to the rest of the world it may look bad but what do you seem them doing to help combat terrorism? the "diplomatic solution" has long since failed. at least america is trying something. you may not like it. but if other governments would learn to actually take some initiative instead of letting terrorist cells corrupt their governments and attempt to take out the "unholy infedil" the the united states would not have been in this position in the first place.
StarValleyWu, I don't think that anyone in this thread disagrees with the necessity of fighting terrorism and totalitarianism, and I do think that some of the critisism directed at your debating method is justified - you do seem to be saying that there's two ways of thinking about it, yours or what you present as the single utterly untenable and absurd alternative.
This is not so - one can agree fully with the premise of fighting terror and totalitarian regimes, but disagree on the methodology of how to best achieve actual positive results in making this world a safer place to live. I believe that the policies of the current US administration have set back the fight for human rights decades, given many totalitarian regimes new tools in opressing their opposition with a false air of legitimacy, and ultimately driven more people in the middle east to the welcoming arms of terrorist organisations.
To take the example of Guantanamo Bay, the prisoners there are denied the status of prisoners of war, and instead the US government refers to them as "illegal combatants". This in order to avoid having to afford them the basic human rights guaranteed by the Geneve convention. What this has amounted to is a prolonged detention of hundreds of people many of whom are inosent of any crime, without contact to their loved ones, with independent human rights organisations, or lawyers. These detainees still include at least some children, the youngest of whom is 13. (Latest news tells that the children, or some children, not sure which, are finally to be released.)
The detainees are looking at a military tribunal without independent defence, with many of the rules that ensure the impartiality of the courts relaxed or completely bypassed. Moreover these trials are openly discriminatory, as only non-US nationals held will be subjected to them.
Now this as an example of the kinds of measures taken by the Bush adminisitration after 9/11 that do far less good than harm to the effort of fighting terror - Bush has set a dangerous precendent in legitimazing a gross violation of human rights, and the US has thus lost much of its moral high ground. What is there to prevent other countries from imprisoning their citicens, or citicens of nations they consider hostile under the guise of "war on terror", and holding them indefinitely as "illegal combatants"? What indeed is there to prevent govenrments in future wars from declaring their prisoners of war "illegal combatants" using US example as a precedent, and thus avoiding the oblications of humane treatment?
World politics isn't dirt simple - it is complex and very, very difficult.
-Jarno
Originally posted by richhoeyQuote richhoey...
Right, please scan back over my previous posts and point out where I have written 'I support murderous governments'. I think you'll struggle. And since you asked, here is the hole in your logic - your entire post is arguing against a position I would never dream of holding.
We have been talking of simplicity - well my argument is very simple. If gover ...[text shortened]... ost dirt simple component for you: to the rest of the world, it just looks really, really bad.
"The tendency to detain people indefinitely without trial would crop up pretty high in most people's definition of a 'totalitarian' government. "
Unquote.
The POW's at GITMO were all captured in combat, actively supporting the Taliban and/or Al Quaida which in both cases are the classic definitions of "totalitarianism". You support these thugs. You keeping up with this simple "ungreek like" narative, Rich? Hang on. It's pretty simple.
By making a very simple link to the assumption that you, richhoey are "most people", you imply that the US is a totalitarian govenmment, for what you FALSELY ACCUSE it of "detaining people indefinitely without a s trial".
They are prisoners of war and are being held as such. So you lied there, didn't you? Deliberately. I think you even know that simple fact. Barring total lack of knowledge of the real world, that is. Further, I think you KNOW that it would be illegal for any trial of captured troops by the US government. That is what separates us from Korea and Viet Nam. They hold trials in total violation of the Geneva convention. We "Scrupulously" do not. You know this, yet lie. Why Rich?
You are correct. The US must be "absolutely scrupulous" in following the agreed to conventions. They are doing so. You imply, without supporting evidence that they are not. Another deliberate lie. Does it make you feel good to do that?
"Looking Bad"... hmmmm. I almost laugh at that if it wasn't so sad. "Looks" are very important to you Rich? They mean nothing to me. I have none at this point in life. 😠 Do you wear designer wire rims, Rich? That is probably very important to you. Do "Clothes Make The Man?", Rich. Why should anyone care what the world considers as "looking good"? War isn't supposed to look good, in case you missed the part about "THERE IS A WAR HAPPENING"!
