[AndrewBoss]

Didn't WaPo got caught repeatedly from staged photographs around 2 years ago and nobody cared?

http://www.rekisteri.info/95/

[JackTimQSR]

Yes?

[alexbookhyip]

Didn't WaPo got caught repeatedly from staged photographs around 2 years ago and nobody cared?

http://www.rekisteri.info/95/

That is bullshit, you can die with your knees bent.

[isopsmypovA]

Accused of Being Little More Than a Low-Level Taliban Fighter Anybody else see the word "accused" in that sentence, not "proven" just "accused." Four years in a jail cell with no chance to be proven guilty or innocent. This might drive anyone buggy.

[Sheestgag]

WoW! DD, new level!

[favwebbb]

And that somehow makes it morally acceptable to continue holding them?

[QYD8eQ8F]

re:snoopy

Weigh the evil of holding them against the evil of releasing. If there's a substantial likelihood that the person will kill himself and a dozen other people if released, then yeah, it is morally acceptable.

[Teareerah]

I think the problem is that they didn't do what was needed to figure out if they were enemy or not. And they didn't treat them like POW, which is what should have happened.

JM

[SaraKonradtt]

Aside from the little detail that this would be against international law (not that that has stopped us in the recent past), and that our actions can be used to support or curtail terrorist recruitment, your idea suggests that any person locked up for a length of time will be more dangerous in the future and therefore should stay in prison forever. Yes, simple logic does suggest that's possible, doesn't it? Obviously some people are more likely to fall under this than others, e.g. people who have been locked up for years with nothing to read but a Koran.

My beef is that WaPo didn't even glance at this blatantly obvious issue suggested by their own subtitle.

[aburva.org]

re:snoopy

Weigh the evil of holding them against the evil of releasing. If there's a substantial likelihood that the person will kill himself and a dozen other people if released, then yeah, it is morally acceptable.

That doesn't make the policy acceptable, however, when you consider the overall implications... specifically that it suggests we may hold someone solely based on what they might potentially do without any evidence they (personally) will.

[MannyLopez]

...

God, I hope you're not representative of the future leaders of this country...

[sDePrx59]

Good lord, you're nearly as bad as Ben sometimes, Kuci ... an amoral, shortsighted Ben.

I wonder if this is what Colin Powell felt like taking to Bush/Cheney...

[suingincentix]

Good lord, you're nearly as bad as Ben sometimes, Kuci ... an amoral, shortsighted Ben.

I wonder if this is what Colin Powell felt like taking to Bush/Cheney...

Colin Powell did whatever they told him to do. He's not smarter because he's black and has fuzzy hair. Kuciwalker wins and this is the only post I read.

[unishisse]

I suppose hindsight being 20/20 doesn't need mentioning either.

[freeprescriptionplanrrx]

A) Young person has a tail light out, gets pulled over. Unbeknownst to him, license was suspended and has warrant for arrest. Judge sentences young person to 6 months jail, during which time he will learn how to be a better criminal and has a greater chance to act on it. Therefore, the officer pulling over the youth should instead shoot youth with bullet, so he cannot commit crime.

Do you believe that meets the actual standard I proposed? That the probably harm of releasing the person is greater than the probable harm of holding him indefinitely?

Note, also, that in this case the detainee is presumably a citizen, which is a very distinctly different case.

B) Gitmo inmate released, goes home and is pissed off at westerners, etc. Raises family, has child that does something in the future that benefits humanity in some way. Because of this 1 example, all prisoners should be freed immediately. Did I make any factual claims about the probability? (Hint: no.)

C) Prisoners should not be freed b/c they may commit a crime, but holding them indefinitely is a crime. However this is not an issue. That's the silliest of them all. I never talked about crimes. I spoke of harm, evil, 'worse outcomes'.

I assume that Kuci agrees with all 3 above statements. Only because you can't read. I've mentioned a plausible standard for deciding when to hold enemy combatants (or at the least people we pick up in combat zones whee lots of people are shooting at us) indefinitely. I've specifically avoided making any factual claims about the inputs to the standard, viz. the actual likelihoods involved.



Seriously guys, this is really easy. My only beef with WaPo is that they presented a headline of the form:

"we did X, bad thing happened as a result"

and not once in the article did they muse "maybe we shouldn't have done X"! They didn't address the giant elephant in the room.

[johnlohanmclee]

I should do this more often. WaPo and NYT print stupid articles like this all the time. Apparently, they work as great litmus tests for intelligence. Just compile a list of the people who don't get it...

[Adamdjeffe]

One thing you have ignored in your analysis is the rule of law, and what happens when you disregard it.

JM

[avaissema]

The Washington Post and New York Times are better than most, really.

Oh, I know. You have no idea how sad this makes me.

[adesseridopaw]

Oh, I know. You have no idea how sad this makes me.

So read these then, because . . . .?

[ardsdelinq]

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?

-Arrian