Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Move to "detention camp"?

The Oxford English Dictionary says is "Now rare," while detention is common, used by the media, and has a derived use of detention camp, in the war of 1914-18, a camp in which aliens and others were kept under restraint; also applied to other places of incarceration.

I've made seveal cahnges to the article, which I hope you all find interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.222.64 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In google stats, Wikipedia alone is basically holding up the term

• 896 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment-camp -wikipedia
• 1,070 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment -wikipedia
• 14,800 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment

vs.

• 15,500 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention-camp -wikipedia
• 77,200 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention -wikipedia
• 81,600 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention

--Carwil 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an alternate title? -- Geo Swan 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detention camp would become the title. Guantánamo Bay detainment camp would redirect, instead of the reverse.--Carwil 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem: this US dictionary mentions 'detainment' = "detention", but also mentions the coined term 'detention camp' = "an institution where juvenile offenders can be held temporarily usually under the supervision of a juvenile court", no other meaning is indicated. Seems inappropriate. — SomeHuman 23 Jan2007 16:06 (UTC)

Sounds like a minor concern to me, since not all compound phrases are listed in any dictionary, and someone who used that dictionary could read that detention means "Confinement; restraint; custody." We're not going to get universal dictionary coverage, but compare Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (detainment not listed, though detention centre/center shows up) and [1] (no compound phrases, both listed equally). and since "detention camp" is in broad use in the States. It's the preferred term on military websites, though they seem to avoid both (detention camp-14, 1; detainment camp-0, 0 on www.defenselink.mil, NSGtmo.navy.mil). "Detention camp" also dominates in recent news coverage (439 to 11 in recent references at Google News with Guantanamo).

FYI, the OED definition is: "detention camp, in the war of 1914-18, a camp in which aliens and others were kept under restraint; also applied to other places of incarceration". I posted this to "uncontroversial moves", but will remove if this remains a concern for you.--Carwil 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal poll here...

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below, including AjaxSmack's note that common English language usage does not include the accented 'a'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Guantánamo Bay detainment camp → Guantánamo Bay detention camp — Move to preferred name of media, US government, web as per above. Carwil 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

2. Support - per nom. More common name. 64.178.98.65 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - As above a more common name. Hypnosadist 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - As above. --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 07:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

If the object is to use the preferred US media or government name then it should be moved to Guantanamo Bay detention camp with "a," not "á." Cf. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, The Road to Guantanamo. —  AjaxSmack  06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

sensory deprivation?

There is no mention at all of sensory deprivation in this article. There's quite a discussion as to whether or not SD occured at Guantanamo in the discussion of the sensory deprivation article, and this article should have some mention of the allegations, legal or otherwise, concerning such practices. Unfortunately, I'm without sufficient knoweldge to do the ammendments -- any takers? Paralysisordeath 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know SD was used on the flights into Gitmo as well as durring extrordinary rendition but i'll see if i can find a link. I've not heard it used as a torture method but they may have started using it after they had to stop waterboarding. Sensory overload is used, thats the loud white/pink noise. Hypnosadist 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK from the BBC [2]

"Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

I'll add more as i find it, if other people have got stuff please help. Hypnosadist 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of Cuban-American Treaty

While the official position of the Cuban Government is that the treaty itself violates Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties it seems that the use of the land as a detainment camp may violate Article II of the treaty.

The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water,
and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit
the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.

A detention camp doesn't seem to be part of a naval or coaling station, but then again one could argue that it is part of the naval base, I don't know for sure but I figured that it was worth mentioning. Kc4 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting point but what you need is a secondary source (newspaper, HRW, cuban government?)to mention it then it can be included. Hypnosadist 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

unbalanced

The sources and external links in this page are clearly unbalanced. Adding content that balances this article so the reader may form an independent opinion is encouraged. Tscrum 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unballanced towards whom? Who is not in the links? These are the things we need you to say. Hypnosadist 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources and external links clearly reference more negative items on gitmo than positive ones. For example, I added two references that would likely be construed by a reader to be positive outcomes of gitmo. I am not going to copy the entire list for you here. (I think I saw someone already did?) Read the sources and ask yourself if this would hurt the credibility of gitmo or help it to an unbiased reader. You will find they are clearly biased toward hurting it and therefore unbalanced. Tscrum 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gitmo is a CONCENTRATION CAMP. Plain and simple. It's really sad how you can see this place in a positive light, because that means you are no different from murderous dictators of the past. The fact that you do see this camp in a positve light is a very strong POV. The sort of POV one would attribute to stalinists and nazis, who thought nothing of their own camps.

OK this is a common misunderstanding of wikipedia wp:NPOV rules, they do not require us to give equal space to both sides of an arguement but to weight the ballance on the basis of notable POV's. Most notable POV's WORLD WIDE are that Gitmo is wrong, with most support being in the USA naturally with Old Europe and Middle East very strongly against. The current article represents that sellections of POV's, I do think you are right that a few more external links fron Notable sources supporting Gitmo would be useful. Hypnosadist 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. Please read the rule you are quoting. It clearly states that one point of view shall NOT be given unfair weight. When 90% of the articles bash gitmo and by the way most all reference various articles all having the same POV and in most cases the same CONTENT, that is wrong. Using your interpretation, should I go add 50 other news sources that all discuss the KSM confession in a positive light? The answer to my rhetorical question is no. I stand by my belief that the sources are unbalanced. Dare I say hijacked by anti US sentiment as you eluded to. If you really wanted to create unbiased sources you would start by removing the redundancies, which would take care of about half of them. Tscrum 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right it is about what is unfair weight. "should I go add 50 other news sources that all discuss the KSM confession in a positive light?" no but Please add a good notable source saying that, as that will make it more ballanced. Just understand that outside america there is very little support for gitmo. Again anything you have from notable sources on the defence of Gitmo's legitamacy would also help. Hypnosadist 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, we've now went full-circle back to my original post. "anything you have from notable sources on the defence of Gitmo's legitamacy would also help"... now this is getting silly. The fact that it's a fully sanctioned United States Naval Base isn't enough to give it legitimacy in your mind? The sources are unbalanced and I will remove the tag when it is cleaned up. I will try to help as I find time. I am finished commenting on this. Tscrum 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's a naval base isn't sufficient evidence to me, but the menus on the article I linked to below are. I agree that much of this article is POV. Examining the facts accurately requires a more even balance of sources. What Hypnosaddist was doing by stating "Most notable POV's WORLD WIDE are that Gitmo is wrong" was a clear example of the fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum". HOWEVER, your justifying Gitmo by simply stating it's a sanctioned Naval Base is a form of "appeal to authority", another logical fallacy. Add some sources and make what changes you want based on verifiable information, and I'll gladly help improve the POV situation. Hopefully others will as well, though Wikipedia seems notorious for it's "ad po[pulum" argument in POV feuds. In fact, I'm a diehard Liberal and even I was tempted to place a POV tag here. 67.70.92.62 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Until there are more specific criticism, I am removing the tag. If you want to put the tag up again, please state which links you think are POV and what links, if any, are unfairly excluded making the external link section POV. Remember 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"argumentum ad populum" is basically one of the drivers of NPOV, as long as the populum are notable RS's not just plebs. Also i was pointing out that opinion in the world runs at 20 to 1 against gitmo so the claims about lack of ballance need to understand that is the ballance the external links should have. Hypnosadist 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I recently checked the NPOV policy, and I have since adjusted my concerns in accordance with that. I will say I disagree with this policy strongly, but that's just the way it is and I'm prepared to lay aside opposition to that for now. Still, I came across a POV tag in the "Conditions at the Camp" section. Anyway, I apologized if I've seemed harsh. HOWEVER, it does still seem like unfair weight is being given to the "Gitmo is evil" POV. I've read this article over a few times, and however one looks at it, it seems to be a mere collage of cases against Gitmo. I'm saying this because, although being a Liberal I have no quarrel with criticisms of camp conditions, allegations of torture, etc, the context of these points is not properly provided. For example, the section on religious persecution mentions allegations of improper handling of the Qu'ran, yet there is absolutely no mention of where these allegations originated. It merely mentions a Qu'Ran being allegedly flushed down a toilet. Fair weight or not, this matter was addressed by an United States military invesigation which concluded that "In one incident, on February 23, 2004, the report said a guard saw a "detainee place two Qurans in his toilet and state he no longer cared about the Quran or his religion." Could it not mention that and then go on to say "however", followed by arguments concluding that the guards did flush a Qu'Ran down the toilet. If it can't be sufficiently proven, I suppose it's fine as it is, though don't assume using "weasel words" like simply adding "alleged" removes bias. I recognize the NPOV rules regarding "objectivity", however if Wikipedia was truly intended to be encyclopedic in nature, it must provide facts regardless of whether or not they fit the overall popular opinion. The sources are overwhelmingly provided in criticism of Gitmo, adding some sources with facts that show Gitmo in a slightly more positive light won't do any damage, since they of course would not change things like the fact that waterboarding is used on detainees. I find this would be the best solution as it would appease those like Tscrum who desire a little more cold hard facts, be they in favour of or against Gitmo, meanwhile it wouldn't change the overall tone of the article. Finally, note this: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Correct or not, I believe that the government's POV and explanations are significant. 70.49.89.112 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add more sourced notable and verifiable info 70.49.89.112, Tscrum or anyone else! Hypnosadist 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

KSM

khalid sheik mohammed is not mentioned and i think he should be, since he is a prime al-qaeda and is in gitmo.

Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees - also, crazy categories here

This is a severe case of WTF - there are literally dozens subcats there. ` It's:[3]

   *
     [+] Alleged Al Wafa associates
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have tried to commit suicide
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been abused in custody
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees involved in the drug trade
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have participated in their CSRT
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose allegations memo was released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have participated in their first ARB hearing
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been present at the riot at Mazari Sharif
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be a member of Jama'at al Tabligh
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose factors memo was released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee whose CSRT determined he was not an enemy combatant
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee named on a suspicious list
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees about whose identity there is some doubt
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have been released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees who face charges before a military commission
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have traveled to afghanistan for jihad
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they wore a Casio watch
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have stayed in a guest house
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who continued to be held because he led Guantanamo prayer sessions
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have fled the US bombing campaign
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have attended a suspect military training camp
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have responded to a fatwa
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee known to be under eighteen when captured
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose whose behavior in Guantanamo has been described as non-compliant
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees held because they were alleged to have possessed a satellite phone
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have stayed in a safe house
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they were alleged to have fled through Tora Bora
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees captured on the battlefield
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they were alleged to have fled the US bombing campaign
   *
     [+] Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives whose request for witnesses was denied
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives whose request for exculpatory evidence was denied
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose mental health is in question
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be associated with Taliban
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees about whose mental health is in question
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who had a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives who have reported or experienced religious abuse
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees allegedly an Osama bin Laden bodyguard
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive whose enemy combatant status was reviewed by a CSRT
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who expressed confusion during his Tribunal
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive who claims to be a civilian
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive who claims to be a humanitarian worker
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be associated with Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin

Holy crap! Someone contact Wiki admins or something, because it's completely ridiculous.

Also:

Categories: Cleanup from March 2007 | All pages needing cleanup | Articles lacking sources from June 2006 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with weasel words | Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty | 2002 establishments | Anti-terrorism policy of the United States | Buildings and structures in Cuba | Civil rights abuses | Concentration camps | Detention centres for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States | Guantanamo Bay Naval Base | Human rights abuses | Political repression in the United States | Prisons | Terrorism | Torture in the United States of America

???? --HanzoHattori 06:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can see that you feel a strong concern. But you seem to have forgotten to say why you are concerned.

Why are you registering your concern here, rather than in Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees?

I am leaving the rest of my reply there.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason why the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article is in the category "Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty". --HanzoHattori 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield. Challenge other's contributions all you like, so long as you can comply with wp:civ. Characterizing someone else's contribution as "crazy". is not civil.

