Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Indefinitely? No? That's what I thought.
|
Not indefinitely, until hostilities are over. In the case of AQ, I'd say that we should require unconditional surrender from them.
Quote:
|
"We're going to take away your rights but you're still alive" is a terrible argument.
|
No, it's a good argument. The alternative to grabbing up possible threats is to deal with them as
targets. If every person grabbed up in Afghanistan had instead been killed by the least dangerous (for Allied forces) way, MANY more people would be dead, including many more innocents.
Loss of freedom for a few is a grossly lower "cost" than loss of life for even the same few, and certainly for the larger number it would be (bombs are not terribly discriminating).
Realistically, that is the choice. Many compounds have been bombed over the years, we hear about those far, far less than "Gitmo." if people are gonna keep whining about holding people, we should cease taking prisoners from combatants out of uniform. Think that is a house of bad guys? Bomb it. Thousands of Allied lives have been lost walking patrols, and entering houses to mitigate the danger to innocents. It would be interesting to look at how many Americans have died doing such duty compared to the number held in Gitmo as the result of such duty. Those guys lost everything to deny a few liberty so that innocents might live.