PS... Your big finish is a logical error. "Something is correct because somebody/everybody says so." Good on you. I am waiting for your examples of my mistaken logic. Please detail it for me. I don't like to be illogical. Don't mind not "looking good" though.
Originally posted by Pyrrho"Two" I will repost my list.
StarValleyWu, I don't think that anyone in this thread disagrees with the necessity of fighting terrorism and totalitarianism, and I do think that some of the critisism directed at your debating method is justified - you do seem to be saying that there's two ways of thinking about it, yours or what you present as the single utterly untenable and absurd alte ...[text shortened]... atment?
World politics isn't dirt simple - it is complex and very, very difficult.
-Jarno
1 - You can be for absolute dictatorships that kill for fun.
2 - You can be against them and want to destroy them.
3 - You can be indifferent to the whole issue.
4 - You can make a simple decision (whether you can accept wholesale slaughter and murder by dictators) into a grand construction of silliness.
5 - You can equate a democratic nation, the US, to totalitarianism.
Yours fits very neatly into number 4.
As for making the world a safer place... I think someone in the US government is being absolutely genius on this. Take Iraq. Look at a map. Would you rather try to enter the US to wage war or pack up your buddies and drive to Iraq?
It is very much a stroke of genius. Set out a rat trap and watch the buggers straggle in looking for a fight. I will bet that there are thousands of drones, special forces and troops picking these idiots off every night at a steady rate. If so, good. That is why they can't win in the end. Their only goal is to establish murderous governments. That gives them something to "die for"... but nothing to "live for".
You never teach a bully, or a holy warrior a lesson by giving him your lunch money. You are getting cause and effect exactly reversed. These killers are killers because we are against their idea of returning to the 7th century. Human rights? In the same breath as the problem they want to impose. But seeing that you are a type 4 listed above, that is not surprising.
The status of "illeagal combatants" was because if we were to have "officially" recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government, then our invasion of their country would have been illegal. The only recourse under international law is self defense, but not against another "officially recognized" government. It's all lawyer talk. The bottom line is they were captured in combat. What does a logical person care what they are called? As long as it was legal. It was, according to the UN.
So you say that a 13 year old kid who is a killer, fighting to support other killers deserves to be... somehow magically , a "Child". Wow! Great logic there. Explain to his rifle that the bullets he fires are "child bullets" and don't really kill. Then explain it to me. I want to know how you do that.
Again, Think of Iraq as a giant "Rat Trap". Better to take them on in their back yard than ours. It's working too. Read the papers lately about the rats making their way into the "holy battle" in Iraq?
Genius. Sheer, complete genius.
Originally posted by usmc7257Again, that's an entirely different argument. Whatever you think about the US actions in Afganistan and Iraq, it should be possible to treat prisoners taken in combat according to the norms of international law. That's not happening at the moment in Cuba and it's the lack of transparent justice that I was referring to when I said it looks bad.
to the rest of the world it may look bad but what do you seem them doing to help combat terrorism? the "diplomatic solution" has long since failed. at least america is trying something. you may not like it. but if other governments would learn to actually take some initiative instead of letting terrorist cells corrupt their governments and attempt to take ...[text shortened]... "unholy infedil" the the united states would not have been in this position in the first place.
Rich.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHmm, you really do have an impressive amount of bile sloshing around in your system don't you? Makes it kind of tricky to undertake any sort of rational debate.
Quote richhoey...
"The tendency to detain people indefinitely without trial would crop up pretty high in most people's definition of a 'totalitarian' government. "
Unquote.
The POW's at GITMO were all captured in combat, actively supporting the Taliban and/or Al Quaida which in both cases are the classic definitions of "totalitarianism" ...[text shortened]... ail it for me. I don't like to be illogical. Don't mind not "looking good" though.
This is going to be my last post on the subject. I enjoy arguments - I even enjoy winding people up from time to time - but I am getting increasingly worried about your blood pressure.
But I can't leave without taking you up on the lying accusations. You are of course allowed to disagree with the points I'm about to make - that's how debating works - but simply shouting liar, liar makes you sound a fool.
Let's take your 'lies' in turn.
"The tendency to detain people indefinitely without trial would crop up pretty high in most people's definition of a 'totalitarian' government."
