Guantanamo prisoners coming to Uruguay.

Thanks for posting your argument, anderson.carloto First I'd like to clarify that my point in my first paragraph in R1 is that this is an issue that should be approached by an Uruguayan point of view, since there is no reason to demand the Uruguayan government to be accountable to the Brazilian population. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive by alluding to my opponent's point as paranoic, but I should remind that he himself believes that his ideas can very well be considered "cheap conspiracy theories". But I do agree that it may have sounded somewhat demeaning, which wasn't my intention, so please, accept my apologies. I believe I could summarize my opponent's arguments as follows: The prisoners are terrorists Wherever there are terrorists there is a threat to security Therefore, the prisoners will be a threat to the security of Uruguay (and Brazil) if allowed to go to Uruguay. Thus Con only has a case if he can prove that the prisoners are really terrorists and that their presence in Uruguay in itself is enough to pose a threat to both Uruguay and Brazil. 1) The prisoners are terrorists It's quite clear that my opponent cannot prove the first premise, as he has repeatedly admitted so. He just assumes that this is an indisputable fact. This is a major fallacy, Con's entire case rests on this claim, if he can't prove it, he has no case. Now he may say that the mere fact that they were in prison is an evidence, but as I already showed, and Con agreed, those people were sent to prison without having any of their human rights respected and without any access to a fair trial where their guilt or innocence could be actually, in fact, even if they had a fair trial, the fact that they are in prison isn't on itself a proof of their guilty. Among the prisoners that did (supposedly) have access to due process in the USA, over 2000 people were exonerated as wrongfully convicted and the US Justice Department estimates that between 8% to 12% of all imprisoned people on the state level are innocent. [1] So, if a considerable amount of innocent people are wrongfully imprisoned despite having access to due process, how can one be so sure that people arbitrarily detained are in fact guilty? Besides we don't even know for what specific action these prisoners were accused, the only thing we know is that they were considered to have had "association with terrorist", that could very well mean that they just played on the same team as some terrorists in a casual football game. And even if they really did something that could get them in jail, it's quite possible that they did something that would have granted them equal or less prison time than the 11-12 years they spent in Guantánamo, in which case they still should have all the right to walk freely to wherever they want, including Uruguay. Unfortunately, all these conjectures are void, since, as my opponent himself states, there is no evidence against the prisoners, in fact the only evidences here are their own testimonies, and they all claim to be innocent. One of them wrote that he was captured by the Northern Alliance troops and turned over to the Americans for a cash reward [2]. Now, isn't it possible that, with all the commotion with 9/11 still fresh in memory at the time, the Americans would be willing to pay any amount of money to their allied Afghan to bring them terrorist without having much caution to make sure that they were actual terrorist? And isn't it possible that some corrupt Afghan could turn over someone with whom he had a quarrel in exchange for that money? We may never have answers to these questions, but they still remain unrefuted possibilities 2) Terrorists are always a threat to security Unlike my opponent claims, terrorism isn't equivalent to a globalized economic activity. Terrorism can best described as: "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" [3] As we can see, terrorism is merely a mean to achieve a goal so even if it was really an indisputable fact that the prisoners are dangerous terrorists, they only would pose a risk to the safety of Uruguayans or Brazilians if they did have a political goal in those countries which they'd be willing to use violence to achieve. What kind of political goals does three Syrians, one Palestinian and one Tunisian captured by Afghan troops while trying to escape to Pakistan could possibly have in Uruguay or Brazil? Well, I believe that here is where my opponent's "cheap conspiracy theories" could come in handy for him, but unfortunately, he never really gave any satisfactory explanation, conspiratory or not, to this question in his arguments. The closest he got of doing so was by implying that Pepe Mujica may be some sort of evil conspirator only pretending to be humble and to care for human rights simply because he had been member of a guerrilla in the past, but Con still doesn't present any possible conspiracy in which Mujica could be working. Also I must notice that independently of what crime he might have committed, it's a fact that Mujica had his human rights violated in prison which makes his concerns for human rights quite legitimate. Therefore, we can say that as far as we know, the prisoners have no particular reason to engage in terrorist activity in Uruguay (or Brazil for that matter), and, since a person can only commit acts of terrorism if they have a specific political goal, we can conclude that they don't pose a threat to either Uruguay or Brazil, and therefore, all two of my opponent's premises have been refuted, [1] - http://occupytheory.org... [2] - http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...