The Washington Post hurts my brain

[Kuciwalker]

So sn00py, Blau: do you think it's right to completely ignore the possibility that maybe we shouldn't be releasing some of these guys? You think the answer to that question is so blindingly obvious and irrefutable that we shouldn't even bring it up? Because that's what the article did, and that's why I posted this thread. The story was "we did X and a bad thing happened as a result", and the article blithely ignored what should be everyone's first thought: "maybe we shouldn't have done X".

[Blaupanzer]

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.

[Theben]

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

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.

That's the silliest of them all.

They're all silly. But aside from a few semantic dodges, they follow from what you propose (in the extreme, I admit).

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[snoopy369]

... and my point is that was NOT a strawman, it was the logical argument - do we hold everyone indefinitely because they might be dangerous, or do we let them free because we have no evidence of a crime under which to hold them?

It honestly shocks me that an intelligent, thinking human being could NOT be bothered by the moral implications of this. Do you really prefer to live in a 1984 style world? If the Government has the right to hold you in jail because you might be dangerous because it held you in jail, when does it become, The Government has the right to hold you in jail because you might have a predisposition to violent acts, because of your genetics? Or because of your race? Or your nationality? What's the difference, honestly, except (perhaps) in scale, between this (continuing to hold people in Guantanamo) versus locking up all of the Arabs because they might be suicide bombers? Or are you one of those who supports the Japanese internment in the 1940s as well...

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Lorizael]

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.

And that's why the Constitution and the founders had some pretty strict ideas about how and when we can go to war, which we neatly circumvented with the War Powers Act.

[Theben]

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.

[Blaupanzer]

The 'X' we shouldn't have done was hold these men so long. The 'X' of "releasing them may do us harm" is the strawman of the "What should we do about the detainees" issue. Do you really believe that the government can hold any foreign citizen arrested in his own country indefinitely based on a "reasonable assessment" of how dangerous he is independent of his guilt or innocence of any crime and even idependent of whether or not he can even be tried? Hence "rule of law" is the general subject, mitigating factors (e.g. dangerousness) only count in that venue if charges are pending or guilt is established, and the distinction between citizens and people we abducted should be very small indeed.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[snoopy369]

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.

And that, sir, is the real strawman... and a very effective one at that, given how far Bush managed to push that political currency even when the rest of his was gone.

We're not at war with ****. We had a few people, not representing a state, do something really bad. That's called "Terrorism". War means "a combat between states".

We are fighting terrorism, which is something that should be done WITHIN THE LAW. Even proper WAR has laws - you only consider people 'POW' if they have the enemy uniform on; otherwise they are either noncombatants and left alone, or if they do something combat-like then you arrest them as any other criminal... but you don't automatically lock people up for appearing vaguely suspicious, and you don't hold them indefinitely without any sort of trial. That's what the terrorists and Chavez/Putin/dictators do, not the law-abiding good guys... and we're still the good guys, right?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

And that, sir, is the real strawman... and a very effective one at that, given how far Bush managed to push that political currency even when the rest of his was gone.

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.

[snoopy369]

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...

[Kuciwalker]

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.

I'm waiting, snoopy.