BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sufficient justice and due process exists at Guantanamo:

The US Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded 'all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.[1] Moreover, enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are afforded a form of habeas corpus (ie. charging the imprisoned with a specific crime), as each detainee accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language.[2] Claims that most of the prisoners are unconnected with terror organisations are not supported by the intelligence evidence that exists. US Defense officials have stated that 95% of detainees are connected to al Qaeda, the Taliban or their associates, and more than 70% have had a role in attacks on U.S. or coalition forces.[3]  Military boards perform yearly reviews for continued detention, and prisoners are assigned court advocates.[4] In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay inmates have the right to appeal their cases to US federal courts.[5] Therefore complaints that sufficient justice and due process does not exist at Guantanamo bay are unfounded. Trying the most dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo in civilian courts will just give them a forum in which to grandstand. [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html  [2] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html  [3] Reuters. “Pentagon urges Congress to keep Guantanamo open”. Reuters. 9 May 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/09/idUSN09281838 [4] Washington Post. "Close Guantanamo?" Washington Post. 22 June 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101519.html [5] Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for Guantanamo." New York Times. 13 June 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13scotus.html
Detainees have the right to trial in US courts:

Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk.[1] Furthermore, 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.[2] [1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258578172604569.html  [2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspe...
Guantanamo harms the War on Terror:

Guantanamo Bay didn't create anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. Al-Qaeda existed and carried out 9/11 before Guantanamo bay was established, so it is unlikely that closing the detention centre would make any of those who hate the US now reconsider. Furthermore, closing the facility could be seen as a propaganda victory for the US' enemies, and further embolden terrorist organisations.
Conditions at Guantanamo are unjust and unacceptable:

It is possible to reform treatment at Guantanamo Bay without closing the facility. The conditions in the facility have in fact greatly improved since its establishment and in many ways differ from the public's negative perception of it.[1] But even if in fact these negative reports of the conditions at Guantanamo are true, it is likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo may not be even more anti-American than when they arrived, so releasing them could mean they pose an even greater threat to the US. [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html
A large and diverse collective defence for would be impossible to command and develop

The proposition believes in a more liberal and open-minded average European soldier. There will be no communication issues in the 21st century where translators and bilingual officers are easy to come by. There will be no accountability issues when we create a proper command structure. And there will be no racism because to believe that there would be is to prejudge the whole of Europe and insult the culture-shapers’ attempts to respect and learn from Europe’s dark past, not to repeat it.
A single army would enhance the political integration of EU members states

The European Union has significant integration and convergence of the political and economic spheres. Integration of defence policy and the establishment of a European Defence Force should be the logical next step. The African Union took this step and has achieved success in combat missions defending the Union[1]. [1] The UN Refugee Agency (31 January, 2008) Comoros: Military invasion of Anjouan imminent, government warns. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,COM,,47b4614c0,0.html
The economic strength of the EU enables the creation of a strong military

With the growing industrial and economic maturity of the European Union and its members, it is now financially feasible for the EU to have its own standing defence force[1]. The proposed EDF would also create a great many jobs as European defence contractors could be recruited into supplying equipment and weaponry. [1] Amadeo, K.. The EU has replaced the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. Accessed September 7, 2011 from About: http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/largest_economy.htm
Constitutional obstructions

Every EU country would have an incredibly hard time making the constitutional changes necessary for the handing over of a part of defence policy to an EU institution. In fact, for many EU countries it would be unworkable. In the U.K., constitutional issues might not be as bad as say in France – but this does not change the fact that it would require deft political skill and manoeuvring, often undemocratic and without any sort of referendum, in order to make the constitutional changes necessary to create this force[1]. [1] Wagner, W. (May 19, 2007). The Democratic Deficit in the EU’s Security and Defense Policy – why bother? . Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://aei.pitt.edu/8061/1/wagner-w-07b.pdf
The creation of an EU army could harm diplomatic relations with the USA

