tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post5870274888302265506..comments2024-03-28T10:25:22.825+01:00Comments on Robert's Stochastic thoughts: Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-86788875716547222862009-05-22T18:17:48.553+02:002009-05-22T18:17:48.553+02:00If someone is explicitly affiliated with al Qaeda ...If someone is explicitly affiliated with al Qaeda or the Taliban, okay, then I can understand the POW designation (and it is reassuring that Obama used the phrase "prisoners of war" in the part immediately following this excerpt). But some of the people who fall under this category may be affiliated with no terrorist organization whatsoever. Indefinite detention based on personal beliefs (however hateful those beliefs are) seems to be fundamentally unjust and unlawful. Certainly we can find Americans who believe (and admit to believing) that blacks, or Jews, or Muslims should be killed. For a country based on the idea of natural rights, I don't see how it can be just to deprive someone of freedom because of beliefs alone. All Obama did was state that he would be lawful in his treatment of such people. He did not explain why it is not fundamentally unlawful, which is the argument I was listening for.<br /><br />The other part of the speech that bothers me is his repeated promise that he would, "not...release individuals who endanger the American people". That's far too much. I don't believe for a second that any administration can so perfectly discriminate between the safe and unsafe detainees. It's an unrealistic promise that could come back to bite him badly.jhnoreply@blogger.com