Category:Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty ended up on this article through an ordinary mistake, an oversight. Your sarcasm was avoidable, and unnecessarily provocative.

I'd be very interested if you have any civil, specific, reasoned criticisms.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you forgot category "Guantanamo detainee reported to be left handed". --HanzoHattori 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to confine yourself to civil comments, that enhance the wikipedia.

I think if you had read the reply I wrote for you, over in Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees, you would see I had already addressed the concern that some of these categories give the surface appearance of triviality. However, since Guantanamo military intelligence analysts used these allegations that might seem trivial to anyone who has not read the transcripts, these allegations are among those used to justify detaining these men without charge for three years, .

Casio F91W

Consider the possession of a Casio F91W watch — it is one of the most popular digital watches ever manufactured. Why do Guantanamo analysts consider possession of this watch a factor indicating the captive is a terrorist?

• They have reports that this model of watch has been used as the timer for time-bombs.
• They have reports that Ahmed Ressam, the Millenium bomber, bought two of these watches just prior to trying to travel to LAX.
• They have reports that one of these $15 watches was given to every graduate of a bomb-making classes, because this is the watch that they practiced on, during the course.

However, realistically, to build a time bomb a potential bomber needs more than a watch that can be turned into a timer. The bomb-builder would need other things, that are harder to get ahold of than a watch that could be bought in any middle east bazaar, or any American strip-mall. I think I can say, without revealing any secrets, that the bomb-builder would need a soldering iron, a volt-meter, and one of those tiny screw drivers. Realistically, possession of a common watch should not trigger suspicion if the owner wasn't also carrying the other items they would need.

Further, from their descriptions, at least four of the captives whose continued detention was justified because they owned a casio watch, were wearing different models. Two guys wore the casio watches with builtin calculators. Two wore the much more expensive, technically cool, Casio Prayer Watch.

I know your sarcasm is triggered because this subject is so emotionally charged, because we all feel less safe, because we all feel there is a chance we might be the victim of a terrorist bomb now. I know some people resent the efforts I make to document how well Guantanamo efforts have been working. That resentment is misplaced. Realistically, what we need in order to enhance our safety is for the decisions about how to allocate our counter-terrorism resources are made in a clear, sober, intelligent, unemotional manner. And, in order to make sober, intelligent, unemotional decisions we need to base those decisions on sober, intelligent, unenmotional intelligence.

If the Guantanamo intelligence gathers give free rein to their emotions, fabricate evidence, count on unreliable or incompetent translators, grant undue credibilty to deceitful stool-pigeon, or to unbelieveable confession extracted using "extended interrogation methods", then they are the ones who are us all at risk.

• Did they give free rein to their emotions? I think Jeanette Arocho-Burkart's smearing of her menses on her interrogation subject's face was a sign of the unprofessionalism of the Guantanamo interrogators.
• Did they fabricate evidence. Yeah. I am afraid so. Or at least stretched the captive's statements far beyond the bounds of reason. For instance, one captive faced the allegation that he saw Osama bin Laden five times. What really happened. His interrogators kept continually asking him how many times he had seen OBL. He kept telling them the truth, that he wasn't a terrorist, and had never gone for jihad training, and had never seen OBL. One time, out of frustration and boredom, he responded, "Yeah, I saw him five times, three times on CNN, and twice on Al Jazeera."
• The Guantanamo translators were notoriously unreliable. One teenage boy faced the allegation that he was an al Qaeda financier. Why? His dialect of Arabic differed from his translator's version of Arabic. The word his translator used for money was pronounced the same as the word for tomatoes in the boy's dialect. He wanted to be cooperative, so when his translator asked him, "where else would you go for tomatoes?" he listed every fruit and vegetable stall in his local bazaar. He named so many vegetable stalls that his interrogator wrote it up as an intelligence coup. He had broken an al Qaeda financier, who had given him numerous leads to al Qaeda funders — the vendors at those vegetable stalls.
• The captive's lawyers have determined that there are a very small number of captives who have denounced all the others. One captive denounced 270 other captives. There is a captive the guards and interrogators call '"pimp-daddy"'. He openly bragged to his Tribunal about how much he enjoyed denouncing the other captives. He said he hated all the other captives. He hated life outside, because he had a micropenis (I am not making this up.) and he would be happy staying at Guantanamo, and continuing to denounce as many fellow captives as he could. Then there is Mohamed al-Kahtani, one of the 20th hijackers. He was deprived of sleep, given force-feeding, enemas, and IVs, so he could be interrogated 20 hours a day. By the time they "broke" him, he was hallucinating. An FBI observer recorded that al-Kahtani was sitting in the corner, gibbering, and hearing voices. Well after he "broke", al-Kahtani denounced 30 captives as OBL bodyguards. Sure enough, when you go through the allegations against the captives, you will read, time after time, "A senior al qaida operative identified the detainee as an OBL bodyguard."
• Here is another example. Over half a dozen captives face allegations that they were rounded up following a skirmish outside the village of Lejay, on February 10 2003. These are among the very few captives who were actually captured by Americans. And they are among the very few captives who could be said to have been captured on the battlefield. After the skirmish the Americans rounded up all the local men, about 70 local men. They picked a dozen to send to HQ, and let the rest go free. Unfortunately two of the men Baridad and Rahmatullah, had names similar to senior Taliban leaders. Several of the other guys captured that day face the allegation that they were captured at the same time as the senior Taliban leaders because they were captured with men who had names similar to senior Taliban leaders.

The analysis efforts in Guantanamo clearly had no meaningful sanity checks. This puts us all at risk, because it pollutes the pool of intelligence with a lot of crap. This is not just a waste of money (over a million bucks per captive). The childishness, lack of professionalism, lack of seriousness, misplaced malice, have made all of us less safe, because our decision-making about how to allocate our counter-terrorism resources will be based on false premises. We will allocated it where it will be wasted, and we won't allocate enough where we need it.

WP:OR and WP:RS prevent putting this in article space. But, what I think can be put is the raw information of what the Guantanamo analysts used to justify continued detention — even if it doesn't pass your sanity check, or my sanity check. These seemingly trivial allegations passed whatever passed for a sanity check down in Guantanamo, and that makes them notable.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr

Lists, man. LISTS, not 40+ (!!!) sub-categories - all this would be probably on just few lists (maybe even one). I recall there's even a wiki rule on this somewhere here around. And so one person can be in several at once, right? It's absolutely enough for him to be in the category of either current Gitmo dets, or a released Gds (soon probably also executed ones, like Sheikh Mohammed guy). --HanzoHattori 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat my request that you make a greater effort to comply with wp:civ.

Yes, lists are great. I love lists too. I have already started about two dozen articles each built around a list, including:

• Casio F91W
• Khaldan training camp
• Derunta training camp
• Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat is tied to terrorism
• charities accused of ties to terrorism
• witnesses requested by Guantanamo captives

When I started them I thought each of those categories could have an article built around a list built on top of it. And, if no one starts them first, I will do so.

Have you devoted much mental energy to thinking about the allegations against the captives? Not that you have any obligation to do so — except that you are commenting, and making judgements about them. From my dialogs with earlier correspondents it has struck me that the more the correspondent seems to have accepted the Bush administration spokesmen accounts of the identity of the captives, at face value, the more likely they are to think the captives aren't notable, and they don't merit coverage in the wikipedia.

When examined, in detail, the transcripts from their Tribunals don't support the Bush administration line.

If you have a serious interest in contributing to the wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo, and related issues, I would strongly encourage you to read some transcripts for yourself. If you are one of those people who has accepted the accounts from the Bush administration at face value, I think you will find you are in for a surprise. -- Geo Swan 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BUSH LINE lol, Wikipedia:Overcategorization kthxbye. --HanzoHattori 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Detainees? No, Prisoners of War

Since July 11, 2006, the US administration has reluctantly shifted their policy on Geneva Conventions after a Supreme Court decision (see this Washington Post article) (and this BBC article). Geneva Conventions do apply at GITMO This means GITMO is not a "detention camp" but a Prisoner of War Camp. This also means the captives are not "detainees", but Prisoners of War. The word "detainee" is not defined under the Geneva Conventions[4] As a matter of fact, their confinement in GITMO is another game that is being played to try to circumvent the law. GITMO is foreign property that has been leased by the United States and therefore it is the current administration's hope that laws don't apply there. This whole "detainee" schtick allows Bush and his fellow criminals can get away with bypassing due process of law and torturing Prisoners of War. The US newspapers continue the detainee propaganda although the Supreme Court has decided they are indeed Prisoners of War under Geneva. Please include the other POV in the article now.Kgrr 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misinterpretation of your sources. The Supreme Court ruled that the detainees were protected by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which applies to basically every one found in the war zone, and that the administration's proposed military tribunals violated Common Article 3 standards. The Conventions' much more stringent and elaborate protections for Prisoners of War were not deemed applicable by the Supreme Court, nor, so far as I know, has the U.S. Defense Department chosen to grant the detainees the full rights and protections of POWs. Pirate Dan 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Ollie North's legitimacy

One of the wikipedians working on this article excised some material that touched on Ollie North, on the basis of a perceived POV.

I left them a note four days ago, suggesting they consider rewriting passages like that on, not excision. After waiting a couple of days, and seeing them busy engaging in discussions here, but no rewrite, I rewrote the passage myself.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in your reference does it cite what you posted, and I quote you "However the only schooling the three children held in Camp Iguana ever received was the lessons they received at the camp. North's account that a released child from Camp Iguana was killed in combat, weeks after his release is at odds with the accounts of the journalists who interviewed the childrean[sic] in the weeks after their release." Without a reference this does not meet WP standards and should be removed. Please cite the reference or remove the POV. Further, defining Mullah is redundant. Please link to its wiki page directly on the first use of the word and remove the redundant definition. You may construe this as my protecting the legitimacy of North, I construe it as protecting the legitamacy of wikipedia. Tscrum 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) Their illiteracy was well documented in the Camp Iguana article, and the individual articles about the three boys.

I think you and I have different definitions of POV.

Explaining Mullah would usually not be necessary. I think it is necessary here, because of North's error. He is clearly mistaken that any of the boys was killed in the weeks following their release, because the Guardian interviews all three of them over four months later. And he was clearly mistaken to call children with one year of schooling "mullah". I picked North's account of "Mullah Shahzada" because it was the one most clearly an invention. All the references are questionable. His was just the most questionable.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay so let's say you are correct and he said Mullah in error. What does that have to with anything? How does that establish the need for a mention in an encyclopedia? Are you suggesting that your reference is more right than another reference? I am trying to understand this, but really am not. I do not see how your addition adds anything to the section. Maybe it belongs somewhere else? Tscrum 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do North's errors have to do with this article? You force me to repeat myself. I'll state it in different words.

1. Bush administration spokesmen repeatedly state that captives have "returned to the battlefield".
2. Only three names have been discussed. Abdullah Mehsud, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, and Mullah Shahzada.
3. Those three names are not on the official list. Readers who have read the Bush administration position that senior members of the Taliban managed to trick their interrogators into thinking they were simple, innocent, villagers, who could safely be released, only to, "return to the battlefield", deserve to know that this story could not possibly be true. If it were true, these men would be listed on the full official list of all the captives, which the DoD was forced to release on May 15 2006. They are just not there. Maybe they were in Guantanamo, but in CIA custody? What we can be sure about is that they weren't confused with simple villagers.
4. Without regard to whether they were or weren't held in CIA custody in Guantanamo, Abdullah Mehsud and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar were real individuals.
5. But readers who are wondering if there is any truth, whatsoever, to the accounts of a "Mullah Shahzada" also tricked his way out of Guantanamo, only to return to the battelfield, and then be KIA, deserve to know that there is no credible evidence that "Mullah Shahzada" was anything more than a fiction. Yes, Guantanamo did contain a guy named Shahzada, Haji Shahzada. But he wasn't released until some time in 2005. Long after most account said "Mullah Shahzada" had already been killed.
6. Shahzada, the real Shahzada, was one of the 38 captives who convinced their Combatant Status Review Tribunal he had never been an "enemy combatant".
7. I read Shahzada's transcript, and those of two of the men captured with him. The real Shahzada was captured the day after a dinner party, where his other two guests were a Tajik and an Uzbek. The Taliban hated Tajiks and Uzbeks. The Taliban prohibited a long list of things — including kite-flying, movies, shaving, and cock-fighting. Shahzada and one of the other two guys he was captured with were fans of cock-fighting. Shahzada and the other guy, Abdullah Khan, were fans of dog-fighting -- also prohibitied by the Taliban. Of the many accounts of "Mullah Shahzada" death, one, the one published by a newspaper in Red China, had him dying after Haji Shahzada, the real Shahzada, was released. But, his involvement with people the Taliban hated, and his involvement with activities the Taliban prohibited, make me think it was very unlikely he chose to start fighting the Americans.
8. All of the invented accounts of "Mullah Shahzada" are inconsistent with the DoD's official lists of captives. I could have listed all of them, every one I could find, and countered it with the verifiable, authoritative explanations why it was not credible. Instead I picked North's account, because his was the least credible, because it had more wrong with it than the others.