We are completely ignoring the issue of geopolitics and how the creation of this entity would be a direct move to replace NATO as the primary defender of Europe. This would of course mean a rejection of the US, as the heart of NATO. What would follow from this would be an extremely unpredictable and volatile place to practice international relations. One thing that we can predict, however, will be the ‘cold shoulder’ the US would suddenly show the EU. The US would feel as if its ally had used it to gain strength after WWII (The Marshall Plan), and now that it’s back on its feet again can forget and even challenge America’s supremacy.
The EU needs a dedicated defence force

NATO has successfully defended the interests of Western Europe for several decades now – why rock the boat? It is hard to see a problem which NATO cannot solve, which the European Defence Force could instead. In any case, we will always have to consider Russia’s sensibilities when engaging in peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe, and it is far better to have America’s bargaining power and geopolitical clout backing us when we negotiate with Russia. If we create a European Defence Force, we will marginalise NATO and the United States. This will lead to a reduced US engagement in Europe, which may in turn diminish our influence when having discussions with Russia over security issues in Europe and beyond.
A large and diverse collective defence for would be impossible to command and develop

It does not take an in-depth analysis to imagine the issues, on the ground and at HQ, such as army would face. There would be communication issues, would the force use French, Spanish or English? There would be accountability questions[1], who would be in charge and who would pay for resources? Finally, there would be hostilities within the army and potentially inherent racism between the nations involved. Such a force would not be effective in a combat situation, and valuable lives and resources would be wasted. [1] Ioannides, I. (4 September, 2002). The European Rapid Reaction Force: Implications for Democratic Accountability. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398915
NATO has established a precedent for multilateral military action

NATO and the proposed European Defence Force are designed to address very different concerns. NATO exists to deal with situations of such magnitude that the nations of Western Europe are likely to adopt a common defence policy. In contrast, the EDF is targeted at smaller geopolitical incidents which would otherwise be ‘beneath’ the notice of NATO. Unfortunately smaller incidents by their nature do not have uniform effects on all EU member-nations, and are therefore unlikely to generate a consensus of policy among EU nations.
Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force

Although there is instability in neighbouring regions, most of Europe is in complete and utter peace. The new force would simply be another layer of defence in a stable continent that simply doesn’t need it. War in Europe is completely inconceivable in the 21st century, and considering the threat of war should be the primary reason for holding a standing army, it seems that an EU army has no reasonable case for existence.
The creation of a standing army would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EU

It might not have been the original aim to integrate defence. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that defence integration should not be done. The aims are changeable; they should be reconsidered and revised, according to requirements and demands of current situations. Few would have imagined how far Europe would come in other areas such as freedom of movement or the creation of a European Common Foreign policy from a mere industrial coalition between few countries. The EDF will be a rationally reasonable step for the EU, considering the advances that the community has made in integration in other areas of policy. To protect all its achievements, to connect its member states, and to provide its citizens with more safety the EU needs a dedicated defence force.
The EU needs a dedicated defence force

It is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia[1]. The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much. [1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524629/Georgia...
NATO has established a precedent for multilateral military action

NATO has been crucial to maintaining the balance of power during the cold war. Although there have been some arguments amongst its member states, NATO has shown us that a standing multinational defence force is possible and more importantly works well overall. The recent NATO deployment in Libya is an example of its regional influence and military flexibility[1]. Considering many members of NATO are also members of the EU, the proposed European Defence Force could follow its example and complement it. [1] BBC News (26 August, 2011) Libya conflict: Nato jets hit Gaddafi Sirte bunker. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14677754
Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force

Constant political instability and war in and near the Middle East call for a united single force charged with the defence of EU countries lying close to the volatile areas.. Turkey is a prime candidate for EU membership, and with its location on the border of both Syria and Iraq, will require support if its refugee problem is to remain manageable. The revolutions in Northern Africa also call for a stabilising force in the region, particularly in Italy where a ‘refugee crisis’ has coincided with the attempts of anti-Gaddafi Libyans to flee the country[1]. If the EU is to take its growing role upon the world stage seriously, it needs a dedicated defence force to make an impact in the region. [1] Day, M. (14 May, 2011) Flood of North African refugees to Italy ends EU passport-free travel. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/flood-of-north-african-re...
Germany

