Jeremy wrote:
] Authorities faced this choice: torture in Syria or freedom on
] the other side of the longest undefended border in the world. I really didn't like this oped. It tries to have good intentions, but it actually doesn't. He only faced freedom in "dangerous" Canada because they had absolutely no evidence to suspect him of wrong doing. What part of "innocent people ought to be free" don't these people understand? I don't see why it makes sense to frame Canada as this dangerous place were criminals run free. When Bill O'Reilly plays that card its easy to ignore as the silly ramblings of a radical. But this is the Washington Post. These people are supposed to have a clue. Its honestly annoying to see them act this ignorantly. Americans act as if Canada is the fifty first state when it suits them, and then they act like its one step from the great communist threat in the very next breath. Last summer I learned that a large group of college educated friends of mine had no idea that Canadians participated in the second world war, and when they were informed they were surprised and seemed to find the concept rather humorous. This was in the context of them lecturing me about memorial day, which they assumed for some reason that I did not emotionally identify with because their schools had apparently informed them that WWII only happened to Americans. The fact is that most people in this country don't know a god damn thing about Canada, so they basically mold their understanding to fit their rhetorical mood. So, lets pretend he is an American citizen. That way we can have the exact same moral question without any messy abstractions. You have a very fleeting connection between this guy and a terrorist network. There is a remote possibility that it might be significant, but you have no actual evidence of anything. You can't charge him because there is no substance to your information. You have two choices, release him to be free in America, where you can investigate him and learn more about what he is up to, and maybe decide whether or not you can charge him, or deport him to Syria where he will be tortured to death and you learn nothing. Why is this a difficult choice to make? Knowing what he is up to is safer then not knowing. Tag his ass and release him. He can't commit acts of terrorism while you have him under surveillance. Not only is this choice in your own best interest, it is also required of you by law. It seems like the Constitution makes this choice for you, and if you don't get that, then you don't really get what the Constitution is all about. Further, I'd argue that adding the "he is not a citizen" abstraction that existed in this case does not remove your Constitutional obligation. This really isn't about jurisdiction. This is about basic right and wrong. We don't kill people just cause they look funny. ] ... The trouble with [sending him to Gitmo] is th... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ] | 
