We gain a few things:
1) Less burden on our troops...if we can dragnet and determine guilt later, then it is more efficient for the front lines.
2) Reduces chance of false negatives if we don't discard.
But please... decide which way to argue...are you claiming it's easy to tell the innocent from guilty, or impossible? Can't have it both ways.
In a war, I have no problem with that.
"2) Reduces chance of false negatives if we don't discard."
Sorry, but I don't know what that means.
"But please... decide which way to argue...are you claiming it's easy to tell the innocent from guilty, or impossible? Can't have it both ways."
OK..here's my only point in posing the previous questions.
Your central position seems to be that we are detaining people at GITMO who are innocent of any wrong doing. Now, I have no way of proving you wrong in your belief any more than you can personally prove that you are right. We can argue and debate based on bits of info and some facts we have from various sources but in the end we can't prove anything.
When I run into that stalemate situation in a discussion I always try to look to logic and reasoning to guide my beliefs and in this case my logic dictates that there would be no reason for rounding up innocent people just so we can feed and clothe them in a prison. Even if we did by chance round up an innocent, which we probably have, there would be no reason to hold them once we determine that they are innocent. To answer your question, Yes, I do believe that the professional interrogators are capable of determining if someone is innocent. Is it easy? Absolutely not as it has been proven there is some chance of error. We have let supposed "innocents" loose in the past only to be rewarded for our efforts by terrorism on their parts later.