Sure they do. Folks who have families who live in war zones, for example, will almost certainly fit the definition. Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban - and his next destination is the South Sudan. [1] I myself have been to more than a handful of spicy jurisdictions.

It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting.

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...

> Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban

If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets.

And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.

I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong.

Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it.

Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.

right, but the fact that you smoke cigarettes doesn't give the US the right to lock you up without charges. The problem isn't that these people got hurt, it's that they got illegally imprisoned for decades without charges or trials.

Smoking cigarettes exposes me to the risk of lung cancer.

Being buddies with the Taliban exposes you to the risk of them sawing off your head, or being taken prisoner as an unlawful combatant.

And no, imprisoning unlawful combatants indefinitely is not "illegal", neither under United States law nor under the international laws of war.

If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a citation.

> I'm going to have to ask for a citation.

And it gets a downmod, rather than a citation. Hint: that means you lose.

You've completely missed the point. We as a society believe people have a presupposition of innocence. The state must prove guilt. You don't get throw into jail to await trial forever if you happen to be wandering the wrong part of town - and you shouldn't if you're wandering the wrong part of the globe. This is literally the bare minimum standard to which we hold ourselves.

And for very good reason. The states power should always be checked, at home or abroad.

This is especially important as these days wars don't end.

> And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.

So far what I've got is a broader perspective so thank you.

so in civilized countries, we have these things called trials where evidence can be weighed rather than kicking people up without charges for a few decades and speculating.

It is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions to put lawful combatants on trial.

Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial.

It is a grievous error to assume that civilian law applies in a military context.

It's wrong to assume that all of the several hundred prisoners from multiple countries were "unlawful combatants".

As stated, a large number were delivered to the US in exchange for bounty and were alleged to be working with terrorists, allegations that were taken at face value, not looked into for years, if ever, and often lacking evidence.

Attempting to slide out of this via a false binary (ie. either lawful or unlawful combantants) is simply sleazy.