Here I was arguing that one the features of a totalitarian government is the tendency to lock people up for long periods without trial. Nowhere did I say "I love Osama Bin Laden and his big furry beard", yet you somehow conclude that I am a supporter of Al Queda.
Secondly, I did not accuse the US of being a totalitarian government; I implied that it was displaying one of the features of totalitarianism. There are plently of others which it does not display (such as the suppression of freedom of speech, for instance). To put it another way, locking people up is necessary but not sufficient for totalitarianism.
Thirdly, the prisoners are not being held as prisoners of war. They have been given 'unlawful combatant' status, whatever that means, and their cases have not been dealt with, even though the Afganistan conflict is over. This, presumably, is because the 'War on Terror' is ongoing, but some of us do not believe that to be justification for the prisoners' continuing incarceration without any form of trial or conviction. You are allowed to disagree with me on this - again, that's how debating works - but simply shouting 'liar' does you no favours.
Your next 'lie' seems to be the essentially the same as above. I don't belive the US has been entirely scrupulous and honest; you do. Note, I am NOT accusing you of lying, only of being wrong.
I laughed at your final tirade. You couldn't be more wrong on that one - I've never owned a designer anything in my life. It's been described as an anti-fashion statement but actually it's just because I hate clothes shopping. But when it comes to justice, I believe that openess, or in other words, 'how things look' is important.
So there, my final words on the subject. Feel free to rant.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyI have not even managed to do anything but yawn so far in this argument. Anger? Bile? Hardly. Not even enough to make me yawn. I do have heart burn, but that is from having too much wonderfully hot, homemade enchelada's for lunch.
Hmm, you really do have an impressive amount of bile sloshing around in your system don't you? Makes it kind of tricky to undertake any sort of rational debate.
This is going to be my last post on the subject. I enjoy arguments - I even enjoy winding people up from time to time - but I am getting increasingly worried about your blood pressure.
But I ...[text shortened]... look' is important.
So there, my final words on the subject. Feel free to rant.
Rich.
All any person can do is weigh up all the issues. Make a chart from all the known facts. Don't get lazy. Consider all issues all the way to a conclusion. If you throw your hands up and say "It's too complicated to know for certain.", then don't be offended when those of us who have taken time to study the issue AND HAVE ARRIVED AT A DECISION AS TO WHICH SIDE IS CORRECT come down on you for equating the victims to the perpetrators. (see your post above... doing exactly that.)
There is an answer. I used up two spiral notebooks and managed to identify 85 moral issues to do with the current war. Some of them are really tough to decide. But I did it. As best I am able. I was required to spend almost two years and I have read over 20 books on terror, politics of the middle east, colonial policy and most importantly on "The Brotherhood Of Islam" and wahabeism. Then MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHICH SIDE I AM GOING TO SUPPORT.
The important part is to at least identify the fact that we... the liberal civilizations of the west... are at war with a continuing assault on liberalism. This < Islamic Government Craze> is the latest of the totalitarian movements that have had to be faced since 1913. It is no less important to defeat this movement than it was to defeat Hitler. These crazies do have, and have used and are using the very same methods that Hitler... Kim IL Yung, Pol Pot, Mao Tse'tung, Crazy Joe Stalin and many others have used. If we are closing out the argument... (sorry, it doesn't meet the requirements for being a debate... ) then my summation is that "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." We (the civilized nations of Earth) have fallen for that trap over and over in the last 90 years. Here is hoping we don't stumble into it again for the sake of NOT being able to make a moral judgement about which side to support. Get on one side or the other. It really is that "dirt simple". If you think that there is a middle ground, then study war. Not pleasant to do, but necessary.
Mike
Originally posted by royalchickenBecause that is the easy and lazy way out. I know it is very chic... to "dance as a critic of all". But it leaves the problem unsolved. The "Problem" becomes a cancer, and then the cancer festers into a world war. The next one will be number 3 if we ignore totalitarianism and let it happen. If we think that WW3 can't or won't happen then we are whistling past the cemetary. And with nukes being in plentiful supply, the next one will be a real hum dinger. Exponentiation never had a better description.
Why take a side? Why not just criticise the shortfalls of each side?
