Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.

If I had health insurance I probably wouldn't give a rats ass if you had healthcare or not either. But, if me having it could help someone else get help...I wouldn't mind so much.
I don't have any. I am so sick right now. FIFTEEN DAYS sick. I cannot even see a Dr.. Emergency room is out. Ever deal with them when you are broke? Ever had to see the bill for it?

Prescriptions are a no no. Can't afford them either. I work, I have a job. I can't even get simple healthcare.

Times use to be where people helped others.

A good healthcare would assure us "without" at least some kind of Dr appointed evaluation. They are so expensive...me and others like me have to stay sick and hope for the best.

I am waiting anxiously for some help from someone! I don't give a crap if it Obama or Macain! Just find a way to get us some help.

Kat

all in storage hon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8YaR3JEkE


there is his speech

he did not mention imprisonment that i noticed but the patriot act does make it a possibility

in other words...those with the biggest nukes have the say?

Have you not been following the current events in Russia? Maybe you have heard of Putin, do some research into how he has been running Russia. China is a communist nation, certain freedoms have been given to some in a very restricted manner, their is no freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, or freedom of assembly, is that not communism? And as for the US we have never been closer to becoming a socialist nation that we are under obamanation.

i am not a liberal, nor am i gay.

i do, however, fully support gay marriage; i'm also very saddened by this verdict. i had thought we were finally progressing...and then we take three steps back.

I think they don't so much want or need nuclear weapons as resent being told they can't have any. That kind of explicit discrimination ought to rankle anyone.

Does it bother you to think about two women being together?

i look forward to that day. "that" lifestyle SHOULD be taught and discussed in school, as it exists. vilifying it doesn't make it go away.

um, and guy on guy is HOT.

Turn off REMOTE ACCESS to your computer. "Help" will have that information. That is for starters. Change all of your passwords too.