BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some Guantanamo detainees were unjustly captured outside conflict zone

"Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006 - "Many of the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were captured in places where there was – at the time of their arrest – no armed conflict involving the United States. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example,24 but also numerous other detainees have been arrested under similar circumstances where international humanitarian law did not apply. The legal provision allowing the United States to hold belligerents without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities can therefore not be invoked to justify their detention."
Most nations will not take Guantanamo detainees back

"Closing GITMO would be a mistake" My San Antonio. January 18, 2009 - "Closing down GITMO would create a public relations disaster that will expend far beyond the logistical problems of what to do with the 80 or so detainees slated for trial by military commissions, the 50 or so detainees that the U.S. wants to release but can find no nation in the world to take them, and the remaining 110 or so detainees deemed to pose a continuing terror threat to America or its allies."
Intel from Guantanamo detainee interrogation is unreliable

Intelligence gathered over WMD in Iraq was clearly wrong. Therefore, one has to question the methods by which this information is extracted and formulated. High ranking US military officials "have gone public saying that the interrogations at Guantanamo have yielded no valuable intelligence."[7]. Guantanamo Admiral Mike Mullen (even with his knowledge) stated to Joint Chiefs of Staff in October, “I’d like to see it shut down.” Surely this is proof that little is gained through Guantanamo.
US courts have rules for classified info in terror cases

Thomas Wilner. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street. December 22, 2008 - "There is no need for 'new rules' to handle classified information. Congress has already established detailed rules and procedures in the Classified Information Protection Act. They carefully balance the defendant's right to be informed of the charges against him with the government's need to protect classified information from disclosure. Those procedures have worked in the past and would work again. There is also no need for specialized, extra-constitutional 'national security courts.'"
Past Cuba-US treaties forbid the current use of Guantanamo

When the United States occupied Cuba in 1903 it established a treaty that gave the United States authority to operate Guantanamo, "exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose." In 1934, the treaty was modified, but specified that "the stipulations of [the 1903] agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect." The use of Guantanamo for other purposes, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, seems to clearly violate these exclusive purposes.
Guantanamo should not be closed to placate international opinion

U.S. President George W. Bush says he pays no attention to polls and other measures of public opinion when formulating policy. This sticking to your laurels approach gains respect and even though people may disagree, at least you have faith in your convictions. Vice President Dick Cheney minimizes the impact of the Iraq war and the Guantanamo controversy on world opinion. "Does this hurt us from the standpoint of international opinion? I frankly don't think so," he said.[10]
Tortured detainees cannot be tried in US, would be released

"9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009 - If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution."
Closing Guantanamo and opening a new one elsewhere is a PR stunt

Jennifer Rubin. "Re: Obama Closes Gitmo". Commentary Magazine. January 22, 2009 - "The first question that comes to mind is: why go through all of this? Ah, but Guantamano has such a bad reputation. Yet it is largely based on misinformation about the actual treatment of detainees there. Supposedly we must put these very same people somewhere but we just don’t want to keep them at Guantanamo. At some level then we are inflating a PR problem — one which can be alleviated by creative people (rename the facility? build a new one in the parking lot?) — into a giant political and national security problem, especially for people living in the unlucky states that will play host to these very dangerous people."
That detainees were tortured should not now prevent US trials

Thomas Wilner. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street. December 22, 2008 - "Some worry that we won't be able to convict hardened al Qaeda criminals because the evidence against them was extracted by torture and can't be used in court. If that is a problem, it exists only for a limited group. We can avoid the problem in the future by not torturing people."
Guantanamo detainees are not being tortured

Dick Cheney said on Larry King Live in 2007: "We support the ability of certain agencies of the federal government to have the capacity to use enhanced techniques for interrogation. We have authorization that we got from the Congress to in fact do that. And they do it under very careful safeguards and very stringent safeguards. We're careful not to torture. We're not in the business of torturing people."[8]
Tortured detainees can be successfully tried in US courts

Thomas Wilner. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street. December 22, 2008 - "In any event, no actual case has been identified where the government would be precluded from obtaining a conviction against a known al Qaeda operative because most of the significant evidence was obtained through torture. True, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said a lot of things under torture. But he has also freely admitted that he is an al Qaeda fighter."
Sharing Jerusalem is necessary to the peace process

Hady Amr, Director, Brookings Doha Center. "Shared Sovereignty, Jerusalem and the War of Ideas". Brookings Institute. 21 July 2007 - "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone.
Jerusalem is too interwoven to be neatly divided

