Finish this headline:
"US Catholic Worker Community Draws Spotlight on..."
a) Appalachian Coal Mine Safety
b) Lack of Increases in the Minimum Wage
c) Walmart's Unfair Business Practices
d) Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility
e) All of the above
If you guessed E, you'd probably be right.
But the actual article is about d.
So is it unjust to hold 500 enemy combatants? That's just 1/5 of the people who were actually killed on 9/11. And it turns out that "Some former Guantanamo detainees have become fighters in Pakistan — or rejoined the armed struggle in Afghanistan — since their release." [source]
What kind of logic is this? 500, 100, 1000: the number of detainees doesn't matter. If it were unjust to hold 5000 detainees, at what number would it become just? Tch.
You have a point - if it's unjust for X, then it's unjust for Y.
But I don't believe it's unjust to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. And I'm using the number to contrast those who are detained there against those who have gone to eternity because of the actions of people like them.
I agree with you about the policy, but this use of numbers in rhetoric comes across as unprincipled.
The relevant thing about these detainees is what they were doing when captured: they were illegal (non-soldier) combatants fighting US forces or allied forces, or attacking civilians; mostly for Islamist (Taliban, al-Qaeda) or Baathist purposes.
To say "it's only X percent of the number of people who died on 9/11" is the equivalent of "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs".
At the rate the left wing of the Dem Party is trying to gut our defenses against terrorists (mild, meak, and weak as they are compared to WWII and Civil War) maybe it is time to start a pool to pick which tall building or major gathering place they will have again helped al-quaeda to commit mass murder in the U.S. (As the Gorelick wall against agencies sharing intell. info. helped in the run up to 9-11).