[dpark]

> 1. That Guantanamo discussion was a continuation of the content came right before.

Yes, and what came before was a discussion of the morality of drone strikes. There was never a discussion of the legality of anything except maybe Trump's claimed sexual conquests.

> 2. I started to argue that everything was legal re Guantanamo, as a reply to the moral claim.

So paddyoloughlin is 100% right and "You were the one, in that very post, who started confusing morality with law, leading to the jumble of responses since."

[berntb]

Discussing a person is what follows after you're shown to be wrong. :-)

Never mind. I have stopped discussing with people that dismiss Wikipedia pages with good sources -- when they have neither references nor understanding of a subject.