I sometimes think that we as a race actually want that. Boredom and uncertainty driving us all to long for danger and death. For example... I noticed on the news this morning that "blood and guts" movies have far outsold the rest of the market combined this year. Weird.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell, are you suggesting that there are social views not requiring of criticism? A solid viewpoint is the tool of fools and fanatics (in my view 😛).
Because that is the easy and lazy way out. I know it is very chic... to "dance as a critic of all". But it leaves the problem unsolved. The "Problem" becomes a cancer, and then the cancer festers into a world war. The next one will be number 3 if we ignore totalitarianism and let it happen. If we think that WW3 can't or won't happen then we are w ...[text shortened]... "blood and guts" movies have far outsold the rest of the market combined this year. Weird.
~Fanatical Fool
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think taking a solid position tends to solve one problem at the cost of creating problems that are equally bad for someone else, or likely for the original solver. So the real 'decision' is not on 85 moral issues but a choice between serious social and political problems.
Because that is the easy and lazy way out. I know it is very chic... to "dance as a critic of all". But it leaves the problem unsolved. The "Problem" becomes a cancer, and then the cancer festers into a world war. The next one will be number 3 if we ignore totalitarianism and let it happen. If we think that WW3 can't or won't happen then we are w ...[text shortened]... "blood and guts" movies have far outsold the rest of the market combined this year. Weird.
Originally posted by royalchickenNot at all. But I am saying that there are priorities. Prevention of war is of higher priority than removing the "pledge" from the class room. The highest priority right now is to not allow the notion that this is somehow a 'fight against terror'. That is such a small part of it. The real issue, and the one that hardly anyone has yet to even notice is that there is a movement afoot in the world that wants to make all of us live under the Taliban. Or to be more exact... The "Kaliphate" that Attaturk disbanned in 1924. Bin Laden spoke to it long and hard on his first tape post 911. He specifically says "We must fight the infidel. To reestablish what has been taken from us these last eighty years." Most people just let it go in one ear and out the other. I got busy and tried to figure out what happened eighty years ago. The answer is the westernization of Turkey by Attaturk. And the disbanding of the Kaliph, which had ruled all of islamic GOVERNMENT since Mohammed. This entire war is a war to the death to bring back Islam as the one and only true government on earth. "There Is But One God". No compromise. We just have to face that. Hiding from it won't make it go away.
Well, are you suggesting that there are social views not requiring of criticism? A solid viewpoint is the tool of fools and fanatics (in my view 😛).
~Fanatical Fool
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAssigning people into strawman categories is a poor start to a debate - if I am wrong about something I argue, I'll be first to admit it if it is pointed out to me, and backed with rational argumentation and fact. In fact, I'll thank you for correcting me. But saying that my arguments must be "grand constructions of silliness" just on the basis that you disagree with them only underlines the lack of factual content you present to back up your views against these so called "constructions of silliness".
"Two" I will repost my list.
1 - You can be for absolute dictatorships that kill for fun.
2 - You can be against them and want to destroy them.
3 - You can be indifferent to the whole issue.
4 - You can make a simple decisio ...[text shortened]... S, to totalitarianism.
Yours fits very neatly into number 4.
Just for the record, I supported the war in Afganistan and thought it legitimate and necessary action. The Taleban chose to protect Bin Laden, thus allying themselves with an organization that had declared open war on the United States. Military action was the only sensible recourse in that case. (Sorry if that view doesn't fit into the silly-constructs category.)
My gripe is with the striking ease with which the current United States administration is ready to dispose of human rights and international law when it suits their purpose.
You propose that the reason for not giving the prisoner of war status to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is that it would result in problems with the legitimacy of the war - I don't believe that for an instant.
If that were the case, then why are the detainees not treated in accordance to the Geneve Convention? If the purpose was not to avoid having to treat them according to those rules, why are those rules beeing blatantly violated?
As to the children held in Guantanamo Bay, children are unfortunately often coerced by totalitarian regimes and groups into arms. The result can be psychologically devastating; the children forced into military action are as much a victims of these terrorist groups as those who die in their cowardly attacks. This is recognized by the UN, and I should think every rational observer who looks into the matter. Indeed, The United States has ratified an international treaty on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which obliges the ratifying countries to aid these children in their psychological and physical recovery, and and social rehabilitation.
