I'll take your word for it. My argument still stands. If you want to address that we can.
What do you suggest we do if we capture a 16 year old ISIS member? Because if we don't let him go, we are detaining him (which is so frowned upon by the author). Personally, if you advocate letting him go I think you're at best a fool.
And in certain situations, torture may be justifiable.
Against, this is the world we live in. It's not all roses and flowers. I didn't make it this way, I didn't make the rules. But if these "children" want to bomb a local grocery store, they are playing the game (whether willfully or not).
This isn't about those kids, or bombs, it is about us.
What are we as a nation?
It seems to me that the same group of people that likes to talk about the moral decay in this country, also tend to be these Machiavellian foreign policy hawks.
I feel like you see this shit as a video game, or a chess board. Like you think you are this old school king, that lives above the peasants, where difficult decisions have to be made, as you talk about treating 14 and 15 year old kids as enemy combatants in a war zone.
We are the preeminent military power in the world, fighting cave fucking dwellers on foreign lands, and you talk as if your children are at stake here, and your families lives in vague hypotheticals.
What solution do I offer?
Work with the local communities where we have found allies, and re-educate these kids through the local's. Or some variation, or any of another 100 3rd path options I could invent, that lies outside your false two way choice of release, or indefinately detainment, and harsh treatment.