Tim McGirk. "Jerusalem Divided". Time. 21 Nov. 2007 - "In 2000 President Bill Clinton, as part of a set of "parameters" he laid out for ending the conflict, proposed a legal split of the city, with Israel handing the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem over to Palestinian rule. Such a formula presupposes that Jerusalem is capable of a neat division. But it is not. Somehow, any separation of the city into component parts has to recognize that there are myriad economic and cultural links among political adversaries. Moreover, the monuments and shrines of the Old City attract visitors from all over the world: Muslims who want to worship at al-Aqsa Mosque; Jews seeking to pray at the Western Wall; Christians keen to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or follow the Stations of the Cross. Try as one might, it is not possible to count out the lanes of the Old City so that each of them is controlled by only one faith, one ethnicity. (Clinton proposed "shared functional sovereignty" for the Old City.) Dividing Jerusalem, says Daniel Seidemann, a lawyer and expert on Jerusalem affairs, is "a political impossibility and a historical inevitability. It will take microsurgery, and I'm afraid the politicians will go at it with a hatchet."
Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate Israeli governance

Robert Sage. "Should Jerusalem be split between the Israelis and Palestinians?" Helium Election 2008 - "Palestinians would not consider leaving all of Jerusalem under the control of Israel to be a permanent solution. Simply put, continued Israeli security forces having control of Muslim areas would be a non-starter. They cannot be trusted by Muslims. They have not been fair or protective of Palestinians. Israeli officials have repeatedly been highly abusive of Palestinians. Also, Israeli security forces have been accepting of abusive Israeli civilian treatment of Palestinians."
Dividing Jerusalem will fail, like all divided cities in history

Roni Aloni-Sadovnik. "Dividing Jerusalem won't bring peace". Y Net News. 29 May 2006 - "In the city of Nicosia, for example, they decided to build a wall to separate Turkish and Greek Cypriots, but this failed to solve the economic or political aspects of the conflict between the two peoples. And in Berlin, the wall brought no positive results, and was eventually toppled by residents themselves.
Israel misgoverns East Jerusalem; Palestinians should self-govern.

Tim McGirk. "Jerusalem Divided". Time. 21 Nov. 2007 - "In a Jerusalem telephone book, for example, maps of Arab neighborhoods are blank, like unexplored parts of the Amazon in the 19th century. That's because no Arab sits on the municipal committee that chooses street names. On the rare occasion when the committee bothers with East Jerusalem, it is to irritate the Arabs by naming a few streets after Israeli war heroes. Mail is seldom delivered there, and having no street names adds to the Arabs' perception that in Israeli society they are either invisible, nonexistent or branded terrorists."
The idea that Jerusalem could be shared as opposed to divided or solely Israeli is not practical.

If all Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine, this would create all sorts of potential problems. For example, if a baby is born in a shared Jerusalem, will its civic nationality be Israeli or Palestinian? And if an act is committed in Jerusalem which one nation's government recognises as a crime but the other doesn't, who decides what should be done? Different countries sharing a disputed territory but not dividing it is very illogical, even more so if that territory is the capital of both. Imagine what would have happened if the UK, France,and the USA decided to share Berlin with the USSR instead of dividing it!
Unconventional division of Jerusalem can break cycle of violence

Hady Amr, Director, Brookings Doha Center. "Shared Sovereignty, Jerusalem and the War of Ideas". Brookings Institute. 21 July 2007 - "Sometimes and in some places, conflict is so intractable that all but the most unlikely solutions are fated to fail. In those times and places, we need to try methods that have not been considered in the hopes that unconventional solutions will offer opportunities not available through line-drawing. This is such a time; Jerusalem is such a place; shared sovereignty is such a solution. And the benefits can be global."
Dividing Jerusalem will destroy the city

Roni Aloni-Sadovnik. "Dividing Jerusalem won't bring peace". Y Net News. 29 May 2006 - "Yet there is a truth that has yet to be spoken: Any division of Jerusalem will bring about the city's destruction. Maybe, after 3,000 years of blood letting and destruction, the time has come to understand that the road to peace does not run through Jerusalem."
Dividing Jerusalem would shift the battle lines to the city

Nadav Shragai. "Envisioning a divided Jerusalem". Haaretz. - "Those who give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighborhood" next to the Western Wall, will no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews. Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away."
Calories alone are not a good measure of healthy menus