Moreover, the treaties on childrens rights have strict rules when it comes to interogation and detention of children, one of which is that at all stages, the child must have access to legal assistance and a parent or a guardian.
In violation of these treaties, and common decency, the children in Guantanamo Bay have been held without access to their parents, or to independent legal council.
The conditions in which all prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are held are inhumane - they spend their time in small cells round the clock, beeing allowed to exercise in shackles for 15 minutes twice a week.
As to how the prisoners ended up there, contrary to what you say, not all were captured in combat in afganistan - there are also individuals imprisoned by the Pakistani forces in non-combat situations, and handed over to the United States, often based on very flimsy evidence. (I am also surpriced that the US would trust the authorities of a totalitarian regime to provide suspects - what better way for a totalitarian government to get rid of unwanteds; hand them over to the United States, and concoct a suspicion of links to terrorism.)
I also understand that individuals imprisoned elsewhere have been sent to Guantanamo Bay, but I've not been able to find a detailed information on the composition of the detainee population, including the circumstances of their arrests.
The numerous violations of human rights in the detention of these "illegal combatants" is "achieving" a number of things:
1) Severely tarnishing the image of the USA as a country that promotes freedom and the rule of law.
2) Undermines the credibility of international treaties on human rights. If the US can disregard them at will, why should anyone else abide by them?
3) Causes (legitimate) grievances and anger in the localles from which these detainees have been extracted, leaving their loved ones at limbo, and without any contact for extended periods of time. Terrorist groups feed on this anger, fuel it, and gain support.
4) Sets a dangerous precedent - using the term "illegal combatants", which is not a term recogniced by international laws or treties, to circumvent basic human rights.
5) Gives practically a free hand for, for example, Russia in Tchetchenia and China in Tibet to do what they will, as the US hardly has the moral high ground to critizise with the practice of illegal detentions it adhers to.
-Jarno
To clarify my responses, my reply is in UPPER CASE.
Assigning people into strawman categories is a poor start to a debate - if I am wrong about something I argue, I'll be first to admit it if it is pointed out to me, and backed with rational argumentation backed up by fact. In fact, I'll thank you for correcting me. But saying that my arguments must be "grand constructions of silliness" just on the basis that you disagree with them only underlines the lack of factual content you present to back up your views against these so called "constructions of silliness". I WOULD CORRECT YOU TO THIS POINT IF I SAW ANYTHING WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC. OK SO FAR. FACT IS, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE STATED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY. ONLY LEVELED COMPLAINTS AND OR CRITISISMS.
Just for the record, I supported the war in Afganistan and thought it legitimate and necessary action. The Taleban chose to protect Bin Laden, thus allying themselves with an organization that had declared open war on the United States. Military action was the only sensible recourse in that case. (Sorry if that view doesn't fit into the [WORD TOO LONG] category.) WE AGREE.
My gripe is with the striking ease with which the current United States administration is ready to dispose of human rights and international law when it suits their purpose. YOU ACCUSED ME OF NOT STATING ANY FACTS THEN DO SO YOURSELF. WHAT HAS THE US DONE TO DISPOSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS? YOU THEN PROCLAIM TO KNOW PURPOSES, THEN FAIL TO MENTION WHAT THEY ARE.
You propose that the reason for not giving the prisoner of war status to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is that it would result in problems with the legitimacy of the war - I don't believe that for an instant. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT YOU ARE WRONG. LOOK IT UP.
If that were the case, then why are the detainees not treated in accordance to the Geneve Convention? THEY ARE. STRICTLY. RED CROSS VISITS ONCE A WEEK. MEDICAL AND RELIGION PROVIDED. TWO MEALS A DAY. AS PER THE LAW. If the purpose was not to avoid having to treat them according to those rules, why are those rules beeing blatantly violated? THEY ARE NOT. AGAIN YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A BARE GRASP ON THE FACTS HERE. LOOK IT UP.
