Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case.
Regarding the second point, you purposefully picked the least offensive part (the mosquitoes, as opposed to the starvation, the sleep deprivation, the quarters tigher than in concentration camps), to misrepresent what is happening here.
It is exactly behavioral patterns like these that make it hard to assume good faith argument.
This will be my last reply in this thread. We're not going to agree and you keep implying bad faith. I'll reply to one last factual point, and forgo replying to the continued implication of bad faith.
> Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case.
No, "detained" is a precise legal term that is used in the article in the intended legal way. It's a step prior to arrest, where an officer has stopped you for some probably cause. When detained, you are not allowed to leave, while the officer checks what's going on. The result can be that you are free to go, or that things escalate to an arrest (you are taken in custody).
Regarding the second point, you purposefully picked the least offensive part (the mosquitoes, as opposed to the starvation, the sleep deprivation, the quarters tigher than in concentration camps), to misrepresent what is happening here.
It is exactly behavioral patterns like these that make it hard to assume good faith argument.