Joe Weisenthal. "Restaurant Calorie Counts Are Hazardous To Your Health". The Business Insider. August 11, 2009: "the problem is, a nudge is only worthwhile if it nudges you in the right direction. And there's reason to think calorie counts will nudge you the wrong way. Calorie counts create the illusion of some unified measure of healthiness, as if low calories always equalled good and high calories always equal bad. [...] But it's not nearly so simple. We're not cars, and food isn't measured on an octane count."
Large majorities of citizens want calorie counts on menus

Steve Chapman. "Force-fed the facts". Reason. June 23, 2008: "A survey by the agency of more than 2,000 adults last summer suggested 85% of consumers agreed restaurants, pubs and cafes had a responsibility to make clear what was in the food they served, and later research showed people wanted clear, simple information at the point of sale. The agency expects consumer demand to force all food outlets from the very small to the very expensive to give calorie information." [such large majorities want to be able to make informed choices based on the calorie information provided on menus]
Calories on menus pressure restaurants to make healthier meals

"Fast Food Menu Calorie Counter Should Be National Law". Business Week. David Kiley. July 17, 2009: "But the point is that requiring this nationally would compel restaurants to re-invent their menus, because they wouldn’t want everything on the menu to be over 1,000 calories. They can still have the fat stuff. After all, some people can eat 1,500 calorie lunches and do just fine. But people will tend to make better choices when presented with the info at point of sale."
Customers are indifferent to calorie counts on menus

In other words, consumers aren't really demanding "a choice", and calorie counts on menus. Ken Poulin, a consumer in New York said to USA Today in response to a 2008 New York law that required certain large restaurant chains in the city to list calories on their menus: "People are going to eat what they want; it doesn't matter what the menus say. People need to eat more vegetables and have common sense."[5]
Calorie counts make it easier to judge calories in foods

"Should Restaurants Be Required To Post Calorie Information?". Dr. Dolgoff's Weigh. Dr. Dolgoff. July 19th, 2009: "As a pediatrician and child obesity specialist, I spend my days talking to overweight families. I am constantly surprised at the lack of knowledge about calories and nutrition. While it may seem obvious that certain foods have a lot of calories, most people are unaware of exactly how many calories they contain." In general, even with people who are not obese, it can be difficult to accurately judge the calories in any given restaurant entre, with people consistently expressing surprise at the actual calorie content of certain meals. Calorie counts helps avoid any ambiguity, clarifying exactly what consumers are getting. This is as it should be.
Calorie counts cause consumers to make healthier choices

"Calorie Count On Menus Is Influencing Consumer Behavior, Says Technomic". Medical News Today. February 8, 2009: "A new survey conducted by foodservice consultants Technomic, Inc. revealed that the mandated calorie disclosure for New York City restaurants with 15 or more units is affecting what items consumers order and which restaurants they visit. Technomic found that 86 percent of New York City restaurant-goers were surprised by the calorie count information now listed on menus or menu boards, with 90 percent of them claiming that the calorie count was higher than expected. As a consequence, 82 percent say that calorie disclosure is affecting what they order and 60 percent say it is affecting where they visit. The researchers also found evidence that suggests a high level of consumer support for mandated disclosure of fat and sodium content in restaurant foods."
Calorie counts offer info, they don't pressure consumers

Raquel Bournhonesque, a member of Upstream Public Health and the Oregon Nutrition Policy Alliance, who supported a 2009 bill in Oregon that mandated calorie counts on menus: "It is just information. It doesn't tell people what to order or how to eat."[2] This responds to the criticism that mandating calories is somehow "social engineering" or the coercion of consumers. It does not do so. The information that is provided on menus offers no judgement at all as to whether it is "bad" to consume a meal with 1,000 calories. But, it is important for consumers to know and have this information.
Calorie info is more effective on menus than elsewhere

David Kiley. "Fast Food Menu Calorie Counter Should Be National Law". Business Week. July 17, 2009: "The restaurant industry, including McDonald’s, has been backing the proposed Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, called LEAN. That bill would require restaurants to have nutrition and calorie information “in plain sight” prior to the point of sale. But it wouldn’t force restaurants to add information to menus and menu boards where everyone knows it is most effective in deterring purchases of high fat food."
Restaurants frequently under-report calories on menus

"Calorie Disclosures Fail to Weigh Whole Enchilada". Wall Street Journal. July 8, 2009: "Scripps television stations sent several menu items to testing labs and found some big deviations from posted calorie content, most of them making menu items appear healthier than they are. For example, two tests of Applebee's Cajun-lime tilapia meal found about 400 calories, compared with the posted total of 310." This means that restaurants may simply choose to lower their reporting of calories instead of actually lower the calories in the foods they are serving.
Calorie counts will be ignored by some, but help others

