sore on the face of the most powerful, richest nation on Earth.

The US has the ability to create a national healthcare system, it just needs the will to do it, and has to be prepared to piss off a lot of people who like things the way they are because they get very rich on the backs of people who need to pay for medical care.

A society is judged not by the way it treats the well off, but by the way it treats the less well off, and in health care issues, the US is *way* down there in the toilet.

Don;t get me wrong, I love the USA. I just hate what they've done with medicine.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

[localman]

Then you're paying for your friends and neighbours when they get sick and you're healthy!

Yeah, I hear that all the time, and it makes no sense because: that's how insurance works. The whole point of insurance is to play the law of averages. The larger the group, the better the law of averages works out. This is part of why group health insurance is so much cheaper than individual.

Cheers.

Oxen

[overshoot]

many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.

Well now, that depends on who is being held open now, doesn't it?

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America.

[Slammer64]

Finally, change we can believe in!

Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!

Give it time

[gatkinso]

Obama might not always be right.

Bush might not have always been wrong.

There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).

They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.

Re:Give it time

[bigstrat2003]

There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.

They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.

As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.

Re:Give it time

[Captain Splendid]

Net gain: none.

I've been seeing this "scoreboard" meme regarding Obama on a couple of FP stories now.

Discussing politics as a zero-sum game is stupid. It's that kind of mentality that entrenches the two-party system and helps keep one of the biggest and richest nations on earth from actually getting any shit done.

Re:Give it time

[vux984]

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.

Read the PDF that the Obama administration actually filed before drawing any conclusions here.

The PDF they filed is simply an argument over the mundane details of court procedure, the rules of evidence, which court should see the appeal, etc.

Granted it has the effect of bolstering Bush's defense, but so what?

If the police try to get evidence admitted on a child molester, but there is a problem with the evidence, and Obama shows up and says, well the child molester is arguing that the evidence can't be admitted and our legal analysis concludes the same thing... what then?

Obama is siding with child molestors? Get fucking real. As destestable as child molestors and warrantless government surveillance is, the rule of law protecting them should be observed.

This blog article is just bad journalism.

As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.

Agreeing with Bush's interpretation of the law isn't a really bad thing, especially if that's what the laws say. Ask a lawyer, not a blogger to determine whether its bad or not. And if the law itself is the problem, ask that he change it so that in future we can do better, but don't ask him to break it just to prosecute Bush.

Re:so?

[mcgrew]

enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can

Freedom? What freedom?

Indeed.

[FatSean]

Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.

But, the people who screamed 'traitor' at the anti-war activist and supported Bush to the bitter end have suddenly found the ability to criticize our president during wartime.

The HURRRRRRRRRRRRrrrtastic tags tell the story of astro-turfing conservatives.

At least this economy has the low-income trailer-park republicans finally signing up to fight their war.

Vote for Liars (Democrat/Republicans)

[PortHaven]

Get what you voted...

I wonder what they think of the missiles that hit Pakistan today? I am sure they were approved by the President. You know, the "O" not the "W".

Obama doesn't even have a DOJ yet...

[Lendrick]

The fact that he asked for a stay doesn't indicate much of anything, particularly since a lot of the people at the DOJ right now are Bush appointees (you know the type) who really need to be fired ASAP. By all means, we should be making as much noise about this as possible, but it doesn't automatically mean that Obama is pro-wiretapping.

Uh.. Hello!

[phrackwulf]

This is so obviously FUD. The administration ordered a stay on all pending regulation and issues from the Bush Administration and this case happens to be one of them. So, what does someone looking to nail Obama do.. "oh well, they aren't immediately disavowing this terrible, terrible injustice, therefore, well they must be complicit!" Shake, stir, and toss to the usual gang of idiots on Slashdot and voila.. A major out of context brouhahah is born! Get a grip, morons.

Calm Down.

[Bruce Perens]

Folks,

This sucks. However let's keep in mind that the order to close the detention/torture center at Gitmo has gone out, and to close the CIA detention centers, and the order to err on the side of disclosure in FOIA cases.

