The Washington Post hurts my brain

[Ramo]

Dino:

When in history have enemy soldiers had the ability to prove thier innocence of the crime of being the enemy?

For a salient example, Gulf War I. Over a thousand adjudications occurred through Article 5 Tribunals, and something like 75% were deemed civilians and were freed.

And to clarify things, prisoner of war status isn't criminal.

It's pretty remarkable that this legal black hole business has become integral to the modern conservative ideology, even though it decidedly wasn't the norm the last time a Republican President went to war. Hopefully, the pendulum swings back after Obama's inevitable jackass civil liberties violations.

[Lorizael]

Kuci, humans don't debate specific points. They look at the argument another person is making, compare it with their opinion on whatever subject most closely resembles whatever they think you're talking about, and then express that opinion.

Also, I've been reading over the OT archives recently because we can search them now, and you once made a plea for decency and restraint in Poly arguments that is rather amusing considering your current Asher/KH-like persona.

[Blaupanzer]

Since we've descended to that level, you are being a stubborn jackass. Everyone on this thread has access to multiple online dictionaries, so all of should know the definition of "strawman."

It is an either false or semantical argument set up to knock down a valid point, option, or direction of discourse. You've been saying we should think before releasing potentially dangerous men. I hear your argument. But if we are to live by rule of law that says "no charges, no detention," then we don't have a logical choice, only a legal one. If we abrogate that, then no one is safe if the government falls into zealous hands. I find it difficult to believe that you would "trade freedom for a little safety" quite so easily.

[snoopy369]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD STRAWMAN.

I'm not responding to anything else you say until it's clear you're not a gibbering moron.

You're jumping into the same pile as Asher here, you know ... the 'cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with me, because clearly if they disagree with me they are idiots' pool. That's not a good place to go ... particularly if you don't have the personal skills Asher has to offset it, which you don't.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, humans don't debate specific points. They look at the argument another person is making, compare it with their opinion on whatever subject most closely resembles whatever they think you're talking about, and then express that opinion.

Snoopy et. al.'s problem is that by doing so, they completely miss the point and further reinforce their groupthink. Whether or not snoopy's ideas are right, he holds them because of the warm fuzzies they give him. The OP made the slightest of cracks in that world, and he recoiled in horror at the idea of even questioning his creed.

Also, I've been reading over the OT archives recently because we can search them now, and there's a plea for decency and restraint in arguments on Poly you made that is rather amusing considering your current Asher/KH-like persona.

I remember that. It amuses me too, because I was clearly wrong

[Kuciwalker]

You're jumping into the same pile as Asher here, you know ... the 'cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with me, because clearly if they disagree with me they are idiots' pool. That's not a good place to go ... particularly if you don't have the personal skills Asher has to offset it, which you don't.

1) I'm smarter than Asher. I didn't argue with BK for two dozen threads before giving up; I've had BK on ignore for months.

2) I can argue with people who disagree with me just fine; in fact, I enjoy it. See tubbins. I just hate arguing with people who can't read and continue to misuse a term after I've defined it twice.

3) I don't think you're an idiot because you disagree with me; I think you're an idiot because you toolishly cling to a bunch of nice ideas and refuse to question them. Alternately, Ramo isn't an idiot, because despite the fact that he can be pretty toolish, he actually does plenty of critical thinking. And Ramo probably disagrees with me more often than you do.

[Theben]

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.

Which brings us back to hindsight. We won't know which is worse until after the time has passed and we've made a decision. Unfortunately, since we've collectively decided to be a democratic nation that follows the rule of law, we'll have to err on the side of law.

It's not like the U.S. hasn't had time to try these guys in the court of law, military tribunal, or whatever. If these guys really are a threat, we should have been able to lock them up in prison long ago.

And in your holistic eval, include the whole picture. Not just being a poster child for recruitment, but other issues such as diplomatic damage, whether or not other nation will apply the GC to our troops if captured, war crimes, etc.

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.

I think we're long past the articles poor writing. This is discussing how we feel the current situation should be addressed.

[Kuciwalker]

Since we've descended to that level, you are being a stubborn jackass. Everyone on this thread has access to multiple online dictionaries, so all of should know the definition of "strawman."

Yes, which is why I'm very sad that neither you nor snoopy actually does.

It is an either false or semantical argument set up to knock down a valid point, option, or direction of discourse.

No. The relevant definition from dictionary.com:

"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"

i.e. you misrepresent my argument as something else so that you can refute it, because you can't refute the argument I actually made.

i.e. when I call strawman, it means you are trying to refute an argument I've never made.

You've been saying we should think before releasing potentially dangerous men. I hear your argument. But if we are to live by rule of law that says "no charges, no detention," then we don't have a logical choice, only a legal one. If we abrogate that, then no one is safe if the government falls into zealous hands. I find it difficult to believe that you would "trade freedom for a little safety" quite so easily.