Do you understand now?

This not about North. It is about the credibility of the claims that Mullah Shahzada, a Taliban leader who had tricked his way out of Guantanamo. I picked the least credible account. North's.

Am I suggesting my references are "more right" than North's reference? Yes, of course. Did you do me the courtesy to actually check my references?

North's version	other journalists	officially acknowledged by DoD
"Mullah Shahzada" was a child, held in Camp Iguana	Only three children were held in Camp Iguana. None of them was named "Mullah Shahzada".
North's account, like the other reports who wrote about "Mullah Shahzada", claimed he was a Guantanamo captive.		There is no record of a Guantanamo captive named "Mullah Shahzada". The official Guantanamo lists put the captive's honorific titles as if they were first names — their spreadsheet, or whatever they used to record the names, did not grok individuals who only had a single name. Many Afghans don't have a first name, or last name, they only had a single name. Shahzada, the real Shahzada, being an example.
Mullah Shahzada was KIA weeks after his release from Camp Iguana. The boys were release on January 29 2004 So, by North's account, "Mullah Shahzada" was KIA in mid February 2004.	The three boys were interviewed, live, and in person, by multiple journalists, as late as four and a half months following the boys release. I believe live and in person interviews trump North's uninformed speculation.	Haji Shahzada, the real Shahzada went through a Combatant Status Review Tribunal The first ones were held in August 2004, and the last in January 2005. If he had his CSRT in Guantanamo, in late 2004, how could he have been killed in early 2004.
"Mullah" means "educated man".	All the interviews with the boys state the boys were illiterate when the arrived in Guantanamo	Various DoD spokesmen have also reiterated when the boys arrived in Guantanamo they were illiterate. The schooling that was provided to the three boys was one of the very few good news stories from Guantanamo. This is why they kept repeating it.

If you are going to keep discussing these issues, can I ask that you take a minute to check other people's references, before you dispute them, OK?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had some correspondence with Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a DoD spokesman. On May 14th Gordon, and some other officials, testified before a Congressional committee. He apparently repeated the claim that thirty former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. He identified six renegades, by name. The trouble was only one of the men he had named was listed on the official list of captives. So, I wrote him.

Initially he congratulated me for trying to get my facts straight, observing many people in cyberspace didn't bother doing so. He supplied me with the ISN of all six men. But, he didn't undertake any steps to update the official record, or issue an addendum. Of course I can't update the articles of the men whose ISN he provided me in a private email. That would violate WP:NPOV.

I think I remained perfectly polite with him. But he became increasingly uncooperative. When I asked him to clarify a list of several dozen captives whose names were listed inconsistenly on the DoD's two official lists, he blamed the inconsistencies on the captive's (1) lying about their identity; (2) having up to ten aliases.

In his final email to me he told me that the wikipedia was not a legitimate source, and he had no further obligation to help wikipedia volunteers because academics did not allow their students to cite the wikipedia in academic papers.

A couple of days ago, as I re-read the transcript of another Guantanamo captive's (Abdul Matin) Administrative Review Board, he had testified that initially his interrogators kept insisting that he too was a Taliban commander named Shah Zada. He testified that, through the help of letters written by the visiting Red Cross workers, he was able to get his interrogators to stop calling him Shah Zada. But, at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, he faced multiple allegations that he was a Taliban commander.

So, they released one of the guys they called Shahzada who really was a Taliban commander, and they retained the guy who had proven he was being held through an instance of mistaken identity. Later they claim that the Taliban commander tricked his way out of Guantanamo. Meanwhile, the innocent guy is still in detention. Geo Swan 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why the DoD would get pissed at you Geo, ROFL! Really good work as usual. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld torture law suit

It has just been thrown out of court yet the court says torture happens. [5] Hypnosadist 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gitmo Menus?

I recently came across reports regarding the meals served to inmates at Guantanamo Bay and feel that perhaps this would be worth addressing. Gitmo Menu I've been a diehard Liberal for a long time now, and have never supported Gitmo, but I think this should be addressed in the article in regard to treatment of detainees. Brad2 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real fact in this article are "The Pentagon budgets $2.5 million per year for feeding the prisoners, which works out to $12.68 per person per day." other than that its not really relivent. There have been no protests about the food at gitmo, just the fact people are held without charge and without the POW protections granted to them by the Geneva conventions. Even the "$12.68 per person per day, Meals in federal prisons cost $2.78 per convict daily." is not a fair comparison as most super-max prisons don't need every ingredient 'flown in at the resultant increased cost to the US Tax payer, it could be cheaper if they bought Cuban grown and fished ingredients!(and the enviroment by reducing Food miles). Hypnosadist 02:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Copied form User talk:SeiteNichtGefunden‎ If you click on the picture itself, you see the image with the original caption which reads:

"Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of Military Police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy."

Nowhere does the original caption mention that the detainees are in pain. Is it possible that some of them are in pain? I think it's highly possible. But we aren't really allowed to speculate. It would violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV, which you should read if you have not already.

A few points that may help you. 1) Try to sign all you talk page posts with four tildes, ~~~~ . Also, you should probably stop trying to change the caption for now, even if you are right. If you violate WP:3RR, you may be blocked, and I think your next edit would constitute a reversion. Please let me know if you have any more thoughts or questions on this or any other topic here. Cheers. IronDuke 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with IronDuke on all points. · jersyko talk 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Global perspectives

As part of the Global persepctive task force, I've added a small section of international perspectives on Guantanamo. I'd appreciate help expanding this section, sspecially as Pew polls indicate it has been a more important issue among international publics than within the U.S.! Benzocane 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good addition to this article thanks Benzocane. Hypnosadist 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

There are a lot of references that are listed as 404. Here is one that was retrieved, but I am not sure where it was supposed to fit into the article:

ACLU Slams Bush Administration for Ejecting Journalists from Guantánamo (6/14/2006) 199.125.109.122 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the camp

I don't have time to do it myself right now, but one desideratum would be a section on the jurisdictional considerations that led to Gitmo's being selected. I occasionally encounter people who think that Gitmo was chosen b/c of security considerations (which makes no sense of course -- you escape from the base, and you're in Castro's Cuba?). If no one else tackles it, I'll see what I can do when things slow down. --Andersonblog 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Entire article is a POV crusade

This entire article needs to be trimmed down to a tenth of its size. It consists mostly of Geo Swan's ramblings on his US-bashing crusade. Anything that will paint the terrorist occupants as innocent loving choir boys will be included. Anything that will smear the US government and the individual men and women who serve in it as sadistic torture-inflicting tyrants will be included. This article is so slanted that it is a caricature. Kevinp2 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Read wp:npa and then wp:npov, then kevin you will find that this article represents world opinion on Gitmo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I read both of them, and you're right, they do say that this article represents world opinion on Gitmo. Not. In any case, world opinion is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. I have little hope of dissuading you from your POV crusade. Carry on and scribble in your caricature here as you please. But - could you at least reduce the sheer size of the article? Just from a writing perspective, I can say that it is possible to slander the US using a tenth of verbiage used here. Think about it - no one is going to read the 19+ printed pages (see Print Preview) of disorganized ramblings in this article. They are going to tune out. For example, if you cut out the legally irrelevant communications from the uninvolved family members of the choir boys, that might reduce the article by 20%. Indignant denunciations by hypocritical European politicans who have never been to Gitmo and who exercise far more draconian police state powers in their own countries than the US government - another 5%. And so on. The uninformed reader can then be exposed to the one sided POV of this article in a more effective manner. While Geo Swan's heart may be in "the right place", his writing skills are far from effective. At least reduce the verbiage in this article. Kevinp2 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Indignant denunciations by hypocritical European politicans who have never been to Gitmo and who exercise far more draconian police state powers in their own countries than the US government" OK Name the european countries that have detained over 435 non-citizens (or citizens for that matter) for over 4 years without charge or access to legal council? Good luck with that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Luck won't help on that one. European countries haven't felt the need to be serious about the types of wars under which GC's article III applies. Charges and/or access to legal council aren't part of that deal.

More to the point, although I'm most sympathetic to Kevin's observations, I feel that the positions of "hypocritical European politicans" are important here. This is very much a life and death struggle against fascism, and it may get a lot worse before it gets better. We should never be allowed to forget who defended whom.

-- Randy2063 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Randi your point about previous failures to enforce GCIII it quite true, but that should not meen we fail to enforce it now as it always applies until proved it does not. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking so much about failures to enforce it in the past, although that's an important point. It's that this is a war, and not a criminal proceeding.

As a war of this type, article 3 is the most we're currently obligated to provide (and some say the Supreme Court went too far in saying that article 3 applies at all). In any case, unless the Supreme Court rules differently when they reconsider this matter, there is no obligation to charge detainees with a crime unless we execute them. The U.S. is enforcing the GCs exactly as it's supposed to.

European politicians may huff and puff but it's only cynical posturing. They may change their minds anyway as the situation changes.

-- Randy2063 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Politicians, involved in "cynical posturing", never!!!11! Anyway wikipedia is not a chat page, so lets me finish with that notable statements by notable world and european politicians should be kept. Although a sub article might be called for. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevinp, if you have serious, specific criticisms that you can express in a civil fashion, I assure you I will take them seriously.

Would it be possible for you to avoid referring to other wikipedian's contributions as "ramblings"?

FWIW, I dispute that I am on a "US-bashing crusade". I have no interest in engaging in a "US-bashing crusade". I believe I honor the founding principles held by the US founding fathers as firmly as any patriotic American.

I dispute that finding, and providing coverage of, anomalies and discrepanceies in the official documents the DoD has released about the GWOT captives is "America-bashing". The safety of the American public, or all non-terrorists around the world, is improved when those GWOT captives who had valid alibis, were freed. It is just like those cases where the wrong guy is convicted of murder, and is sitting on death row. Not only is that a terrible injustice, but it makes the public less safe, because if the wrong guy is in prison, or gets executed, then the actual murder remains at large, and free to kill again. Finding verifiable, authoritative sources of anomalies and discrepancies in the official documents is not "America-bashing". Using those sources to make contributions that comply with WP:NPOV is in the interests of public safety.

So, again, I would encourage you to be specific, and civil, in your expressions of concern about other wikipedians contributions. I do my best to comply with all the wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:NPOV. If you really think my compliance has lapsed I want you to tell me about it, as specifically as possible. Geo Swan 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have spent an hour tagging this article for the most objectionable sections that I could find. If I had spent more time tagging, I could easily have tagged nearly every paragraph. This article should really be discarded and written anew, preferably by persons who have not previously contributed to it. Kevinp2 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to add specific comments about each of those tags? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my history comments - I added as much specific information as I could. Most of them should be self-explanatory. Kevinp2 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about your edit summeries there are no details supplied, you need to be specific about what lines you want changing and how. And would you stop with the snide comments about european (and particularly British) politicians. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If reading the tag and reading the section text isn't clear enough, I don't know what else would be, short of annotating the entire text with inline tags. Please put yourself in the shoes of a Wikipedia reader who is new to this subject and is trying to wade through 19 printed pages of prose. That should make my perspective clearer. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not the research paper that it has become. Anyway, I think I have a better solution: I am going to propose a new outline that will greatly reorganize and condense this article down from its 19 pages to perhaps 3 pages or so. All of the existing research material can be moved into new research articles.

