3 ms·

> And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? > Oh, right, the United States government told us. Ho

> And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? > Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient. Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. > But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise. "Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law. Not international martial law.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. So there are no political prisoners in China?
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  The United States is not China.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions. (Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  Every one of them is there for a "bad reason"? Not a genuine terrorist in the lot? Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    If there are, why is the government fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything pertaining to those cases from ending up in civil courts? Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. So there are no political prisoners in China?

Turing_Machine 4y ago
The United States is not China.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions. (Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)

Turing_Machine 4y ago
Every one of them is there for a "bad reason"? Not a genuine terrorist in the lot? Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
- int_19h 4y ago
  If there are, why is the government fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything pertaining to those cases from ending up in civil courts? Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.