You remember dozens of posts back when I mentioned that this all operates differently in the case of citizens? The slippery slope argument doesn't work whenever it's possible to draw a firm line, as it is here.

[Kuciwalker]

Which brings us back to hindsight. We won't know which is worse until after the time has passed and we've made a decision. Unfortunately, since we've collectively decided to be a democratic nation that follows the rule of law, we'll have to err on the side of law.

I've repeatedly made the point with JM that we're currently making the law. We don't really have precedents for any of this; we're setting them now. We should be careful to set good ones, ones that maximize our ability to prevent terrorism while minimizing the collateral damage. It's pretty clear that the Bush administration erred far in one direction; it's not really better for Obama to err in the other.

It's not like the U.S. hasn't had time to try these guys in the court of law, military tribunal, or whatever. If these guys really are a threat, we should have been able to lock them up in prison long ago.

It's highly plausible that we do have plenty of evidence to show that someone is a threat, without having enough [admissible] evidence to convict him in a court of law.

And in your holistic eval, include the whole picture. Not just being a poster child for recruitment, but other issues such as diplomatic damage, whether or not other nation will apply the GC to our troops if captured, war crimes, etc.

Yes, I agree.

(I'd like to note that our troops would probably be mistreated (by AQ et. al.) regardless of how we treat our POWs.)

I think we're long past the articles poor writing. This is discussing how we feel the current situation should be addressed.

The article's writing is fine. It's the article's content that shows exactly the same symptoms as snoopy.

[Theben]

I guess I have to ask Kuci: are you arguing from a vantagepoint that would not include current law as a basis, or one where results supercede rule of law?

[snoopy369]

1) I'm smarter than Asher. I didn't argue with BK for two dozen threads before giving up; I've had BK on ignore for months.

2) I can argue with people who disagree with me just fine; in fact, I enjoy it. See tubbins. I just hate arguing with people who can't read and continue to misuse a term after I've defined it twice.

3) I don't think you're an idiot because you disagree with me; I think you're an idiot because you toolishly cling to a bunch of nice ideas and refuse to question them. Alternately, Ramo isn't an idiot, because despite the fact that he can be pretty toolish, he actually does plenty of critical thinking. And Ramo probably disagrees with me more often than you do.

Kuci, you disagree with me as to whether it is appropriate to consider morality in governmental actions versus solely results-based thinking. That's a reasonable disagreement. I think you're being dangerously short-sighted and amoral, and not thinking nearly critically enough; but that doesn't mean I can't have a reasonable discussion with you about it. It certainly doesn't mean you're a gibbering moron simply because you don't see the world the way I do... which at the end of the day is what you're saying.

[Kuciwalker]

I guess I have to ask Kuci: are you arguing from a vantagepoint that would not include current law as a basis, or one where results supercede rule of law?

I assume this is an xpost. I'm arguing that much of the law relating to the current situation is still fluid; its exact meaning hasn't been clarified. The ongoing court cases and the actions of the Obama admin will do a lot to decide exactly what the law means.

[snoopy369]

No. The relevant definition from dictionary.com:

"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"

i.e. you misrepresent my argument as something else so that you can refute it, because you can't refute the argument I actually made.

i.e. when I call strawman, it means you are trying to refute an argument I've never made.

The point you are (repeatedly) missing, is that Blau argues that scenario is precisely what you are arguing, and is not a strawman; it is the logical consequence of your argument. If you want to define it as a strawman, you need to clarify exactly how his argument is NOT the logical consequence of your argument. Simply saying "strawman" does not make an argument so, as easy as that would make arguing...

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, you disagree with me as to whether it is appropriate to consider morality in governmental actions versus solely results-based thinking.

No. I claim that they're the same thing, because all sensible morality is consequentialist. Unless you're going to get all religious on me, your moral rules will be justified by "we should do X because it has positive consequences Y", rather than "we should do X because God said so".

It certainly doesn't mean you're a gibbering moron simply because you don't see the world the way I do... which at the end of the day is what you're saying.

No, I called you a gibbering moron because you continued to misuse a term after I'd defined it twice (three times, now).

[Theben]

I've repeatedly made the point with JM that we're currently making the law.

I've noted you mentioning that before but I either missed or you failed to cite actual litigation that backs up your statement, that the legal definition of jailed terrorists is in question. As I said, the GC is very clear on the rule of law wrt detainees.

It's highly plausible that we do have plenty of evidence to show that someone is a threat, without having enough [admissible] evidence to convict him in a court of law.

(I'd like to note that our troops would probably be mistreated (by AQ et. al.) regardless of how we treat our POWs.)

I agree in both cases. But in the former, how do you uphold the law while keeping them detained sans a conviction?