Switzerland constitutes "a large number of prosperous first world countries". You said that more than one country requires people to purchase health care, in fact Switzerland is it. Every other (described) country has some sort of best-practice government health insurance program in place.
You still have yet to explain your point. I want to hear YOU in YOUR terms (this should be good) explain the Swiss and new American health care policies, and how they're inferior to others or what was previously in place. All you've done so far is make a few sentences (at most) of vague and occasionally meaningless text and expect me to be satisfied. I don't even know what your argument is yet! I don't even know if you HAVE an argument, rather than just babbling nonsensically.
Right. I think the US president is a powerful dictator, able to violate people's rights by chartering jet aircraft. You, however, believe in a democratic president limited by a constitution he can violate at will.
Try to keep a modicum of honesty here.
What.....okay, I still don't know what this is supposed to say. Do you actually speak English?
You actually have no case. These are not open questions, where people can reasonably have differing views. Holding people in prison without charges is simply a violation of law (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006), (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008), (Rasul v. Bush, 2004). This is not an open dispute. End of story. The president may choose to release these people or to immediately charge them or to be impeached. There are no other options available.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. It's not what you say it says.
Hamdan v Rumsfeld: Held that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions. It's not what you say it says.
Boumediene v. Bush: The Supreme Court ruled that foreign detainees held by the United States, including those at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, have the right of habeas corpus under the US constitution, as the US had sole authority at the Guantanamo Bay base. It held that the 2006 Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Act was signed into law by Bush and was overturned by the Supreme Court. It was signed in an amended form in 2009 by Obama, and Obama appointees had actually attempted to include new rules that would have led to charges of murder being dropped from a third of Guantanamo detainees. It's not what you say it says.
Rasul v. Bush: Established that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. It's not what you say it says.
tl;dr You're wrong. This is not an opinion or an insult. You are quite simply contradictory to the facts, and therefore more wrong than you could
possibly be without declaring that Obama is a ham sandwich.
