Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

To be more succinct:

You can't feasibly try enemy combatants in a civilian court of law - and that creates a legal limbo situation.

Obama was the most 'legally educated' President in 100 years and if he couldn't solve the problem, I'm not sure anyone will.

It will take some time to figure that one out.

Not at all. ObamaCare requires every citizen to enroll in an insurance plan. If your employer doesn't offer one, then you're stuck with going through your state's exchange. Here in California, the available plans either have outrageous monthly costs or outrageous deductibles.

There's an income tax penalty for each month you're uninsured, which eats into your tax returns. Last I checked, this penalty is still cheaper than actually paying for insurance.

Congress basically looked at the healthcare systems in Canada and Europe, looked at the existing healthcare system, took all the worst parts of both, and squished them together to make ObamaCare. Conservatives hate it because it's big government in action. Liberals hate it because it does absolutely nothing to fix the undue burden on individuals to pay for their own healthcare. It's a lose-lose proposition.

> If you ask me - many of them deserve it.

The point of justice is to avoid further crimes by rendering the criminal harmless, and by making an example out of them to scare away other potential criminals. What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?

"The point of justice is to avoid further crimes by rendering the criminal harmless,"

No. Or rather - 'criminal justice' as we understand it in the civil sense, does not apply here.

" What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?"

Some of the people in Guantanimo are terrorists of the worst kind. The people that planned 9/11. The kinds of people that chop off heads, who commit genocidal massacres, who grab little girls from families, rape them, and sell them into slavery.

Suppose one of these mass murdering criminals could be 're-integrated' into society, without much fuss, i.e. he sees the error of his ways, admits he was 'caught up in false jihad'. And we felt he could go back to a more stable part of Iraq and roughly go about his business? And we let him do that, and he pretty much behaved.

Would that be justice?

No.

99% of ex-Nazi SS-officers, after WW2, then one's that 'escaped' - went on to live relatively normal lives in hiding. They were 'reformed' essentially, and posed no threat to anyone. Their murderous activity was really in the context of WW2. Does that mean we let people who put people in the gas chamber go free?

No - some people deserve to die - and sometimes worse.

There are some kinds of 'bad people' that are either 'not reformable' or who have committed such grievous crimes such that 'true justice' is probably impossible.

I'm not advocating anything other than saying I have absolutely no sympathy for some of the people in Guantanimo.

Now - there are definitely some people there who were just 'villagers with guns, fighting for their village/community' whatever - and are not totalitarian, ideological, terrorists etc. - and sometimes that's a fine line, but clearly they don't belong there.

The 'injustice' is not the existence of Guantanimo, but simply our failure to apply 'actual justice' meaning some 'partly innocent' people are tangled up in a system designed for truly the most nefarious and evil types.

When we caught high ranking Nazi SS officers after WW2, we sentenced most of them to death. I suggest many ISIS fighters are far, far worse than SS officers.

Go ahead and watch the YouTube executions of thousands of Iraqi soldiers by ISIS after they took parts of Iraq. They were executed by the river, the river was literally running red with blood. I don't think that 'reform' is an issue that enters into one's mind when thinking about how to apply justice in those scenarios.

I appreciate that by enlarge, criminal justice should be focused on 'reform' but especially in these kinds of situations, it's really quite another reality.

I was in the (Canadian) Army a long time ago, and it was a difficult moral issue, but death is part of the equation. Think of this paradox: someone who has a gun and running from police, shooting back occasionally - will probably get a 'death sentence' on the street and that we generally accept. To think that mass murdering, genocidal people get more than that is a little disturbing.

Anyhow - I hope that we get better at separating the 'villagers with guns' from the 'genocidal terrorists'.

Many of those terrorists where farmers, who got sold out for a quick buck by neighbouring villages. And then met the chain of irresponsibility. Nobody wants to be responsible if the bad guy gets out, so the taxpayer pays for a cheap hotel the rest of their lives.