- I have a problem with staying at war and not having law of war detention. I don't think that's a morally responsible position for a country to have. Then what you end up with is an incentive to kill. I mean, imagine you hand a rifle to a 19-year-old soldier, and say, "You, here's some marksmanship training. "We're at war. "You have legal authority to kill another human being. "You can also capture that human being "in some circumstances, "but if you capture them, "if you wanna continue detaining them, "you better have proof beyond a reasonable doubt "that they committed some crime in the past." Well, you've just incentivized killing, and it should disturb us all that with the drawdown of, we don't have any new people going to Guantanamo, but we have a clear uptick in the number of drone strikes, for instance. I think that disparity is something that should concern us. My biggest concern is not so much that we don't close Guantanamo fast enough. I totally get why we need to do that from a foreign relations perspective. I totally get why. More important, I think, is having principled, credible detaining policies wherever we detain people, and I think we have and are doing that, and I would like to talk about some of the accomplishments, I think, but I think where I'm most concerned is that we enter into a state of quasi-war that's perpetual. Not perpetual detention, indefinite detention is part of any war, but it ends with the end of the war. My concern is that we become too comfortable with the war we're fighting, by minimizing the number of people in Guantanamo, and the competent criticism of it. By reducing the number of drone strikes, but still having them. And then we enter a state where we're constantly in a little bit of war. Where we can do a very sanitized drone strike in a far-off location, we don't feel the concept that war is hell, war becomes a little more like purgatory instead of hell. And we become too comfortable with it.