My remarks about European and/or UK politicians are not snide. I have a low opinion of them and consider them to be hypocritical and untrustworthy (as I do many US politicians). I thought that this opinion was plain enough. If you think my remarks are merely snide, then you misunderstand me. In any case, this is the Talk page, not the main page, and unless said politicians are contributing as Wikipedians, I owe them no deference and can call them as I see them Kevinp2 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"I owe them no deference and can call them as I see them" not true BLP applies to talk pages. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. WP:BLP applies to named people. I can call entire classes of people like politicians whatever I like on a talk page. And it is ironic that you say this on the talk page of an article that is systematically one-sided and intentionally smears the US government, the US military and all the people who work in it. Kevinp2 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, Hypnosadist? You run to WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL when I point out that this article is 19 pages of barely readable prose and is systematically unbalanced? Why not acknowledge the problems with the article and work to fix them? Kevinp2 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not unballanced for two main reasons; 1)The Bush executive has had its ass kicked in virtually every court case about Gitmo and the treatment of the innocent poeple detained there without charge. 2)Only at best 150 million of the 5 and a half billion people on this planet think Gitmo is acceptable, and the notable and quotable opinion on this issue follows those percentages. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Bush administration may have lost some court cases but GTMO is still open. They may have released some fascists but none of them have been exonerated -- whether people like to believe it or not.

As a matter of right and wrong, legal and illegal, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. There were a lot of non-Germans during WWII who joined the SS and swore allegiance to Hitler. There was a big peace movement, too, during the initial period when communists and fascists were still on the same side. They said nasty things about Roosevelt and Churchill very similar to what they're saying today. Public opinion was irrelevant to the truth then, and it's irrelevant to the truth today.

GTMO is still legal. There is no requirement to give those fascists a full trial unless we sentence them. Until then, the U.S. can hold them until the end of the war.

-- Randy2063 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm talking about the law the Geneva Conventions. Remember them?

-- Randy2063 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"They may have released some fascists but none of them have been exonerated" Some would be 400+ human beings released compared 1 (i repeat) ONE person convicted of anything. Thats a massive 0.25% conviction rate! Resulting in a massive 6 Month sentance, people get that for not paying parking tickets. And facts like that are what makes this appear to be a "POV crusade". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, like most critics, you've forgotten the Geneva Conventions. A full trial is not required. They had their CSRTs. And if you're thinking of citing the Denbeauxs' studies, forget it. They're also trying to forget the Geneva Conventions.

-- Randy2063 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope its a guy called donald that said they did not apply, if this was a POW camp applying the GCIII then they need a "Compitent Tribunal" to determin if they are POW's or not. Not one prisoner has had one of these, Donald tried to get round the GCIII so you can't go back and say "oh now the GCIII applies after five years". By denighing IRC vistitations and not giving them full details on the prisoners at Gitmo the USA violated the GCIII. Not to mention the Ghost detainies for the Black sites that completely violate the GCIII. Anyway if you have any usful specific ideas to share with us about this article please do! If its just bitching about Anti-americanism This is not a chat site so don't!^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. As you like to point out, Bush lost on GCs and that's when the CSRTs were started. If you examine the CSRTs, you'll see they're a lot like the "competent tribunals." They're not trials. They don't have to be. Trials are not required by the GCs.

I'm not bitching about Anti-Americanism. I'm merely concerned that it's affected the article.

-- Randy2063 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you examine the CSRTs, you'll see they're a lot like the "competent tribunals."" Not even close but even you admit they are not what is laid down in the GCIII. Four years late and an independant lawyer short does not count for much in my book. Now any sources you want to add to put america's position or any other useful edit you propose. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't examined the differences between a CSRT and a competent tribunal. It's true that they're not 100% exactly alike, but it's not true at all that they're not sufficient to satisfy the Geneva Conventions. They are sufficient, and they do satisfy the GCs. CSRTs are even better than competent tribunals in some ways.

Most important, the Supreme Court has not ruled otherwise. (If you recall, it was you who noted Supreme Court decisions) I haven't even seen one of the fascists' lawyers claim otherwise. If you read the Denbeaux study you'll see that they're making comparisons to civilian trials that detainees are not entitled to. They ignore the GCs. They can do that because they're sleazy lawyers. You can't do that here.

-- Randy2063 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trials -- that is some kind of judicial procedure -- are not required by the Geneva Conventions, for combatants recognized to be lawful combatants, legitimate prisoners of war. Rather, they are not allowed. So long as a combatant complies with the the three specific rules in article four, and the last general rule that he complies with the customary laws of war, he can't be tried. According to the conventions, killing an enemy soldier is not murder. IANAL, but I think killing a civilian, who you thought was an enemy soldier is not murder, unless you made a bone-head and indefensible mistake.

However, some Guantanamo captives have faced charges, before the military commissions, which are something like a real trial, and that is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because, as hypnosadist noted, the USA hasn't conducted a single "competent tribunal" for anyone captured in Afghanistan.

There is a surface similarity between the CSRTs and the AR 190-8 Tribunals. But the fundamental difference lies in what the two Tribunals are authorized to conclude. The AR 190-8 Tribunal can conclude that a captive is not a lawful combatant, and really did seem to have violated the laws of war, and thus should be stripped of a big measure of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Or they can conclude that a captive is an innocent civilian noncombatant, who should be released. Finally they can conclude that a captive really was a lawful combatant all along, and should continue to be fully protected by POW status.

I think the Supreme Court wanted the DoD to implement Tribunals which not only bore a surface similarity to the USA's version of the competent tribunal, the AR-190-8 Tribunal, but they wanted one which complied with the intent of the Geneva Conventins.

In spite of the surface similarity between the CSRTs and competent tribunals that fully comply with the Geneva Conventions you got anomalous results in the CSRTs, like, guys who were demobilized before 9-11 still being considered combatants. If I read the GC correctly any demobilized soldier is considered a civilian -- even if they are a highly decorated veteran with 20 plus years of service. As you know some of the Guantanamo captives had served in the Taliban, but had been demobilized years before 9-11. As you know there were guys like elderly Nasrat Khan, who hadn't fought against Afghanistan's occupiers since he had a debilitating stroke in 1986. I'd like to believe there is absolutely no way a guy like him would be considered any kind of combatant before a properly constituted competent tribunal.

As you may have picked up from the transcripts Afghanistan, after decades of warfare, had a dreadful manpower shortage -- particularly skilled manpower. Although "Talib" means "student", the Taliban didn't value real education, real learning, only Koranic learning. Guys rose to senior leadership positions within the Taliban regime were given to men who never learned how to read, or write, or do math. So the Taliban filled the ranks of what passed for a civil service there through conscription. The CSRTs classified involuntary conscripts into the civil service as "enemy combatants". I would like to believe there is no way a properly constituted competent tribunal would classify any civilian as a combatant.

FWIW, calling for properly consistituted competent tribunals doesn't mean someone is anti-American. Even Peter Brownback's buddy and former boss, whose name I am blocking on, stated, that in his opinion, any of the Guantanamo captives who said he was a civilian was entitled to a competent tribunal. The guy was formerly the number one or number two Army JAG, prior to his retirement. So, his opinion is worth something. And I doubt he served thirty year in the Army, and rose to the rank of Brigadier General, by being ant-American.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On Peter Brownback's buddy's quote, are you sure that wasn't said before the Hamdan decision and the CSRTs? The Omar Khadr situation may have been a big mistake, but I think it shows that the process is working to protect him. If anything, I'd say Khadr would be getting more than he deserves by not calling him an unlawful combatant. But if he gets it, the military commission will give him a real trial that the critics seem to want.

I don't think the issue of a demobilized soldier would change very much under a competent tribunal as compared to a CSRT. The same types of people could serve on either, and they'd have the same resources. The CSRT certainly does have the option of calling him a demobilized soldier and nothing more. They made a different decision because they see it differently than you do.

In Nasrat Khan's case, it doesn't matter whether he can hold a rifle. His position with an al-Qaeda affiliate makes him eligible for GTMO. FDR sat in a wheelchair. He was still commander-in-chief. He would not have been considered a mere civilian had he been captured. You could argue that Khan's condition makes him of such little value that he should be let go. That would be a medical or ethical opinion, and perhaps even a practical military one, but it doesn't seem to me like a legal opinion.

I don't know how you consider a CSRT to not be "properly constituted." It's not a court, but neither is a competent tribunal. Just because they're different doesn't mean that they're not compliant with the GCs.

-- Randy2063 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John D. Altenburg -- statement was pre-Hamdan ruling, IIRC.

While the CSR Tribunals and the AR 190-8 Tribunals have a surface similarity, and while the same officers may have sat on them if the DoD had used AR 190-8 Tribunals, the results would, I believe, have been very different because the mandate of a CSR Tribunal and that of an AR 190-8 Tribunal are very different. Joyce Hens Green asked a bunch of questions to try to clarify the definition the DoD was using for enemy combatant, a little old lady, in Switzerland, who thinks she is sending money to a legitimate charity to support widows and orphans -- could she be considered an "enemy combatant" if, unknown to her, some portion of her widow's mite got diverted to support a terrorist project? The answer was "yes". Being a civilian is no defense against the charge "enemy combatant".

What Khadr deserves is a competent tribunal. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Khadr killed Sergeant Christopher Speer. Speer used his paramedic training to treat some children a few days prior to the skirmish, which sounds like a very decent thing to do. His death was a tragedy. But, if a competent tribunal determines Khadr was a lawful combatant then it is not murder. The Geneva Conventions try to codify the circumstances when soldiers killing other soldiers is murder, and when it is not murder. Beating prisoners to death, when they bound, and not presenting anyone any imminent danger? That remains murder. Even if, like Lewis Welshofer, you think you really need the information you can beat out of your captive, it is still murder. A lot has been written trying to justify why those fighting for the Taliban aren't lawful combatants.

John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales being the banner carriers. I have heard them both speak.

• Gonzales acknowledged that everyone carries guns in Afghanistan, so he was willing to yield on that item. But he added that the Taliban are known to have committed atrocities. I know that the Taliban contain some very repressive elements, and I have read accounts of atrocities. But, the way I see it, those atrocities only make war criminals of those who committed them, and those directly responsible for their actions. No one is suggesting every American GI should be held responsible for Welshofer brutally smothering the Iraqi General with the broken ribs.
• That leaves fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance (the GC doesn't actually say "uniform"). Some Guantanamo captives continued detention was justified because they had been issued "Taliban uniforms". So, so far as I am concerned, this remains an open question.
• That leaves answering to a responsible chain of command. And, if you look at the second or three allegations against Khirullah Khairkhwa you see a textbook description of a chain of command.
• About a month ago Khadr's mother gave a telephone interview where she said that her husband sent Omar to translate for an Arab. Previous accounts of the skirmish described all his comrades as Afghans. Working for an Arab, a foreigner, could erode part of his claim to being a lawful combatant.

FDR, GWB, Rumfeld, Gordon England, Ahmadinejad, all civilians. General Mushareff of Pakistan has not resigned his commission. I think if he were captured he would be considered a combatant. My understanding is that the title "Commander-in-chief" is a courtesy title, a formality, and does not mean the POTUS is a combatant, the fighter-pilot President in [Independence Day]] notwithstanding.

About elderly Nasrat Khan you wrote: "His position with an al-Qaeda affiliate makes him eligible for GTMO."

