I think people are getting personal here and the substance might be getting obscured. I will express my concerns differently: although you are probably right, t

I think people are getting personal here and the substance might be getting obscured. I will express my concerns differently: although you are probably right, technically and specifically, about relocating a prisoner to Guantanamo, I think the details are obscuring the gist. The US government acts with impunity, and really always has, against declared threats. Of course there is always a "reason" and a legal mechanism, and people who are concerned often articulate the details of the mechanism incorrectly, this doesn't change the substance of the concern. Look at Waco, the MOVE bombing, consider that US officials have been unwilling to go on record against the legality of drone strike assassinations against US citizens on US soil, I don't think much hampers the executive branch from acting. Regardless of the label or legal doctrine they use to explain it. Afterwards, there is always a narrative in the media that describes the people on the receiving end of these acts as crazy, weird, threatening, etc. This makes it appear only natural that the government acted with overwhelming force against its citizens ... but that just means we've fallen for the "rights are only for people like me" fallacy which underscores every system of oppression and exploitation.