|
Is there really any need for all the side remarks about the quality of argument or whether people are listening or not? I think it's adding nothing but antagonism to a debate about something that is, in the eyes of many, an important issue. There have been a lot of valid and interesting points made from both sides and any failure to read sufficiently or misinterpretation or exaggeration has come from BOTH sides, not just one. I can't see that this debate is any different from any other internet discussion - most people who are invested enough to contribute have fairly entrenched views and are not prepared to concede any points. As such, in debating an issue for which there is plenty of grey rather than simple black or white both sides refuse to acknowledge nuances which may weaken their position. We all know this as we have all participated in such discussions before. So if you think points are being deliberately or carelessly ignored, then say them again or give up.
Regarding issue of whether the Guantanamo detainees deserve their fate because their actions were their own free will, that is of course true. There are two problems I can see with this argument though - one, it's debatable whether they can be said to have 'known the consequences' beforehand and therefore willingly chose to risk it, because the consequences as they are for 'enemy combatants' were essentially made up when they were captured with the new classification. Two, whether they chose to risk the consequences or not does not mean that the consequences are just. There is frequent outcry over what we consider to be unjust consequences for crimes in other countries, in particular punishments for women under Sharia law like stoning after adultery. It is entirely possible to agree that the detainees may be guilty of crimes and deserve consequences but not agree with what the consequences that are being meted out are. It does not mean that you think that all the detainees are upstanding citizens and should be immediately released and given medals if you think that what is being done to them is unjust or immoral.
I also agree that the fact that detainees have complained of torture (as many apart from just the three cited have, I think all the British detainees that have been released claimed to have been tortured) does not mean it has happened. But it doesn't mean it hasn't happened either. Considering the extent and prevalence of the allegations, they should be being investigated by neutral parties (i.e. not the military) and I don't think this has been allowed.
__________________
|