• No, I think the allegation that he may have had an association with an al Qaeda affiliated organization made him eligible for an AR 190-8 Tribunal, shortly after he was taken into custody.
• Nasrat Khan had his stroke in 1986. That is before al Qaeda was founded.
• Worth noting that HIG was opposed to the Taliban, and the the two groups were enemies, until long after the US arrival. Their alliance only dates back to 2003, according to the Tribunal documents.
• I think Nasrat Khan's defense that, at the time he was in the HIG, the HIG was the USA's de-facto ally is a compelling defense.
• Khan's account of his capture was that when his son was captured he came to his sons house, to make sure his female relatives weren't left alone, and that he was apprehended when he went to HQ to try to find out why his son was apprehended.
• The Rumsfeld strategy during the Afghanistan invasion was to make heavy use of Afghan allies, militia leaders, or "warlords", if you will. Some pundits warned, at the time, that it was a dangerous strategy, that they would be an impediment to democracy, with their private battalions of troops. Most of these guys were suspected of having little to no real commitment to democracy. Some of them were as brutal as the Taliban. Some were as conservative and repressive as the Taliban.
• I believe what you see with the capture of Khan's son was a undiplomatic attempt to curb local power. His son was responsible for an armory -- an official government armory. There were half a dozen armory managers in Guantanamo.
• In this recent article from the Boston Globe you can read about another example of curbing the power of a local warlord whose usefulness was at an end. Abdullah Mujahid clearly was not an enemy. Neither was his rival Pasha Khan, who was responsible for a rocket attack on FOB Salerno. The rocket attack was proved the usefulness and efficiency of his security forces, who were able to round up and hand in some suspects the next day Dilawar and Habibullah among them.
• Farah Stockman (August 12 2007). "US behind Afghan warlord's rise, fall: At Guantanamo, unruly chieftains join combatants". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-09-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The demobilized soldier is a civilian according to the Geneva Conventions. I believe an AR 190-8 would not be able to classify a demobilized soldier as a combatant, so long as he did not spontanously take up arms. A civilian who spontaneously takes up arms, to resist an invader, can still be a lawful combatant I believe. The Geneva Convention has, I believe, other sections that address temporarily holding individuals who give provocative speeches that put public order at risk. I think their are limits on what a captor can do to them. They aren't combatants, and their captors aren't allowed to torture them or humiliate them any more than they can torture or humiliate captured combatants.

My apologies for not being clear on the proper constitution of a competent tribunal. I mean one that complies with both the letter of the Geneva Conventions, and its spirit too.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I slipped up. I had meant to ask if it was pre-Hamdi, not pre-Hamdan. IOW, was that said before the CSRTs? It's not in the CSRT article.

I don't think the difference between AR 190-8 and CSRT would have played out the way you think. The example of a little old lady in Switzerland might still work. She is theoretically a critical part of the enemy's war effort. In real life, I think the Swiss authorities would handle it to maintain their neutrality.

So far, Khadr actually got what you wanted him to have. His CSRT gave him "enemy combatant" status, which is close enough to POW. That's why he couldn't be charged with murder unless they run the CSRT again (which would be perfectly proper, BTW, although that will open up more cans of worms).

Even if they all wore uniforms, that still wouldn't be enough to recognize the Taliban as lawful combatants. There is still the requirement that they observe the laws and customs of war. They don't, and they won't. There was some disagreement in the government on acknowledging the Taliban, but I don't know if it could still shake out differently.

Everything you say about Nasrat Khan could be argued at a CSRT. It's fully capable of ruling that he was not an enemy of the U.S. If we assume for the moment there was no secret evidence against Khan that would surprise you, and that none of the "primary factors" are valid, then it would be that they made a mistake in judgment. As a mistake, a competent tribunal can make the same one. The burden of proof required at a competent tribunal is not any higher than that of a CSRT. All those complaints of "no-hearing hearings" would remain at an AR 190-8.

There are some other differences. But remember, the requirement is that we meet Geneva's minimum rules for a competent tribunal. The spirit of the GCs is something I'll be more concerned about when our enemies (and a few of our critics) start living by the GCs themselves.

-- Randy2063 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I am sorry I didn't add Altenburg's comment when I read it.
• I'm sorry, I don't follow how someone who only made an innocent donation to a charity could possibly be classified as any kind of combatant, following the GC's rules.
• Do you think the captives are getting to POW treatment?
• About members of the Taliban, not observing the laws of war -- I still don't see why violations of the laws of war shouldn't be the responsibility of those soldiers who violated the laws of war, and their commanders. Same as with Welshofer and Green. The GC wants enemy captives subjected to the same standards, and essentially the same mechanisms as the captives own troops, if they faced the same charges.
• One of the charges against Khadr is that he planted land mines. This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions, if an otherwise lawful combatant does it. There is a separate treaty banning the use of anti-personnel land mines (but not anti-vehicle land mines). But the USA, notably, was one of the few holdouts, one of the few countries that wouldnt' sign that treaty.
• Regarding Khan's CSRT -- and most of the rest of the CSRT -- they clearly did rely on secret evidence, because there are relatively few captives who didn't face more allegations during their ARB than they did during the CSRT. There was one captive who faced just three allegations during his CSRT, and faced 19 or 20 during his ARB. I find it highly disturbing when a captive gave full clear rebuttals to the allegations presented to him at his ARB, that were withheld during his CSRT. Refuting the allegations during the ARB is too late to effect his enemy combatant status. From my reading of the ARB transcripts it was painfully obvious to the Board members that the CSRT procedure failed, and the captive should never have been confirmed as an enemy combatant in the first place.

• Specifically regarding Khan's case. The No-hearing hearings paper doesn't cite him as an example, but his case, and that of his son, were two of the more shocking cases where the Tribunal ruled that a witness wasn't "reasonably available. The Armory that Hiztullah Nasrat Yar was assigned to guard was, he claimed, an official armory. The documents state that he saidRahim Wardak was the official who authorized the armory. The documents just call him a ministry of defense official. Wardak was, in fact, the Deputy Minister of Defense. The claim the USA couldn't contact the Deputy Minister of Defense is just not credible.
• Let me offer you another typical example. Hafizullah. Captured in a taxi that passed through a roadblock established after a skirmish outside the village of Lejay, Afghanistan. He was captured on February 10 2003. His CSRT allegations don't say "You were captured on the same day, at the same place, as two guys we believe to have been senior Taliban commanders." But his ARB allegations state this -- ARB allegations two and a half years after his capture. My take -- the secret allegation he was captured with senior Taliban commanders played a key role in his continued detention. Trouble is:

• 1. The secret allegations were very testable. The Rahmatullah he was actually captured with could not be the Mullah Rahmatullah Hafizullah was accused of being captured with. The US estimate of Rahmatullah's date of birth was 1981. It is not credible that 22 year old Rahmatullah had time to climb to the top of the Taliban's power structure.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article the other day, In Defense of Guantanamo Bay. It cites the GC3 commentary:

We must be very clear about one point; it is only "summary" justice which it is intended to prohibit. No sort of immunity is given to anyone under this provision. There is nothing in it to prevent a person presumed to be guilty from being arrested and so placed in a position where he can do no further harm; and it leaves intact the right of the State to prosecute, sentence and punish according to the law.

One anticipated response to that is that the hypothetical "little old lady" was innocent and wouldn't do this again after being told not to. I think in real life that would be so, and I'd trust the CSRT to make such a determination.

Yes, I do think the captives are currently getting POW treatment, or at least the provisions of article 3. (Read that Yale Law Journal link above for the piece about Hicks.) They've had ICRC visitations for years.

Regarding secret evidence, there's nothing in a competent tribunal to disallow that. The AR 190-8 manual actually says, "Proceedings shall be open except for deliberation and voting by the members and testimony or other matters which would compromise security if held in the open." It's no better than a CSRT in that respect.

I don't have time to look into the "reasonably available" part but in the ones I've seen they sometimes said that a witness's presence would not change the ruling even if the witness testified as the detainee claimed.

I could easily believe Hafizullah's CSRT failed him because of sloppiness. (I'm not a fan of bureaucracy.) The trouble is, activists and lawyers try so hard to make it seem like every detainee is some innocent victim. Moazzam Begg, the Tipton Three, David Hicks, and even Jose Padilla to some extent, were all made out to be Anne Frank. If any detainees are truly innocent (which I tend to doubt), their biggest enemies are the other detainees' lawyers who've muddied all the waters.

FWIW: Rahmatullah's young age may not mean anything. Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi (perhaps a coincidence in the name) was the Taliban's overseas envoy. He was a diplomat by the time he was the same age as Rahmatullah. Mullah Omar led the Taliban from the beginning. He was still in his late 30s when that made him the leader of Afghanistan.

-- Randy2063 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Yale Law article. I look forward to reading it when I get home.

Regarding innocent people, like the innocent little old lady, who innocently participated in some activity that a counter-terrorism analyst thought tied them to terrorism. I question whether the right thing to do to preserve our rights and our safety would be to meekly accede to a demand that they cease or desist -- unless it was backed up by some kind of pretty clear evidence. Over on Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism I provided a reference to what I think is a key admission. One of the allegations used to justify Fayad Yahya Ahmed's continued detention was that he was associated with the JT movement. He asked for a document to explain to him how JT was associated with al Qaeda. His Personal Representative said: "We searched for a document to show that there is a connection but did not find one." Except for not being a little old lady, Fayad Yahya Ahmed is in the same position she would be -- counter-terrorism analsyts have advanced a theoretical connection between an activity he innocently engaged in, and terrorism. But when asked to show the reasoning behind the theoretical connection, they came up completely blank.

I've read the transcripts. Do I think there is any kind of meaningful connection between TJ and terrorism? The strongest link I have found concerned a Saudi guy who went to Pakistan for what he described as "medical treatments". My own interpretation of his story was that like some high profile Americans, like Rush Limbaugh, he had become addicted to powerful painkillers that he had initially started taking for legitimate medical reasons. He was a hardworking stevedore, or reasonable equivalent, in a Saudi bazaar. Started suffering chronic pain from all the heavy lifting he did. Started taking painkillers, maybe something like Oxycodin, which may be available over the counter there. It worked for a while, but his pain returned, so he went to Pakistan, because medical treatment is (1) better, (2) cheaper, than in Saudi Arabia. I believe that medical treatment probably can be better and cheaper in India and Pakistan. But, from his Tribunal testimony, it sounds like except for access to much cheaper painkillers, his only medical treatment were half a dozen or less massage sessions. Pakistan is right across the border from the World's major opium production zone. It sounds to me as if he started using some over-the-counter opiates, got them much cheaper in Pakistan, and may have reduced himself to the Pakistani equivalent of street drugs, without ever acknowledging he was a junkie. Sad, but even after years in Guantanamo, it sounded like he was still in self-denial. Anyhow, the part of his story that concerned JT was that, not long after Pakistan started cooperating with the USA, to make a show of seriousness Mushareff ordered the Police to "round up all the usual suspects", if they were Arabs. Many of the captives reported this. Many long-time Arab residents of Pakistan say they fled the crackdown by crossing over into Afghanistan. He didn't. He was as worried about the crackdown as all the other guys. What he says he did was contact JT, for the first time, just like a young backpacker, who lost their wallet, might contact the YMCA, even if they weren't a Christian, because the JT had a reputation for helping people. From his testimony he said to them (paraphrasing) "I am really worried about the crackdown on Arabs. I don't feel safe in the rooming house I am staying in now. Can you recommend a safe rooming house to me?" They did recommend a safe rooming house for him. Which ended up being raided by the Pakistani police. And he ended up with the allegation that he was captured in a safe house that also housed known members of al Qaeda. I believe the account of the guy I believe was a junkie in self-denial. If the guy in the JT office sent him to an al Qaeda safe house when he asked for a safer rooming house knowing it was an al Qaeda safe house, that would establish a more than incidental connection between at least one JT official and al Qaeda. Mind you we have no way of testing the allegation that some of the other residents really were members of al Qaeda. So many of the transcripts tie individuals to al Qaeda through mere coincidental name collision that it is not safe to take any such allegation at face value.

You make an excellent point with your reminder that competent tribunals can also consider evidence withheld from the captive. I'll try harder to bear that in mind.

