Quote:
|
It is a POW camp for terrorists
|
Is it?
I shall ignore for now your mixing of issues there and go straight to.....
So your arguement for this facility that was created is that it is exactly the same as all the other detention facilities
Quote:
|
I've entirely justified it.
|
No, you have not even touched on the topic.
Quote:
|
You have to put such POWs someplace
|
Ah, thats better. Which POWs is that?
Quote:
|
We could move it, and give it a new name, would that make you feel better?
|
Errrrrr....then it wouldn't be that particular facility would it and your government would have to come up with all the justifications for the new facility which have already been shown to be false for the existing one.
Quote:
|
Regardless, we capture anyone we think is associated with AQ or her allies, and we should hold them until hostilities cease. Period.
|
And what has that to do with the price of cheese?
Quote:
|
What, exactly is your problem with a facility for holding soldiers who work for a transnational military that explicitly violates all rules of warfare
|
I have no problem at all with facilities that do that, but we are talking about the facility in Cuba.
Quote:
|
Regardless, if gitmo is wrong, then all drone attacks, and other extra-legal killing is similarly wrong.
|
Not in the slightest, every issue is a different issue and each has its own set of facts to weigh. Only a simpleton would claim that all drone attacks are justified/unjustified.
Quote:
There is no defensible position to attack gitmo, and not the killing of bin laden. If you are glad we got bin laden, you have to "eat" gitmo.
|
Yet you are completely unable to defend Gitmo. your only defences to date have been to specificly portray it as something that it isn't.
Either you don't know what you are defending or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
@Ducimus
Quote:
|
You know, the precept behind the existence of this thread, or simillar discussions, absolutely kills me, and defies belief.
|
Don't you find it interesting?
There really are so many diffent views and angles to consider.
August threw in one which has issues over jurisdiction and criminals exploiting those issues(though I think he was only on about the police shooting the criminals) Randomizer threw in one about criminal justice and extraterritorialism. Darkfish touched on the rule of law. Jaguar did a kidnap and complications of allegations of a show trial. Growler missed the point.
Kraskart made a simple fundamental error as the thing he doesn't care about is what affects the thing he cares about. Molon points out the problems of definition. Tater mixes every definition going. And Steelhead hits on a similary relevant period which ended up going very wrong and having such long running fallout that even Spielberg couldn't rewrite the history.