If I start calling Global Warming scientists ‘Pundits’ instead of ‘Experts’, will you start trusting their analysis?

Given that i view experts as a highly refined pundit its quite possible my view on things would change provided that the pundit/expert was one I trusted.

Suppose I said the following: the Geneva conventions proscribe that captives fall into one of two categories: ‘noncombatants’, who are entitled to one set of protections, and ‘combatants’, who are entitled to a different set of protections. The whole idea of an ‘unlawful combatant’ is not contained in the text of the Geneva conventions and is at best an ineffective attempt at finding a loophole. Arguing that no country will take them and they are therefore not combatants merely places them, by default, in the category of ‘noncombatants’ (yes, this is a tautology, but denying it seems to be the legal basis of the defense of current prisoner treatment), and the protections afforded noncombatant captives under the Geneva conventions are even stricter than the protections afforded combatant captives.

Would you then go read them to find the passage that demonstrates I am wrong? If so I am all in favor of it, because I find it much more satisfying to argue with individuals who are actually informed enough construct their own refutations rather than just regurgitating tired sound bites they heard from pundits.

Given that you failed to cite the passage that Geneva extends rights to individuals not part of any army I’m going to assume that my pundits were correct. Good thing I trusted them and I didn’t even have to waste time looking it up.

From now on I don’t even need pundits for this issue. I know that the Geneva Conventions does not extend to terrorists thanks to your failure in proving me otherwise.

I’m curious Steve, have you personally read all of the Geneva conventions in their entirety or are you relying on experts to interpret them for you?

You make the point that the higher your standards of evidence are, the more likely you are to let a true enemy combatant go. Obviously this is true, but what’s your solution? Hold anyone at all in secret forever on hearsay evidence from anonymous sources?

I’m going to take the hard argument and say yes. Clearly you can’t treat citizens this way. I would obviously argue against treating non-citizens with a country that will claim responsibility for them in this way. But what we have here is a group of non-citizens with no nation to claim them. Additionally, they have been caught with a groups that has successfully killed US citizens. Why not detain them indefinitely provided you treat them well? Or at least you could detain them until you are certain they will cause the US any more harm.

I would favor a military tribunal with congressional oversight. However the burden of proof would certainly be placed on the detainee and I would set the bar rather high. I would want to err on the side of protecting US citizens then non-citizens without a nation associated with terrorist organizations. Sending a message to non-citizens that commitment to a virulent organization attempting to harm US citizens may result in indefinite detainment seems wise to me. If one knows that do harm against the US could lead to lifetime in jail they may be incline to reconsider.

You make the point that the higher your standards of evidence are, the more likely you are to let a true enemy combatant go. Obviously this is true, but what’s your solution? Hold anyone at all in secret forever on hearsay evidence from anonymous sources? The exact same argument is t rue in civilian courts- having a high standard of reasonable doubt means that more murderists will go unconvicted. The Founding Father sthought that was ok, and so do I.

What kind of evidence would you demand in order to justify keeping these combatants detained. Would the standards of evidence be as high as they are for citizens. The higher you set the criteria the more combatant will be released that will try and harm citizens.

Your response reflects how you have never actually had to think about this problem. Sure you have a strong opinion that the state should not detain non-citizens but you have never reflected on the problem that this solution attempts to solve.