< Back | Home

Alaric Bobby, from the URI College Democrats, speaks about habeas corpus at Guantanamo Bay during a debate against the College Republicans last night.

College Democrats debate URI GOP, score higher in two of three rounds

By: Jeff Sullivan

Posted: 11/15/07

11/15/07 - The College Democrats and College Republicans squared off on controversial issues such as the removal of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the health care crisis in America and gay marriage in a debate last night in the Memorial Union.

The Democrats won the overall debate in points, beating the Republicans on the issues of Guantanamo detainees and gay marriage.

The main point from the Democrats concerning the treatment of prisoners in the detention facility in Cuba was that the U.S. Constitution and a recent 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirm the right of habeas corpus to combatants.

"Not only are we in violation of our own laws ... we are also in violation of international law itself and also the third Geneva Convention," said Ryan Drugan, a College Democrat. "We are not granting these enemy combatants, P.O.W.s, the right to a speedy trial and fair treatment."

While the Democrats acknowledged that in times of invasion and rebellion habeas corpus can be suspended, even for U.S. citizens, they said right now those instances do not apply.

"[Some] Republican senators support this position as well, most notably Sen. Arlen Specter," said Alaric Bobby, of the College Democrats. "There is no invasion, there is no rebellion."

He also cited an example of the kinds of mistakes that can take place in such a time of vague and indistinct enemies, in which U.S. forces detained a Kuwaiti accountant for four years. This accountant gave no more than $100 to a charity that was indirectly linked to al Qaeda, and was sent to Guantanamo. For four years he sat in a cell, and when it was finally time for his review, the military could not produce one piece of evidence that linked him to any terrorist organization, let alone al- Qaeda.

"We can't read the minds of the people who are giving to these charities, so it's unknown to us whether he knew where the money was going in the end," said Joe Livolsi, speaking for the Republicans. "The fact remains that there was a signal that he was giving money to an organization that sent its money down the line to enemies [of the United States], and that was cause enough."

Annie-Laurie Hogan, secretary for the College Republicans, defended the United States' position. She said that P.O.W.s and war criminals of past wars had to wait until the war was over to be tried, and that trying and possibly releasing potentially dangerous combatants while the war is still being fought is not only unwise, but also unprecedented in recent history.

"In this case, national security triumphs over [detainees'] civil liberties," she said. "Bringing them to justice right now is not really our priority; they are in detainment and that is more important."

Michael Viscusi debated for the College Republicans on the next topic, which was the contentious issue of universal versus private health care in the United States and which direction the country should be heading. He argued that the quality of health care and frequency of new medical innovations in the United States is because of the free-market system in place.

"The free-market entrepreneurial spirit is one of the things that drives this quality of health care that we're capable of receiving here in the United States," Viscusi said. "And it's the personal incentive that allows the innovative spirit of research and technology, and the giving of consumers a choice that allows health care options to be varied."

Ryan Bilodeau, treasurer and spokesman for the College Republicans, said that the U.S. government can provide health care without actually directly controlling it. There are still many problems inherent with the current system, he said, and he pointed out that while there are 45 million people in the United States that are uninsured, the U.S. government spends more money per capita on health care than any other country.

"So if we're spending that much more money than other nations and we're still having such a large percentage of uninsured/underinsured, what represents that?" he said.

Bilodeau said that the conservative solution to the problem is to empower the people, as President George W. Bush did in 2003 through tax cuts and a health care savings account in order to bring more people into the market - thereby lowering the prices of services.

For the Democrats, Shelby Sullivan-Venice defended the universal health care system by saying that the capitalist mode of health care inherently leaves out poor and low-income families, and also that the free-market system so far has not been an incentive to innovation, but rather a mode of price regulation on the side of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The introduction of so-called copycat drugs inflate the market with different name brands for essentially the same drugs and ingredients, she said.

"It's not really a question of their capacity to create new drugs, and the market economy isn't driving innovation, it's driving prices," she said. "They're controlling prices, and if [universal health care] is federalized, that control will be in the hands of the people rather than the board members."

The issue of gay marriage has been coming up in Rhode Island lately, most notably in a motion by gay rights activists to legalize same-sex divorce before legalizing gay marriage.

The Democrats argued that marriage is the institution of a loving relationship and it does not matter what sex those two people are; they should be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

"Issues like economic benefits, tax breaks, guardianship, inheritance issues; for instance if I lived with my partner for 20 years in a house, if I was not willed the house, there is no legal backing that could allow me to inherit the house," said Amanda Clarke for the Democrats. "This is clearly a violation of [separation of] church and state because the definition of marriage is always cited from a religious standpoint."

The Republicans stated that marriage has always been defined in state constitutions as being between a man and a woman, and that as long as there are laws there will be those who are discriminated against.

"The arguments from the left state that people should redefine marriage as love is all you need to be married," said Jon Hansen, first vice-chairman for the Republicans. "That can't be true because there are no boundaries on marriage whatsoever. Polygamists could legally get married; someone who loves their dog could get married, a bisexual could marry both a man and woman."

He also said that no matter what, it is still a religious issue. The five major religions of the world are against same-sex marriages, and according to Hansen, 80 percent of Americans are Christian, deeming it a factor that cannot be ignored.

He claimed that, for instance, if same-sex marriage were legalized in Rhode Island, for churches to keep their tax-exempt status they would legally have to abide regardless of their position on the issue.

"You can't enforce your views onto other religions," Hansen said. "You're forcing these churches that may oppose this to basically change their religion."

The Pre-Law Society hosted yesterday's debate.