Guantanamo is in a sort of legal never-never land with respect both to U.S. law and to such international law to which the U.S. subscribes. Where Michael and I disagree is the legal status of the internees. I am inclined to hold that those taken on a field of battle bearing arms and not in uniform are entitled to no legal protection whatever. We should and are reviewing their status on an ongoing basis and have released those for whom the evidence in hand suggested a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Where we do not disagree is that the existence of the detention facility is a major PR advantage for leftists who hate the United States, especially in Europe, and that it has detracted from our image there, justly or not. I do not feel that public relations (i.e. propaganda) should be allowed to be the overweening consideration in keeping that facility active, however. Until such time as state-supported terrorists have a legal definition and act in accordance with the laws they invoke to protect them, they should not be accorded the protection of those laws. Just my $0.02.
Okay, as a human being, you have a certain amount of sympathy, compassion, sensitivity. As an American and a proud veteran (for whose service I am deeply grateful), you have an abiding decency that acts as your moral compass.
Question: How much of that do you want to spend on caring about leftist spin and international opinion of the U.S., knowing that no matter how good and upright we are, how strict the SOP, we are going to be soundly criticized anyway?
We are already the purest. How much more pure can we be? And, as for palling around with Michael, remember this: A woman who even listens to the importunities of a deceitful suitor has already surrendered her virtue. Snakes are clever at disguises.
No concessions, ever.