I acknowledged the futility of the argument given the subjective nature of the language, including that which I introduced, when I said:

It was stupid of me to bring it up – we could go back and forth indefinitely about what constitutes a “sympathetic picture”, as that’s simply not an objective term. Ultimately we’re exchanging nothing more than presumptions about the people at Guantanamo Bay, as neither of us is privy to the evidence against the detainees there.

I fault myself as much for bringing it up as you for indulging every possible minutia of what amounts to a “No, you!” argument.

So I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that I am “quibbling over semantics”. For continuing a pointless discussion, though, I would have to admit guilt. And having done so, I think it would only be appropriate to stop.

Re: Soldiers should of course try to avoid mistakes, and they do try already anyway. But they’re human, some mistakes are inevitable.”

Unlike the courts?

Re: “…torture’s morally justifiable…”
Suppose instead of letting them have Chomsky’s books, they played Chomsky’s lectures over the PA system so the detainees could listen all day long. Would you consider that torture?

You cited a newspaper article calling “most” of the detainees at Guantanamo “harmless”. You said “some” were “sympathetic pictures of innocence”. Quibble ad nauseam, as you always do, about the semantics, but there’s still no practical difference. When you cite fabricated, imprecise, non-numerical “figures” in support of an argument about whether or not a person fits the definition of a subjective term you’re engaging in a pointless conversation. Like I said, I fault myself as much for bringing it up as you for indulging every possible minutia of what amounts to a “No, you!” argument.

And since we’re nitpicking, I didn’t realize Dilawar was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, awaiting trial in a military tribunal or US Federal Court. That was, after all, the topic under discussion. I think the bigger problem with the discussions you have on this site is that you can’t ever seem to keep track of which positions you’re defending, change your mind about the nature of your argument(s) mid-conversation, and then blame others when they can’t or won’t travel down endless labyrinths of ever-changing topics and arguments with you.

I’ve said all this before (and can offer links if you’d like), but it’s pretty straightforward. In combat, no change – you stay alive and get the mission done. Soldiers should of course try to avoid mistakes, and they do try already anyway. But they’re human, some mistakes are inevitable.

For terrorists and combatants caught by U.S. troops, in combat, violating protocols of war (no uniform, etc.) – no change (aside from no torture, see below). They are “the common enemy of mankind”, like pirates.

For people turned over to U.S. troops by others – especially the ones turned over for reward money – at minimum, a competent tribunal to determine if they are, in fact, terrorists/unlawful combatants. Until that determination has been made, full protection under the Geneva Convention, as demanded by Article 5. (That happens to be the majority of the people in detention, btw.) The defendant should have some ability to confront evidence and witnesses whenever remotely practical. The assumption up until now seems to have been, “if you’re in custody, you must be guilty”, and that’s… problematic.

For someone determined to be a terrorist by a competent tribunal – torture’s morally justifiable, but manifestly counterproductive. There are equally effective ways of intelligence-gathering that don’t have the horrible political costs and fallout of torture. Rendition to outsource the torture’s also out, for the same reasons. Indefinite detention’s fine, execution’s fine.

Things started turning around in Northern Ireland when the British government began cutting out the thug tactics and attempted to follow a rule-of-law approach to the IRA. 9/11 pretty much killed the IRA but they were already weakening because they’d lost any claim to moral equivalency with the British government. We are not equivalent to Al Qaeda, never have been – but things like Abu Ghraib and the treatment of KSM have hurt the perception of the U.S. badly in much of the Arab world. We need to be clearly, unquestionably better morally than those we oppose – because the battle is primarily ideological and not military.

Go read comment #8 again. There is, in fact, a difference between “most” and “some”; you may want to refresh yourself on that. Sadly, though, I’ve gotten used to people here arguing with me based on what they wish or hallucinate I’d written, rather than what I actually write.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether Dilawar and the passengers in his taxi paint a sympathetic picture or not… but I find I don’t really give a rip for someone who can’t muster up sympathy for that.

I understand what the quotation said. There were military tribunals in progress when Obama took office, they were recessed (not stopped) in January, and re-authorized in May. Those tribunals (technically) remain in progress, and the justice department is now ready to let others go forward as well. This seems like what you’ve been screaming for since 2003, so I don’t understand why it’s still such a big issue for you.

What part of my ‘assertion’ do you disagree with? That innocent people have demonstrably been put in Guantanamo? That that taxi driver was beaten to death? That the majority of detainees at Guantanamo were not captured by U.S. troops and were instead turned over by other governments and individuals for reward money?

And note that what you quoted says that “Justice Department lawyers are now nearing a decision over who will be tried…”, and not that “trials are ongoing”. Obama made noises back in May about re-authorizing the tribunals, but they haven’t actually been put into action.