Regarding the statements that the witnesses who were not reasonably available wouldn't have changed anything, even if they testified as the captive expected.

• Most of the Tribunal Presidents didn't ask what kind of evidence the witnesses who they deemed "not reasonably available" would have provided. At least one who did was a female President. I don't know if she was the only female President. I don't know if this one or more female President was the only one who took that kind of step to compensate for the fundamental injustice of the CSRT rules. There were a couple of instances where a female President, probably the same one, compensated for the fundamental injustice of the proceeding by telling the captives that she was ruling, then and there, that the Tribunal was going to drop certain allegations. She did this when captives asked for documents that should have been available, in the evidence locker, which couldn't be found, which the captive thought would be exculpatory. Things like the allegations say he traveled at times that some counter-terrorism analysts thought was suspicious, but he claimed his passport proved he was still innocently back home -- she would rule that the particular allegation of the suspicious travel times would be dropped.
• There is a passage I only noticed recently. The Personal Representative was defending him or herself to the Tribunal President, after a comment from the captive. I don't know if you noticed, the Tribunal members come in cold. The unclassified session, where the captive is allowed to be present, come first. There are many, many cases where confused captives ask some variation of: "Why are you asking me this? Don't you know it is in my file?" And the Tribunal Presidents routinely said, "We don't know what is in your file. All we know about you is in the unclassified documents presented here already." My take is that this explanation didn't make sense to the captives, and they didn't understand it. Anyhow, on Personal Representative, in this side comment to the President, mentioned that just like the Tribunal Presidents not accessing any of the classified documents prior to the classified session, the Personal Representatives didn't read the classified section of the dossiers prior to meeting with the captives. It sounds to me as if they were supposed to read the unclassified Summary of Evidence (CSRT), then meet with the captive, then read the classified evidence, in advance of the Tribunal. But, it sounds to me as if they weren't authorized to schedule an additional interview with the captive if their reading of the classified evidence raised alarms for them.

Even if, for the sake of argument, what the captive thought the witness might say wouldn't have changed anything, things the witness may have said, that the captive didn't expect, might have refuted some classified allegation.

What was and wasn't classified was done haphazardly and incompetently. If you compare the allegations presented at the first annual Administrative Review Board, which sat six months to a year after the CSRT, I am sure you would scratch your head and wonder, why they heck did they withhold that allegation in 2004? And having withheld it in 2004, why did they reveal it in 2005? I bet you would comment to yourself, as I did, well, he demolished this new allegation pretty devastingly in 2005. Too bad it was withheld in 2004, because if it had been revealed to him then, and he demolished it then, he may very well have been determined to be a NLEC. That seems to have been the only serious allegation against him.

Do I think any of the captives are "truly innocent"? Yes. Sure, Fouad al Rabia for one, just of the top of my head. But he is one of the poster boys, because he acknowledges meeting OBL four times. He gets a whole paragraph devoted to him in the DoD's press release proving how effective an interrogation site Guantanamo was. But that paragraph is highly deceitful spin-doctoring. Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein. Just meeting someone doesn't mean you sympathized with him, or joined his cause. He pointed out that he was an USA-o-phile, that he had played an important role in having the Kuwaiti National Airlines buy Boeing airliners rather than European airbusses, because he loved America.

In addition to the pretty large number who it seems to me are truly innocent, there are an additional number who may not be innocent, but are completely innocent of terrorism -- the junkie I mentioned above, or the other half a dozen foreigners who were in Afghanistan for drugs. I suspect that the 200 plus guys we don't know anything about, because they didn't appear before a Tribunal, included a bunch more drug dealers.

I think it highly likely that all the guys who were rotting away in Taliban prisons at the time American counter-terrorism analysts who took the deceitful word of jailhouse snitches at face value, and who place them in training camps, and at speeches given by OBL are innocent. But we don't have to guess. It is highly irresponsible that no one took the money-saving and face-saving step of sending gum-shoes, detectives, experienced investigators, to check out the captive's alibis and accounts of themselves. Every year these guy are in Guantanmo costs a quarter of a million dollars -- not countint the incalculable cost to America's prestige, and the anger, the very costly polarization and radicalization it is triggering in some parts of the Muslim world. The USA, Canada, basically everone who is not a terrorist is safer if we build bridges to the moderate elements of the Muslim world. How can moderates defend their moderation when the USA keeps obviously innocent men in Guantanamo, Bagram, and the black sites?

I think you know that I get challenges to my contributions. I think you know that some of them are insulting, and a few extremely insulting, and deceitful. I haven't been happy with the deceitful ones, obviously. But the truth is that even the deceitful ones sometimes lead to general improvements to areas I contribute to the wikipedia. And the challenges from people who aren't insulting, and who are willing to engage in dialogue, really help me improve what I have contributed. I go and I find better sources. Or I realize I over-stated something, and I soften what I put, or I remove it.

Openness and peer-review really work, when everyone is playing straight. Let me thank you personally for playing straight and engaging in dialogue.

Openness and peer-review really work. Intellectual honesty really works. And I think the US counter-terrorism efforts would have been much more effective if the DoD had not used secrecy to cover up their initial failures.

I keep mentioning Abdullah Khan, another guy who I believe was almost certainly completely innocent of everything, except arranging dog-fights and cock-fights. The limited review, imposed on a kicking and screaming DoD, that forced them to review the allegations against him is a case in point. Falsely denounced in 2003. He spent a year and a half in Guantanamo pleading with his interrogators to check the prison roster, because he knew that the guy they were accusing him of being, former governor Khirullah Khairkhwa was just a couple of hundred yards away, in another compound.

I am glad you mentioned Rahmatullah and Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Young Afghans who continued to live in Afghanistan remained, almost to a man, illiterate. Young Afghans who were educated in Pakistan, as Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi's article says he was were literate. Most Taliban had a general disregard for the value of a broad general education. This didn't keep them from conscripting the relatively small number of literate men in Afghanistan to fill their civil service, take dictation, or do their bookkeeping. That they sent Hashemi as an ambassador, when he was barely out of being a teenager is not, I suggest, a sign that any teenager could rise to a senior leadership position. Is it possible that they just didn't have anyone more senior available, who could read and write? Is it possible that sending a kid was not a sign that any old kid could rise to a senior position, but that an insular Taliban didn't consider being a diplomat that senior.

In any case, the Rahmatullah captured outside Lejay is almost certainly illiterate. Gumshoes on the ground could have verified this.

And the structure of the Taliban, and the opportunities for advancement, would be completely different during Hashemi's time, when they sat in the capital, could travel openly and freely, and had nominal authority over most of Afghanistan. The Lejay Rahmatullah is a couple of years younger than Hashemi. He would have come of age when the Taliban were a hunted, underground group, who couldn't travel openly or communcate freely. Let me suggest it would be a lot harder to rise to a senior leadership position under those circumstances.

I know there is a lot to read on these topics. One aspect I think is worth reading is Stephen Abraham's affidavit. Abraham is an experienced intelligence officer, unlike the kids who composed the alleations against the captives, who has written about his reaction to the allegations that crossed his desk when he worked for OARDEC. "Junk allegations" he called them. I think you have acknowledged some of them are junk, but are suggesting those are exceptions. My impression is that they are mostly junk. I'll concede that even a single allegation of the most serious type, if it were really defensible, would be enough for an AR-190-8 Tribunal to strip lawful combatant status, and POW status from a captive. There are a few guys who faced the allegation that they worked on a training video based on the USS Cole bombing. If that allegation was really credible I think that would sufficient to strip a guy of lawful combatant status. But participating in TJ, even if completely verified, is not.

I think you know that the continued detention for a lot of these guys was justified by their name being found on some kind of suspicious list. I will concede that the presense of your name on a few of these lists is highly suspicious, and worth serious inquiry. Lists on laptops captured from KSM or other senior al Qaeda leaders are definitely worthy of very serious inquiry. And if it turns out that KSM has merely downloaded the article that reports that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the ACLU is speculating on the identity of the Guantanamo captives, and lot of that seriousness erodes. Two of the captives are suspected because their names were on web-sites that had the stated goal of lobbying the captives government to seek their release. For all we know that web-site could have been AI.

There are half a dozen captive who each share an almost identical pair of allegations about their names, or known aliases, being found on suspicious lists. You remember the criticism of the Bush administration's distortions of the "intelligence" justifying the claim that Saddam had a vast ready arsenal of WMD? Critics characterized the Bush approach as "they would rewrite every passage, changing every question mark to an exclamation point." My take on the captives who each faced these same pairs of allegations is that the process through which the allegations that ended on the Summary of Evidence memos were prepared resulted in the same basic allegation being culled from separate original reports, multiple times. So it would be duplicated. And that these pair were all basically duplicates. Yet they were so different. One, the shorter of the two allegations, was bold, assertive, and totally without any mealy-mouthed qualifiers. The other one was very equivocal, and had about half a dozen qualifiers. I think the longer, equivocal one was the more accurate version and the bold one had been through the "turn every question mark into and exclamation point!" process.

My basid point is to encourage very strong skepticism about the credibility of all these unsupported allegations.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Tablighi Jamaat was ever alleged to have ties to terrorism at its organizational level (assuming it even has an organizational level). Every reference I've seen simply says that it has been used as a cover. It's no different than if a group of terrorists enter the U.S. with student visas to attend Columbia. We wouldn't be saying that Columbia itself was tied to terrorism. But if soldiers come across an Arab at a guest house in Kandahar, finding a Columbia student ID in his wallet would be cause to take him in for further questioning. And if any were taken to GTMO, their applicable CSRTs would include a note on Columbia.

Fayad Yahya Ahmed wasn't detained only for being a member of TJ. I do like the scenario you depict about him, Fouad al Rabia, and especially the Saudi drug users. Here again is where too much fuss was made in defending Moazzam Begg and the like that it's easy for me to think there may be more to these others that we just haven't seen yet. It all still comes down to the intelligence that we haven't seen.

I'll agree that the classified evidence can have too many holes. That's the nature of these things. That doesn't mean we can afford to open it up while the war is still ongoing. Prosecution of the war must come first. Nobody is saying the war is going so swimmingly well that we can afford to let more of these guys run loose. Moazzam Begg might not have killed anyone directly, but he's appeared in a jihadi video of the same sort used to indoctrinate the 21 July 2005 London bombings conspirators (and probably that very video).

I did not know about the tribunal members coming in cold, although it makes perfect sense now that you say it. It explains what seemed like ignorance in many of the questions. It's quite reasonable because the CSRT order requires that they be "comprised of three neutral officers."

In my mind, Stephen Abraham's affidavit initially appeared to have the most potential, but it doesn't look like it can much hold water. He doesn't really say all that much really illuminating. (I will look further into it, however.)

I don't think "gumshoes on the ground" would be that simple. Their home countries aren't so friendly, and the information gained would not be trustworthy. But who's to say it's not already happening to some extent? If possible, they'd have been doing this just to gain more intelligence. But much of whatever they gain would be classified, and you'd still have the very same complaints about the process.

I see the CSRT/ARB disparity differently. If I understand this correctly, it would represent an improvement with time that benefits detainees. They undoubtedly knew more than they did the year earlier. Some sources may have become inconsequential in ways that they willing to declassify some charges. Or perhaps they were initially more cautious, as they should be, and reappraised this later. That's how you'd want things to work. You can complain that the intelligence wasn't good enough to begin with, but it never is. Perhaps you should blame those who want to cripple our intelligence still further.

If there are "obviously innocent men in Guantanamo," I can't imagine that moderate Muslims would gain anything if more detainees were released. I understand as well as anyone that the perception of injustice does hurt the war effort, but that perception will be created regardless. The gap between a CSRT and competent tribunal is so slight, and the chasm between our enemies' conduct and that of the U.S. is so wide, that it should be easy for moderate Muslims to defend their positions if human rights and justice were really any kind of a gauge that they could find useful.