Let's keep in mind that it's a request for stay, not the last word. But it looks like Obama isn't on our side regarding this issue, and we might have to work for a long time to win it. Consider what we are winning so far, and keep on working. We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.

Bruce

Nonsense.

[Jane Q. Public]

What is trumping is not safety at all, but fear for your safety, which is a very different thing. I challenge anyone to show that we are actually safer now than we were 8 years ago.

Despite all the "sacrifices" that have been made regarding rights, I don't think so.

(Note: I put "sacrifices" in quotes, because it order for someone to truly sacrifice something, it has to be given not taken.)

Re:So?

[bencoder]

Since you said that, I take it that if the government didn't force you to give your money towards health care, then you'd be willing to give some of it up voluntarily to a charity that deals with health care for the poor, or your local hospital?

yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same? Or are you superior to everyone else?

no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.

More FUD

[Sta7ic]

I think it's unfair to react knee-jerk to this and denounce the new President. He's been there for three whole days and is probably still learning where all the conference rooms and restrooms are. Jumping into the middle of an ongoing court case and having the lawyers completely overhaul the strategy that they've been working on for months or years would be one of the easiest ways to throw a monkey wrench into existing operations without having a full grasp of the entirety of the issue.

Give him six months, and THEN give him hell for supporting warrantless [and unconstitutional] wiretaps.

Naysayers and Doomspeakers

[TiggertheMad]

I read a few of the comments following this story, and they all seem to have a similar theme of having a fairly negative POV about Obama's stand on this issue.

Rather than simply bitch about your spin on this, lets look at why he is doing this. IANAL, but it seems to me that he is holding on to secret information pending the outcome of legal process to determine if it is admissible evidence. This would seem to be prudent, as if it is admitted as evidence, it is no long really secret. Any lawyers out there, please jump if I am getting this wrong.

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America.

[Jeremi]

Finally, change we can believe in!

Not to defend Obama on this particular issue, but here's a brief recap of what he's done since becoming president, 72 whole hours ago:

1. Halted the questionable legal proceedings against people held at Guantanamo Bay
2. Ordered the shutdown of the prison at Guantamo Bay
3. Ordered the shutdown of CIA "black sites"
4. Ordered the CIA to stick to the Army Field Manual for interrogation purposes (read: no more torture)
5. Overturned Bush's order to limit release of presidential records and FOIA documentation
6. Began diplomatic overtures to Iran
7. Began talking to Israel, Palestine, Egypt, etc, to hasten resolution of the Israel/Palestine violence
8. Rescinded the Mexico City "gag rule" on government aid to agencies that provide information on abortion
9. Froze white house salaries at existing levels
10. Passed an executive order banning ex-White House personnel from lobbying the White House until after Obama is out of office
11. Inquired about extending the use of open source software in government

So do these things qualify as "change"? I'd say so. Certainly none of these things would have happened with a Republican still in the White House.

Re:USA becomes UK in...

[Jeremi]

5...4...3..2..1.. The only change we'll be seeing is the removal of our right to be able to defend ourselves. Say goodbye to your firearms, hello to more government intrusion into your life

[Citation needed]

Re:You are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part will be watching various conservatives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a necessity under the Bush administration, is now a bad thing under an Obama administration.

The fun part will also be watching various progressives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a bad thing under the Bush administration, is now a necessity under an Obama administration.

Has it ever occurred to any of you...

[almitchell]

...that maybe, just maybe, Obama did this because when he finally got to the throne he learned the reasons this made it out there in the first place? That maybe, just maybe, there might be something, or some reason, that the mighty Slashdotters don't know? That when he sat down with everyone, he sat back and said "Oh, gee whiz, I hadn't realized that was why Bush & Co. did that. now I get it. Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't screw with it."

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until that happens, I'm not going to support national health care.

You're already supporting national health care. It's just not universal health care. The US government spends more per capita on health care than many countries, including Canada. But instead of putting money into the pockets of doctors, you're putting money into the pockets of insurance company shareholders.

Re:So?

[m50d]

then you'd be willing to give some of it up voluntarily to a charity that deals with health care for the poor, or your local hospital?

No. I have no belief in the effectiveness of privately-run charity.

yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same?

How about the present state of the US healthcare system? Irritating things, facts.

no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.

