Talk:Gladys Kessler

Could you please explain further...

I am going to ask the contributor who left this edit to return and explain it with more than their edit summary "in line with the actual source".

In my opinion the most important missing element from WP:NOT is "the wikipedia is not a hagiography". Information in the wikipedia should not be pruned to sanitize and obfuscate the historical record.

In this particular case the contributor in question has removed all context for why Kessler was considering whether or not the DTA applicable. I dispute that this edit was "in line with the actual source". Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Are we looking at the same edit? What, exactly, about that edit is "hagiographic"?

The source, a Washington Post article, is headlined: "U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban: McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison". In the lead paragraph of the Post article, it states: "Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison."

I wrote: "The George W. Bush Administration argued that the Detainee Treatment Act, lesiglation spearheaded by John McCain banning cruel or inhuman treatment, did not apply to Bawazir and other captives in Guantánamo Bay." That seems like a pretty straightforward representation of the source. What aspects of that summary do you find "hagiographic"? More to the point, what context would you like to add? MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is hagiographic, a sanitization and obfuscation of the historical record because, in what seems to me to be an unfortunate lapse from WP:NPOV, because it only gives the position of the executive branch. Kessler has returned to the issue of force-feeding the captives on multiple occasions. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm dense, but I still don't understand what you're on about when you call this "hagiographic". You've basically just repeated the overblown rhetoric that you led off with, without actually being constructive. What position or viewpoint do you think is missing from the article? Can you provide an actual concrete suggestion about how you think we should "fix" this problem? MastCell ^Talk 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says:

Bawazir's attorneys contend that "extremely painful" new tactics used by the government to force-feed him and end his hunger strike amount to torture. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive U.S. military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike "extremely disturbing" and possibly against U.S. and international law.

Your version excised the positions of everyone but the Bush administration lawyers. So, no, I cannot agree your edit was "in line with the actual source".

As I noted above the issue of whether the force-feeding was cruel and unnecessary has returned to her court on multiple occasions. I plan to expand that section. If you think you have a policy based justification for suppressing that these motions are about force-feeding I hope you will lay out those concerns. I'll hold off on the expansion until you explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me see if I can rephrase your concerns in civil, neutral language which avoids implications of malice. That will make it easier for me to answer without responding in kind. You feel that my edit did not adequately represent the position of the lawyers for the detainees who have come before Kessler; is that correct? If so, I have no objection to adding additional material sourced to the Post article (or to other reliable sources) expressing the position of Bawazir's lawyers. I don't think this article should become a WP:COATRACK for issues of detainee treatment - this is a biography, after all - but I think we can find some text we'll both be happy with. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

rough work : Guantanamo captives habeas petitions heard before Gladys Kessler...

case number	case name
Civil Action No. 04-cv-2035	Al-Marri v. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0280	Fahmi Salem Said Al Sani v. George W. Bush Mohammed Al-Adahi v. George W. Bush Mohammed Ali Fowza v. George W. Bush Suleman Awad Suleman Bin Agil Alnahdi v. George W. Bush Zahar Omar Hamis Bin Hamdoun v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0301	Abdul Hakim Abdul Rahman Abduaziz Al Mousa v. George W. Bush Abdullah Muhammad Al Ghanami v. George W. Bush Al Joudi v. Bush Majeed Abdullah v. George W. Bush Yusef Modaray v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0359	Al Hami v. Bush Mohammed Abdul Rahman v. George W. Bush Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0882	Fizaulla Rahman v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0885	Alif Mohammed v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0995	Slahi v. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1243	Peerzai v. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1347	Saiid Farhi v George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1457	Jihad Dyiab v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1601	Al Razak v. Bush
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1678	Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1668	Rashid Awad Rashid Al Uwaydah v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1684	Taher v. Bush
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1691	FNU Hamidullah v. George W. Bush
Civil Action No. 08-cv-1923	Al Ansi v. Bush

request edit

I am unable to edit, but can someone please correct her date of death to March 16, 2023, rather than March 17. Thank you! 96.241.202.243 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)