"A recipe for controversy" Los Angeles Times (editorial). August 10, 2009: "We're under no illusions that posting calorie counts on menus is the miracle-diet solution to the country's weight problem. Nobody goes to Taco Bell expecting to get health food; some consumers will pay no more attention to the calorie information than they do to the nutritional labels on packaged foods. Yet those labels do make a difference for many people"
Consumers can find info off menus, calorie counts unnecessary

Steve Chapman. "Force-fed the facts". Reason. June 23, 2008: "the entire effort rests on assumptions that are unexamined and unfounded. The first is that consumers place a high value on the information being mandated. Actually, most of it is already accessible (online, among other ways) to anyone who is interested. In many places, it is available onsite, on tray liners or pamphlets."
Calories on menus help reduce health care costs

David Kiley. "Fast Food Menu Calorie Counter Should Be National Law". Business Week. July 17, 2009: "The Menu Education and Labeling Act, known as MEAL, would require restaurant chains with 20 or more stores to display calorie counts on their menu boards. The bill also would require printed menus at such chains to include calorie counts as well as information about trans fats, carbohydrates and sodium. [...] It seems to me that a national reg like this would do wonders to lower our healthcare costs. NYC estimates that it may save 30,000 cases of Diabetes. That’s from a statistic model, so who knows?"
No "proof" calorie counts work, but a reasonable expectation

New York’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, said in 2008 in regards to legislation in New York City mandating calories on menus: "We don’t have 100 percent proof that it’s going to work, but we have a reasonable expectation it will be successful."[6] This responds to general arguments that "there are no assurances that it will work". This is always true with any policy, but should not hamstring efforts at making progress in solving major, systemic health problems through policies that have a good chance of working.
Fear of government should not obstruct calorie counts on menus

"A recipe for controversy" Los Angeles Times (editorial). August 10, 2009: "all reform has to start somewhere. It's counterproductive to avoid action because of fears that it will lead to scarier actions later; the time to stop is when regulations become overly burdensome on businesses and overly restrictive of consumer choice. The calorie-count rule is neither, and it would also avert a patchwork of labeling laws in states such as California and New York by setting a national standard for all chains. As a bonus, it may be the only piece of legislation in 2009 with a strong chance to make Americans look better in their swimsuits."
Calorie counts are worth a try as they do no harm

Carl Bialik. "Do the Numbers Behind Calorie Counts Add Up?". The Wall Street Journal. July 7, 2009: Rachel Johnson, a professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont who co-authored a skeptical paper about the effect of menu labeling, said, “There is a need for additional research to determine if ultimately providing calorie labeling in restaurants will help stop the progression of overweight and obesity among the American public. Until this evidence is available, I take a ‘do no harm’ approach to the issue and I do not see that any harm would be done to consumers by providing this important information.”
Customers don't need calorie counts to choose healthy vs. unhealthy.

People are not stupid. They know when they are eating healthy food and they know when they are eating unhealthy food. It is common sense. People that choose to eat at McDonalds don't need calorie counts on menus to demonstrate that the food is unhealthy. They already know, and don't care. If people want to choose to eat healthy, they already have enough information to choose to make healthier choices, such as eating fruits and vegetables, cutting portion sizes, and exercising regularly. People are already fully able to choose healthy vs. unhealthy diets and life styles. Calories counts on menus will not improve their ability to make that choice.
Customers will pay more attention to calorie counts over time.

While it may be true that some tests have shown that many restaurant goers do not necessarily pay attention to calorie counts, this will change over time as more customers learn that the information is there and learn how to read calorie counts appropriately and judge them according to one's optimal daily calorie intake. The tests that have been performed, therefore, do not indicate how customers will respond to a new culture of calorie counts over time.
Calories on menus is a malign form of government social engineering

Jeff Jacoby. "Want a warning label with those fries?" The Boston Globe. January 11, 2009: "[...] Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine puts his finger on it: 'A legal requirement is necessary not because diners want conspicuous nutritional information but because, by and large, they don't want it.' Nanny-statists find it easy to disregard consumers' wishes. After all, they reason, it's for their own good -- obesity is a deadly scourge that government must not ignore. Massachusetts Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach warned darkly last week that 'unless we make progress' -- that is, unless the government imposes new restrictions on liberty -- 'overweight and obesity will overtake smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in Massachusetts.'"