As to the children held in Guantanamo Bay, children are unfortunately often coerced by totalitarian regimes and groups into arms. The result can psychologically devastating; the children forced into military action are as much a victims of these terrorist groups as those who die in their cowardly attacks. This is recognized by the UN, and I should think every rational observer who looks into the matter. Indeed, The United States has ratified an international treaty on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which obliges the ratifying countries to aid these children in their psychological and physical recovery, and and social rehabilitation. IT ALL DEPENDS IF I CATCH A CHILD WITH AN AK47 WHO HAS BEEN DOING HIS DAMNEST TO KILL ME. THEN HE LOSES CERTAIN CHILDISH STANDINGS. BY THE WAY. THERE ARE NO PRISONERS AT GITMO UNDER THE AGE OF 17. LOOK IT UP, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. THE LISTS OF ALL THEIR NAMES AND AGES ARE ON THE WEB.
Moreover, the treaties on childrens rights have strict rules when it comes to interogation and detention of children, one of which is that at all stages, the child must have access to legal assistance and a parent or a guardian. I AM TO REPLY TO YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. TO REPEAT... THERE ARE NO CHILDREN AT GITMO. LOOK IT UP.
In violation of these treaties, and common decency, the children in Guantanamo Bay have been held without access to their parents, or to independent legal council. SEE ABOVE.
The conditions in which all prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are held are inhumane - they spend their time in small cells round the clock, beeing allowed to exercise in shackles for 15 minutes twice a week. THEY FAR EXCEED THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY LAW. LOOK IT UP. IT'S ON THE WEB.
As to how the prisoners ended up there, contrary to what you say, not all were captured in combat in afganistan - there are also individuals imprisoned by the Pakistani forces in non-combat situations, and handed over to the United States, often based on very flimsy evidence. (I am also surpriced that the US would trust the authorities of a totalitarian regime to provide suspects - what better way for a totalitarian government to get rid of unwanteds; hand them over to the United States, and concoct a suspicion of links to terrorism.) ONE DEALS WITH ONE SNAKE AT A TIME. THEIR TURN IS COMING.
I also understand that individuals imprisoned elsewhere have been sent to Guantanamo Bay, but I've not been able to find a detailed information on the composition of the detainee population, including the circumstances of their arrests. THAT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BUG IN YOUR BUTT TO BE AGAINST THE US NO MATTER WHAT. THERE ARE ALL TOLD PEOPLE FROM 14 NATIONS BEING HELD. ALL ARE AL'QUAIDA AND/OR TALIBAN. WITH A COUPLE OF LOOSE GUNS FROM YEMEN WHO ONLY WANTED TO GET IN ON THE KILLING AND DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY DID WRONG. LOOK IT UP.
The numerous violations of human rights in the detention of these "illegal combatants" is "achieving" a number of things:
1) Severely tarnishing the image of the USA as a country that promotes freedom and the rule of law. LIKE WE CARE WHAT THE WORLD THINKS? GET REAL.SEE MY POST TO RICHHOEY ABOUT HIS DESIGNER PANTS ON THAT ONE.
2) Undermines the credibility of international treaties on human rights. If the US can disregard them at will, why should anyone else abide by them? WHICH UNDERMINES HUMAN RIGHTS MORE? HOLDING TERRORISTS IN HUMANE CAMPS OR FREEING THEM TO KILL AGAIN? AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. GET THE PICTURE HERE?
3) Causes (legitimate) grievances and anger in the localles from which these detainees have been extracted, leaving their loved ones at limbo, and without any contact for extended periods of time. Terrorist groups feed on this anger, fuel it, and gain support. THOSE ARE SMALL IN NUMBER COMPARED TO THE WOMEN WHO ARE REJOICING EACH DAY THEY TAKE THEIR DAUGHTER TO SCHOOL NOW.
AS TO WHAT FEEDS TERRORISTS, IT IS THEIR DESIRE TO KILL US ALL AND ESTABLISH GODS GOVERNMENT ON EARTH. ALL THIS OTHER IS JUST SMOKE.
4) Sets a dangerous precedent - using the term "illegal combatants", which is not a term recogniced by international laws or treties, to circumvent basic human rights. MORE DANGEROUS THAN TURNING THEM LOOSE TO KILL SOME MORE?
5) Gives practically a free hand for, for example, Russia in Tchetchenia and China in Tibet to do what they will, as the US hardly has the moral high ground to critizise with the practice of illegal detentions it adhers to. MORAL HIGH GROUND IS GOOD I GUESS. BEING SMART ENOUGH TO KILL YOUR ENEMIES TRUMPS THAT. THAT IS WHY WAR IS HELL.