[RedImmik]

The Washington Post and New York Times are better than most, really. Clearly you don't read the Gaithersburg Gazette.

Because sadly, as you have said, the Washington Post and New York Times are still better than most newspapers?

[Mugflefusysef]

Because sadly, as you have said, the Washington Post and New York Times are still better than most newspapers?

You get a cookie.

[Loovikeillilen]

Kuci,

We do things (or allow things to be done) all the time that we think are morally correct in spite of being dangerous. How does this differ?

How do we decide what's morally correct?

[avdddcxnelkaxz]

If we don't follow the rule of law, than many innocent people can be punished/stored indefinitely/etc. These numbers have traditionally been in the thousands or hundreds of thousands or more.

There is a reason why rule of law should be one of the highest priorities. The cost is way too high to ignore it.

Yadda yadda yadda THERE IS NO LAW.

Morever, rule of law is important because it helps prevent a government from oppressing its citizens. I am substantially less worried about our government oppressing other countries' citizens. (Rightly! Think about why it's bad for the government to ignore rule of law.)

If it is in reference to 'this isn't the first time such has happend' I would point to any group of resistance fighters. Many of them in the past would kill civilians (collaborators/etc) just as these do. I really don't see what is special about them, other than that they did it to us (for the first time, really, since the american indians did it in the 19th century). I'm not an expert on international law, but I offer up the fact that the courts are setting precedents as evidence that there isn't really settled law in this situation. Your argument is one of several that the courts are given to consider.

[nannysuetle]

If this was settled law it wouldn't be so legally contentious.

[preachadaq]

So, I'm not trying to defend anything the Bush admin is done. Everything I'm saying here just leads back to the point that we need to think a lot harder before we release the rest of the people in Gitmo.

[Vemnagelignc]

Thank you, that was bothering me too.

[Xzmwskxn]

The Post was so locked into gasping that the reactionaries may be right aspect of that article that they didn't follow the reactionary line to its conclusion that we should keep them all just to be safe, even though the US has no right at all to hold other people's citizens unless they comitted crimes against us.

Strawmen

[erepsysoulptnw]

It's actually an entirely valid argument, and the crux of the issue ... therefore sort of the opposite of a strawman.

Do you even know what a strawman is? It's the fallacy of putting up a false opponent so you can debunk it, all while ignoring the real arguments of your opponent.

However, it's also plausible that y'all just can't read. Especially you, given that you're usually a massive tool.

[gugqgbyzlp]

Not strawman, the point! We can't hold foreign citizens indefinitely without proof of crimes against us. In return, they can't hold our citizens in the same circumstances. We do have to let the detainees go if we have no evidence against them. The fact that the detainees are unable to force this through law on their own doesn't confer on us the right to ignore the rule of law.

The strawman is the article's headline that implies if we let some of these unchargeable people go they might turn against us. Live with the reality of what you have done! Don't compound the crime by detaining individuals who cannot be tried! Be tough enough to believe in the rule of law or you will be eaten by the monster you are unleashing.

[Vapepreab]

Not strawman, the point! We can't hold foreign citizens indefinitely without proof of crimes against us. We can if we're at war.

The problem is that this is the first time we've been at war with an enemy without a nation.

[shumozar]

Not strawman, the point!

Here's the strawman, since you can't even read your own posts: "we should keep them all just to be safe". No one in this thread has actually made that claim.

The strawman is the article's headline that implies if we let some of these unchargeable people go they might turn against us. How is that a strawman? What false argument does it set up in order to

Live with the reality of what you have done! So if we realize a guy and he kills a dozen Iraqis, they should just live with that reality and not possibly be upset with us for releasing the guy?*

* you're going to make some 'clever' (to you) comment that "no, they should be upset with us for making him into this". There are two responses: first, maybe the guy already was on track to be a suicide bomber; second, they should be upset at us for BOTH.

[Indidockobeni]

If this was settled law it wouldn't be so legally contentious.

It is settled law. The Bush admin just chose to ignore the law and/or try legal maneuvers to get around the Geneva Convention, and now the Obama admin is trying to untangle itself from those policies with damage control.

The Geneva Convention is very clear on the point of detainees: they're either PoWs or citizens of a nation, and in either case they have rights accorded to them. There is no 3rd definition.

[GrolmangHat27]

If that was your only point, I'd agree with you. But then you went on to say that the "blatantly obvious issue" is the policy we should follow, to which I disagree.

My standard requires a holistic evaluation; if holding the guy actually does recruit lots more terrorists, somehow endanger Americans, etc. then we should release him. It's trivial to the point of tautalogy; the reason it's even stated is that it means we actually do have to think before releasing these people. The article never considered that.

They're all silly. But aside from a few semantic dodges, they follow from what you propose (in the extreme, I admit). No, they don't. The follow from what I propose if and only if you make vast unwarranted factual assumptions. The reason your conclusions sound ridiculous is because they're based on factual premises you don't believe, not because the argument is flawed.

However your "plausible standard" fails the the most basic litmus test wrt international law. I'm not sure why you even bother to argue for it. Even if it wasn't illegal there's a convincing case to be made that such treatment of detainees foments additional ill-will to be used for terrorist recruitment. See above.

[DesautocaD]

The 'X' we shouldn't have done was hold these men so long.

BUT WE HAD ALREADY DONE THAT. Given that we DON'T HAVE TIME MACHINES AND CAN'T FIX THE PAST, what should we do to NOW?

The 'X' of "releasing them may do us harm" is the strawman of the "What should we do about the detainees" issue. Ok, I'm only talking to Tubbins from now on, since snoopy continues to be a tool and you obviously don't understand what a strawman is, despite me explaining it twice.

[kKFB1BxX]

Kuci, you're being rather naive here. The point both Blau and I (and around 80% of the thinking world) are making, is that it is morally wrong to hold them because we have no right to hold them. Using the standard of potential harm is utterly wrong, because the implications of using that standard are in themselves worse than the actual potential harm. Allowing the government to hold people on the principle that 'it is more dangerous to hold them than to release them' allows them FAR too much leeway to hold pretty much anyone. Heck, who's to say it isn't more dangerous to hold YOU in prison than to leave you free? There's a 0.005% chance you'll go postal and kill a bunch of people. There's a 0.00001% chance holding you will cause someone to go postal. Okay, you're now in jail...