How so? As a high-earning guy without children, I probably pay more than my "fair share", whatever that means, of taxes, so there's no hypocrisy I see in wanting them.

Do you believe in Democracy?

[mangu]

I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.

You are free to do so, I also believe in that, may I recommend the organization I use do distribute my wealth?

I also give some of my money to a health insurance policy. Everyone who believes in having some security against unforeseen health problems are also free to do so. But I also believe in freedom of choice. I'm free to choose the exact level of protection I want. I don't want to be spoon-fed with a health insurance plan.

Did I make a wrong choice? Ooops! Perhaps I didn't have the health insurance I needed, perhaps I crossed the street at the wrong time, perhaps I ate the wrong mushroom. But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.

Re:Do you believe in Democracy?

[cowscows]

You cross the street at the wrong time and a car sends you flying across the sidewalk. Someone calls 911, the EMS arrives to find you still alive but unconscious. Should they check your wallet and see if you've got health insurance before putting you into the ambulance? Should they call the insurance company that you've chosen and see what sort of coverage they provide for this sort of thing? What if you don't have an insurance card on you? Should they assume that you've chosen not to buy insurance and leave you there to die?

And that's not even getting into the the huge group of people who would like to have health insurance but can't afford it for themselves and/or their families.

All that being said, I think it very unlikely that a US universal healthcare system would involve a mandatory state level insurance plan. It's waaaay more likely that you'll be free to choose from any of the private healthcare companies that you can afford, as well as there being financial assistance available for those who couldn't afford it on their own.

Re:Do you believe in Democracy?

[PsychoSlashDot]

But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.

See, in a decent public health-care system, it doesn't work that way. Basically everything is covered. Sure, many actual medications may require you to pay some of their costs, but that's about it. Sure, some quality-of-life exceptions are made (some chiropractic treatments for instance), but basically anything life-threatening that you need, you get.

Isn't it better to know that nationally, everyone's paying on average what they should? That the averaging effect ensures that those who can afford to pay a little more do, and those that can't don't, while everyone gets treated well regardless? That there isn't a question of your coverage being insufficient... you're just treated because you're ill?

Doesn't it sound like a Good Idea to have the system operate as a non-profit, with no Insurance Company middle-man getting rich by denying services whenever and wherever he can? Doesn't it sound SMART to not have an adversarial relationship between the sick and those who can make him better? Doesn't it sound wise to send 100% of whatever you pay into a system goes to the actual health-care provider, and none of it to some magic company who wants their (very significant) cut?

National health care might not be perfect but it does cut out all layers of greed.

Finally, I'd like to add that Canada's doctor brain-drain has come to be primarily because we imposed a cap on the number of reimbursable treatments per year an individual doctor could make. This was done primarily to make sure doctors weren't scamming the system and pumping through a hundred "clients" per day. If you're capped at a very, very reasonable salary, there's no point in gaming the system. Sure you can still treat people quickly and badly to artificially increase your $/hr but the overall $ don't increase.

Mod parent up

[fyoder]

The blinders that rich people in the US use to not see the large percentage of the population which isn't well off are are amazing. There are a shitload of people for whom a 60" HDTV is just not an option, and for whom lack of health care insurance is a real hardship.

Re:So?

[m50d]

Hmm...but, you're still not paying enough in taxes you feel?

I'm a European. My taxes seem to manage to be sufficient to fund healthcare without being excessively burdensome. I wouldn't want to live in a country without nationalized healthcare, even if it meant an overall saving to me personally.

We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly.

How well does that work out? My impression is that in the US a lot of conditions end up getting treated a lot later (and hence both less effectively and far more expensively) than they should be, because people won't go to a doctor unless it seems serious.

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America.

[Failed Physicist]

(Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)

Two words: Fuck you.

People like you are the reason why I won't travel to the united states, and why I've personally advised many friends against travelling there too. I reckon I've stopped more than a dozen tourists from heading there, and I'm proud of it. There are thousands or more of other people like me around the globe, and we are doing our best on this matter. Your fucking arrogant elitist attitude of "they are not citizens, they do not deserve rights" begets nothing else.