Europe has been torn apart twice in the 20th century and on both occasions a German Army has been the aggressor. If the E.U. ever had a defence force, no doubt German troops would be at the heart of it. It is just over 60 years ago that German troops invaded many of the countries that today will be forced to fight alongside them. This, especially for the people who fought against a German Army and are alive today, is at best insulting and at worst, political provocation. This is even without mentioning the Holocaust and its ever-present artifacts that litter eastern Europe; a constant reminder to Europeans of the horrors a German Army had once committed.
The creation of a standing army would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EU

It was not the aim of the original European Community to integrate defence. The original partnership was called the European Coal and Steel Community for a reason[1], designed as a union for mutual economic development and the sharing of scarce resources[2]. The acceleration of the EU has therefore gotten out of hand, and it’s high time it came to an end. A defence force would be one step to far – it would signal the creation of some sort of federal super state, something that not many people in Europe want. [1] CVCE (18 April, 1951). Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/11a21305-941e-49d7-a171-ed5be548cd58... [2] The Irish Times (26 August, 2011). A thirst for peace. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2011/0826/1224302795053.html
A single army would enhance the political integration of EU members states

We have seen variations in opinion regarding political and economic issues (e.g. monetary union) in the EU. In the far more thorny area of defence policy, the EU member-nations’ interests are even more divergent. For example, the French position on Algeria may be different from the United Kingdom’s. This difference in priorities will ultimately lead to deadlock, as no country wishes to see its soldiers dying on a battlefield that provides no direct strategic interest to itself.
The economic strength of the EU enables the creation of a strong military

Even if we assume that the massive costs of a standing military force can be borne by the EU and its members, the key barriers to establishing a standing defence force are often political. Creating a European Defence Force de novo would require us to decide on several thorny questions, namely the command structure, whether the role should be merely defensive or include peacekeeping, the choice of equipment and supplier, creating a common defence policy, and choosing a language of communication. All of these questions involve political considerations or economic vested interests, all of which are likely to result in on-going wrangling that will yield a stillborn EDF.
The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law

Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law.[1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter. [1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.
We must practice what we preach

Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best chance of change in such oppressive regimes.
The Whole System is broken

Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works.[1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible. [1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011
States must be responsible to their own citizens first

The concept of a nation is an artificial one[1] – there is no logical reason why we should draw lines on maps and declare that people may not pass from one side of a line to another without permission.  Moreover xenophobia and racism can only be tackled by exposure to people from other cultures, not insulation from them – and in any case, policy should not be dictated by the prejudices of a few racists. [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London 1991, p.5.
The system is open to abuse

There have been no serious links between terrorism and the asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum system provides more security and border control for states. Even if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer number of people present in a country of which the authorities have no knowledge.
We have a duty to help the persecuted

It would be nice to offer safety to everyone who genuinely deserved it, but practically it is almost impossible to tell who is genuinely fleeing persecution, and who is simply seeking economic benefit.  In many cases there may be a combination of the two.  Tracking down the histories of applicants to verify their claim is frequently impossible, and enormously expensive. The point of moral obligations as opposed to legal obligations is that it is the donor who decides how great their sacrifice should be. States may perfectly fairly decide to try to protect refugees in more affordable and uncontroversial ways, such as providing aid to refugee camps and foreign governments who work nearer crisis areas. Accepting refugees is not obligatory.
The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law

The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of date laws.
We must practice what we preach

Democratic nations can support like-minded groups in all manner of other ways, such as funding and training opposition groups, giving them international representation, and by applying pressure to oppressive governments. With individual asylum applicants they are still faced with the same problem of assessing who has genuinely taken a “brave and noble” step, which is very hard. Furthermore it is not at all clear that the hope of asylum is a motivator towards political action. Revolutions and resistance forces existed long before the creation of any formal asylum regime, and continue in the contemporary absence of any access to them. Often by harbouring those who have opposed oppressive regimes, perhaps in a similarly violent manner, states drastically reduce their ability to negotiate with and apply leverage to the authoritarian governments that are the problem in the first place.
The Whole System is broken

It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males,[1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have,[2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country. [1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011. [2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.