There's a little moving of the goalposts going on here. A few years ago, the main complaint was over how the U.S. didn't recognize the war in Afghanistan as covered by the GCs. Now, it's that the U.S. isn't giving them the legal protections they'd have if they were covered under U.S. criminal law. Meanwhile, the enemy has not been asked in any meaningful way to respect the barest minimum of the laws of war. The results of that were seen in events like those in Haditha.

On "changing every question mark to an exclamation point," I would say that question marks do indeed become exclamation points when dealing with WMDs, particularly those covered by a ceasefire treaty with Saddam Hussein. Whether that's enough to justify the war isn't applicable here, but I'll agree that it applies to detainees very well -- except that it can make my case, too. As I've said before, the U.S. doesn't legally need a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof in order to hold these guys.

-- Randy2063 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the author of the comment:

"I have spent an hour tagging this article for the most objectionable sections that I could find. If I had spent more time tagging, I could easily have tagged nearly every paragraph."

I don't think anyone is going to argue that tagging every paragraph, without a real explanation, would be a good use of your time, or anyone else's time. May I suggest, instead, that, if you are going to spend any more time on this article you consider choosing one paragraph, the paragraph that you consider the best example of what you think is wrong with the article, and offer a detailed explanation of your concerns about that one paragraph. (Or, if you have time, choose a couple of paragraphs -- just be specific, and please, try to confine your comments to the issues, and try to refrain from personal comments about your fellow wikipedian, OK?)

I know you have named me the biggest contributor to this article. I am not. And I agree with you that it has grown too long. You may not agree with my conclusion that a lot of the material here should (1) be tightened up; (2) and point to smaller articles that focus on specific aspects of the camp and the issues around it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this and have printed out the whole article and am trying to pencil in a new outline. This is a little difficult because there is a lot of material and concept fragmented and repeated over many sections. I am going to propose on this talk page a new outline with the following general features:

• Section heading with
  • Maximum number of paragraphs
  • Focus on current up-to-date status
  • Move all historical information or details to a new detailed article
• Aim for a target of a maximum printed page length of 3 - 4 pages
• Oriented toward a reader who comes to this article with minimal or non-existent knowledge of the topic

I will also offer that I can do the writing of the main article and will use HTML comments to mark off the material that other persons can move into detailed articles. Kevinp2 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevinp2 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does need some re-writing and the whole subject needs to be delt with as a whole. I think a Gitmo template needs to be made to link all the articles together. As for the Yale law article it has some good bits but trying to use the treatment of american prisoners by the viet cong as justification for gitmo when it was the US government decided it was a "police action" so they could use napalm and agent orange is just the height of hypocracy. I'd like to point out that i in no way think the appaling treatment meeted out to those poor bastards is acceptable (and on a point of factual accuracy the torture and conditions they suffered is vastly worse than gitmo). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

None of this discussion is improving the article. Please use the talk page to discuss specific changes to the article, not as a discussion board. Thanks. · jersyko talk 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally, you'd have a good point. Unfortunately, this entire article is a POV crusade, and the discussion illustrates that. The last few changes to the article didn't seem to help matters. I was thinking of reverting but I don't think it could make much of a dent.

-- Randy2063 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this discussion is a back and forth on issues that will not be resolved here. It is not discussing specific ways to improve this article. Obviously, it is discussing the controversy surrounding Guantanamo, which should be discussed in the article, but no one is citing specific reliable sources that can be used to support statements to be placed in the article or otherwise making concrete suggestions to improve the article. In any event, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. · jersyko talk 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The discussion is not only about whether GTMO is morally correct, but where the Supreme Court has currently ruled. This is a problem for the article if different editors can't even agree on that.

Your position is fine with me, though. I have little hope that this article can be saved anyway.

-- Randy2063 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Amici curiae briefs

An importance tag was attached to the links to amici curiae briefs submitted by UK parliamentarians. The stated grounds for the tag were that it was unclear what standing UK parliamentarians had in U.S. courts.

The entire point of an amicus curiae brief is to allow parties who lack standing to argue the issues. If you have standing, you file a normal brief, not an amicus curiae brief. Thus the stated reasons for the tag make no sense.

If there is another reason for the tag, I would like to know it. Otherwise, I say it should be removed.

Pirate Dan 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 89 (!!!) external links to this article, which is really a few Wikipedians' research project rather than an encyclopedic article. The links have to be trimmed down drastically. It seems to me that a amici curiae brief submitted by UK parliamentarians to a US court, who are really grandstanding for their domestic benefit can be easily eliminated. There were plenty of far more relevant amici curiae briefs of more value than this brief Kevinp2 13:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with a single inline reference to this brief, rather than 5+ external links Kevinp2 13:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Several of the links were of marginal importance at best to the amici curiae briefs, so I moved all but one to the "Other references" section, and removed the tag. (You may now consider the "Other References" heading to deserve a tag).

I would consider the question of whether these four links are important to the article as a whole to be a separate question from whether they are important to the amici curiae section, which I think they are not. Pirate Dan 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This change works for me - thanks for making it. I would still like to advocate the use of an inline citation, placed at the appropriate point in the text of the article. Kevinp2 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I must take issue with the throwaway statement above that the UK parliamentarians were "grandstanding for their domestic benefit". Dr Des Turner MP, who in May presented a portfolio of evidence about the British-resident detainee Omar Deghayes prepared for him by the independent and highly respected newspaper The Argus, is retiring from political life and not standing again for election - so he at least can be completely discounted from the "grandstanding" slur. Please can we discuss the article content without descending into such innuendo, thanks. Itsmejudith 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When you call the Argus an independent newspaper, are you referring to articles such as Omar, a picture of innocence and Omar Deghayes' mother describes her anguish? It appears that these articles formed the contents of the dossier that Des Turner took with him, a dossier " ... which demonstrates the strength of feeling behind the campaign" according to one of its supporters. I am sorry that the word grandstanding offends you, but it appears that Dr. Des Turner's use of this one-sided propaganda fits the word very well. Kevinp2 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FBI Edits

Before i hunt through the history does anyone have the pictures the Washington Post is talking about in "Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed" ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No but in case it is any use, the removal was on 10 June 2005. Itsmejudith 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole article's neutrality should definately be disputed if the FBI has been editing it. BUt of course, that's my own partisan opinion of American Security Institutions i guess. Grollum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.45.131 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If the FBI can remove information that they like, should not Cuba be allowed to remove all information that their leaders dislike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

please explain more fully...

An anon IP recently made an edit with the following edit summary: shortened introduction, part left out in quotes if still needed.

Rather than make a transparent excision the editor used an HTML comment I am going to remove the comments, and encourage the editor to explain more fully here why they think the passage should be excised.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The lancet

This story in the BBC about a letter in the Lancet [6] . ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since my first response was deemed unacceptable, I'll give a more succinct one about this new source.

For reasons I won't explain here, I think this BBC article is too biased and misleading to be used as a reference on its own, but it represents an interesting point of view nonetheless. So, I favor following it up.

It describes a list of "206 signatories," and it's quite possible that some of them are sufficiently notable that they may be linked in other WP articles about them. And, since the BBC article noted the UN Human Rights Commission, that connection may also illuminate the kind of thinking that propels the international reaction.

-- Randy2063 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Randy i'm trying to find the 206 signatories for you/the article, i've a friend whos a mental health nurse who might be able to get a copy for me, i'd expect several of the Profs metioned to be notable. The BBC reports accurately the story of this Letter that is designed to represent the public POV of notable British medics on the actions of thier counterparts at gitmo. The right to die argument you presented was quite valid as if they let them die they would be blamed for that but without a source it can't be added (but you should be able to find one. I don't think the number of deaths was mis-represented as my POV is the suicide attempts are related to being held in a max security jail(with high suicide rates world wide) with not even a trial or release date(which will raise the stress level). WP:CIVIL does not allow me to talk about your POV on these suicides being a publisity stunt. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The right to die article says, "'In most countries in the Western world, people do not, legally speaking, have the right to die.'" I don't see any source that says it's okay to allow people to die, especially if they're allegedly suicidal because of depression.

-- Randy2063 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Third Geneva Convention says, "Prisoners of war suffering from serious disease, or whose condition necessitates special treatment, a surgical operation or hospital care, must be admitted to any military or civilian medical unit where such treatment can be given, even if their repatriation is contemplated in the near future." Even that may exceed what the U.S. is required to provide under common article 3.

This is why the names on that petition are relevant. If any of those signatories had ever claimed to support the GCs then their abandonment of them here is notable. Of course, WP:CIVIL does not allow me to talk about whether they ever truly cared about the GCs at all.

-- Randy2063 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The british doctors are not concerned with the GCIII, this is thier opinion of if the doctors at gitmo are acting in accordance with (British Sociallised)medical ethics or not. It is an attempt to shame/support the doctors at Gitmo into leaving. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point there. If these doctors are making this comparison to British medical ethics, then we need to know whether that system would stand by while people with depression starve themselves to death. I'm surprised that such a heartless policy wasn't mentioned by critics of socialized medicine during our own health care debates.

-- Randy2063 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your quote of the GC has a key word -- "...where such treatment CAN be given..." -- I don't think it says, or means, treatment should be forced on them.

Thanks for your reply on your talk page, where you explained that American GIs sign away the right to refuse medical treatment ordered for them. There was a Canadian soldier, a few years ago, who stood on his rights, and declined an inoculation he would have needed if he was accompany his unit on a foreign mission.

I [put a {{cn}} on that sentence. That article is a mess. It seems to me it is conflating two entirely differnt things

1. Getting assistance from someone to kill one's self -- it is illegal for the Kevorkian.
2. Refusing medical treatment, which could extend one's life, is perfectly legal here in Canada. From all I know it is perfectly legal throughout the developed world.

I used to work for experimental psychologists. Our University had an "office of human research". My bosses, and any other professors would have gotten in serious trouble if they had conducted experiments, using human subjects, without first getting their informed consent. If this principle wasn't already firmly embedded in the ethics of medicine prior to World War 2, it was afterwards -- because everyone was shocked by the brutality and immorality of the Nazi experiments on involuntary subjects at their slave labor camps.

Similarly, the mystery injections (scopalamine?) are also a grave breach of medical ethics.

Would the mystery injections be a breach of medical ethics if they were placebos?

• Fouad Mahoud Hasan Al Rabia's dossier contains an exchange of emails to and from a Colonel David Taylor, about "computerized voice stress analysis". Al Rabia, and other captives, were told that this was a new form of lie detector test -- even more effective than ordinary lie detector tests. They weren't. It seems to have been a ploy to scare liars into confessing they had lied.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, refusing medical treatment is generally allowed (when it is allowed) for people of sound mind. Allowing supposedly-depressed people to die sounds illegitimate to me.

Besides that, both the 3rd and 4th GCs grant that the detaining power is able to enforce discipline. This means they can order detainees to eat. If Hypnosadist is correct that the Lancet petition disavows the GCs then we need to look at those names and see if any had ever criticized the U.S. about the GCs.

I don't see any of this being a "grave breach of medical ethics." Forced-feeding and especially CVSA are a long, long way from Nazi concentration camps. I almost expect critics to write long-winded complaints about guards playing pull my finger next.

-- Randy2063 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think there should be a section on medical ethics at Gitmo, there are some issues around the proscription of anti-depresants. The force feeding is a second and the third thing the letter talks about is the patching the prisoners up after interogations just so they can be tortured again (such as medical monitoring of waterboarding). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding was allegedly used by the CIA at the black sites, and not the military (unless you count military personnel working for the CIA). I don't believe they waterboarded anyone at GTMO. You can check the Kahtani logs if they're still available. He's the one they needed to be most aggressive with. His interrogation log was leaked, and it didn't include waterboarding.

Medical ethics could a valid section but, judging from this BBC article, I don't have much hope for it.

-- Randy2063 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I think this article is already too long, and tries to cover too much material. I don't think medical ethics should be covered here, beyond a paragraph or two, pointing to a specific article (or two).

• How about Medical treatment of captives at Guantanamo Bay? This could address the ideas about their treatment, the meme they received better medical treatment than 9/11 heroes.
• And/or Medical ethics controversy over the treatment of captives at Guantanamo Bay?
  • If we cover this material here, or if we cover it in dedicated articles (my preferred choice), we will have to be very careful to make sure the material is very well referenced. And we will have to be careful we don't open ourselves pup to criticisms of "original research by sythesis".
  • A lot coverage, from apologists, was devoted to the great dental care the captives get. The young navy dentist, Lieutenant Jennifer Tharp, was profiled in various DoD organs. So, the captive who woke up with a toothache at 2am, and was in the dental chair at 830am was widely known. In the original article she talked about originally being nervous about treating these men, but she had an armed guard at hand, all the time, and they were shackled into the dental chair. She said the captives dental health was terrible. She said some captives had never seen a dentist before in their entire lives.
  • Meanwhile the captives reported that dental care was being denied to them, even when they were in pain, if the guards said they were not complying with the camp rules, or their interrogators thought they were holding back information.
  • Captives reported that men had gone for dental care, only to find the wrong teeth removed, and that they were still in pain.
  • Captives said cavities were rampant at Guantanamo due to the practice of withholding "comfort items". It was the camp policy to remove all comfort items from captives who were reported to be "noncompliant". They would get one item returned to them for every week they behaved. What is a comfort item? Everything. Everything but their Koran, a pair of skivvies, and a prayer rug. And they could have those taken away for mis-use. Captives who were kept essentially naked, in an isolation cell, with the air conditioning turned up high, who tried wrapping themselves in their prayer rugs to keep warm had their rugs confiscated. Their clothing is a comfort item, their bedding, their towels, washclothes, soap, shampoo, toothbrush, toothpaste, all comfort items. Toilet paper is also a comfort item. They get a ration of 15 sheets per day.
• Cheers! Geo Swan 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the more NPOV "Medical treatment of captives at Guantanamo Bay" that can cover things like this lancet letter , dentistry and Sicko but some-one other than me can deal with Sicko. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of those complaints are made by the detainees or their lawyers who are only parrotting what the detainees had said, and they sound like rather obvious lies. That is not a reliable source.

I'd rather we didn't have a separate article on medical ethics at GTMO. There isn't enough concrete material.

-- Randy2063 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I shouldn't have implied that we can't report what the detainees have said. I'm just a bit worried that we have too many instances where a lawyer repeats what a detainee says, and that's reported as the lawyer saying it, which gives the impression that he knows it to be true.

But I still don't think it's worth a new article.

The clothing cannot be considered a comfort item if the GCs are followed, and I believe they are. The same goes for towels, etc., although it's likely that they were only given limited amounts to prevent it from being misused.

There's no reason to believe anything the detainees have said. Some are calling to question some of the claims David Hicks has made.

-- Randy2063 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For info, relating to some comments above, forced feeding of prisoners has been a highly contentious issue in the UK since the campaigners for women's suffrage were subjected to forced feeding (tubes forced through their nostrils) under the Cat and Mouse Act in the early C20. It was seen as a form of torture then, and is now. Opposition to the practice has nothing to do with socialised medicine, as we did not have socialised medicine at that time. Moreover, medical ethics in the UK are the same for those who practice inside the (socialised) National Health Service or outside it. Itsmejudith 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a very good example of hunger strikes as a publicity stunt for social change, and not because they're suffering from depression over their predicament.

I wonder what the reaction would be if those involved in the Hamdania incident had tried this in the military prison where they now reside.

-- Randy2063 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to shed some light on why British doctors would think the practice of forced feeding breached medical ethics. Deduce what you want about the motivations of Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with no crime. And the BBC remains a reliable source even when its reports don't suit you. Itsmejudith 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you haven't shed light on the medical ethics angle at all. The moral choice is one of death for the hunger striking enemy combatants, or some degree of discomfort that they choose to endure by not eating.

Your example of the British suffragettes makes my point. No one wanted those women to die in their hunger strike. It would have been a tragedy, and so they found a compromise. That same compromise isn't available today. As Hypnosadist noted, the doctors in the Lancet do not care about the Geneva Conventions (few critics really do); they prefer that the detainees die.

My problem with the BBC was not that its report fails to suit me. The problem is that it's misleading in ways I've explained before. But if you feel it's a valid source then go right ahead. I just don't know what you'd use it as a source for. The existence of the petition would be better sourced by another report. The rest of that article is a minefield.

-- Randy2063 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't shed light, ignore it then. You've entirely misunderstood the lesson from history, but we're not discussing your POV anyway. The existence of a petition is a factual point that can perfectly well be sourced to the BBC, a news source well known for its excellent fact-checking, but why not to the Lancet itself. What you feel about the rest of the article is no concern of this talkpage. Itsmejudith 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can believe what you like, Judith.

If I may change the subject a bit, I found an interview with Dr. David Nicholl (neurologist) who organized this campaign. Aside from the interview itself, it comes with gems of PDF files, plus one letter from a doctor at GTMO who responds to a letter from Dr. Nicholl. The GTMO doctor explains himself very well. He says forced-feeding is legal under U.S. federal law, although he adds that his position does not need to rest upon that alone.

Historically, ethically, and legally, the GTMO doctor is in the right. And at least he's not encouraging the hunger strike the way others are.

But in Dr. Nicholl's defense, I have not found any occasion where he had claimed to care about the Geneva Conventions.

-- Randy2063 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of general health care, the GTMO doctor's affidavit in April 2005 says they've performed over 181 surgical proceedures by that time. Beyond routine visits, there were also over 17,000 outpatient visits.

The first surgeries were for "wound care and infections, as many of the detainees had suffered wounds on the battlefield. Recent surgeries ranged from common procedures such as removing an appendix to coronary artery stent placement." He gives a list of medical conditions they've been treated for. They also get prescription eyeglasses and prosthetic limbs.

He also asserts, "Medical care is not provided, denied, or affected by a detainee's cooperation (or not) in interrogations. Further, medical records of detainees are not available to interrogators, and interrogations are not permitted to interfere with the medical needs of detainees."

In cases the hospital can't handle, they've transferred detainees to the GTMO Naval Base Hospital. They've also flown in specialists. I understand it runs contrary to the fascist propaganda, but that's the word of a doctor under penalty of perjury, and it was open to contradiction by any of the hundreds of other personnel who were there at the time.

Going back to forced-feeding, the Al Joudi court papers (part 1) describe the process. The tubes are 3mm in diameter. They had used 4.8mm tubes for a few patients in the first two days but switched to the smaller ones when they turned out to be "more comfortable for the detainees." Interestingly, the larger tubes they started with were "consistent with U.S. Bureau of Prisons protocol."

Perhaps it's time to remember that this is not 1914, and they have better ways of handling this today. One could also argue that the historical cases, antiquated that medicine of that day might be, were subject to embellishments of the yellow journalism of the day.

On a humanitarian level, allowing prisoners to die because they suffer from depression sounds monstrous when the alternative is 20 minutes a day of strawberry Ensure. I'm curious if there are any prison systems in Europe or Canada that would do any better. Or, if they'd all allow them to die. And if so, it could be interesting to compare national health-care spending of those countries to see if economic considerations could be the true deciding factor in making such a policy.

And this should squash the idea that anyone died from it.

-- Randy2063 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I will look forward to reviewing the links you provided, when I have more time. Thanks. Meanwhile, please see the coverage of Saifaullah Paracha's cardiac catheterization. Colonel Edmondson wanted to give him one, against his will. He wanted one Stateside. The judge said he wasn't entitled to a stateside operation. But, he was entitled to withhold his consent for the Guantanamo operation. I think we should bear this in mind when we evaluate how much credibility to invest in Edmondson's legal opinion. Geo Swan 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• WRT the credibility of the claims by the detainees, repeated by theire lawyers, that ther are problems wit their medical care, and the counter-claims by the camp authorities that they get excellent care... Bear in mind that many of these same lawyers have petitioned, in vain, to get the captive's medial records released to them, and/or to arange independent medial examinations. If the DoD has nothing to hide why the secrecy? Geo Swan 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't explain why the judge ruled the way he did. I personally would like to see it (or a similar case) reversed at some point but it may not matter. There is a difference in that catheterization is an elective procedure. I'd still suppose that heart surgery would be forced upon Paracha if it became medically necessary. In any case, Edmondson (who's a captain btw) did say in his letter to Dr. Nicholl that he does believe patients have the right to autonomy, including these detainees, but their ability to arrive at these decisions is encumbered. He gives examples in one of these documents (at least I think it was him doing this) of peer pressure to participate in the hunger strikes. The number of hunger strikers went down considerably when they gave them sufficient calories that it stopped affecting their appearance.

Likewise, I don't believe Paracha's decision to fight the surgery is driven by his fear of the facilities at GTMO. Note that they're asking for surgery in the U.S. or for his release back to Pakistan. He deserves neither, and the judge has offered him neither. As for Dr. Edmondson's legal opinion, it's not his. He's working with what the lawyers tell him the parameters are. They may not always win, especially when so much of this is either on the legal margins, or dealing with legal issues that have never been tested. And of course, the judge may simply make the wrong decision.

Why the secrecy? I haven't read this in the court documents but I can only imagine that they'd expect the same things I would if the medical records were released. Recall above that I had said there were tens of thousands of medical visits (if you include all the outpatient observations), thousands of inpatient visits, and hundreds of surgeries. More lawyers (American lawyers have prime experience as ambulance chasers) and with doctors sympathetic to our opponents in the war effort, they'd go through every record and spin up more propaganda. There will certainly be some genuine mistakes in there. There will be other things they'd amplify, and more they'd make up. A thousand Abu Ghraibs would bloom. Whether you'd like to think about it or not, and whether it's Abu Ghraib's night shift's fault, Carolyn Wood's fault, or that of Rumsfeld himself, the propaganda the enemy gained from the Abu Ghraib story did kill people. (Perhaps just a few jihadis who deserved to die anyway, but likely some innocent civilians as well as soldiers and marines.) I see nothing to be gained from releasing the records if they don't need to.

Having the propaganda extend the war won't bother the so-called "human rights" lawyers, but it would bother me.

-- Randy2063 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a little digging to find examples of force-feeding that do not involve the U.S. I've found they do this in prisons in China, Taiwan, Europe, Russia, and Mexico. I also saw where it was contemplated in the U.K. in 1999, although it didn't say that what the law was. Interestingly, it was not done to the jihadis locked up in Canada.

Most notably, as you may see in the change I made to the article, force-feeding was approved by the UN War Crimes Tribunal for a Serbian nationalist. There was no mention of what the "World Medical Association" had to say in the matter, but I suspect their ideals bend with the winds.

One theme common to the examples of hunger strikes that I've found was that they were all expressions of protest, often in the hope that they'd mobilize public opinion. I haven't found any where people seriously claimed to believe that the hunger strikers wanted to die out of depression. You can imagine that the GTMO detainees are an exception, and that this isn't a publicity stunt, but I'm a bit surprised that you're all not open to even the possibility.

-- Randy2063 19:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd better backtrack on what I just said about the World Medical Association. From what I can tell, they hadn't rendered a judgment in the matter of force-feeding of prisoners at GTMO. In his letter to Dr. Nicholl, Dr. Edmondson had said of the WMA, "we both know the truth is more complicated." Looking at the documents, Edmondson seems to be correct. So it wasn't fair for me to lump them all in the same boat as Nicholl. I do think we need to look into it further and clarify the matter in the article.

-- Randy2063 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use this talk page to try and engage editors in discussion about the rights and wrongs of forced feeding. You seem to have done some useful research. I suggest you add it to the force-feeding article, which could do with some more detail. Not to this article, though, which is about the Guantanamo case only. Itsmejudith 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section on force-feeding the Sebian nationalist as legal arguments such as the declaration of Tokyo/Malta are given then for reasons of NPOV we must provide cases that this very treatment was proscribed by the arbitor of what is torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, honestly Hypno, this is getting much too far into WP:OR in this article. Specifically, it's an original synthesis. Let's ensure that the force-feeding article carries all the cases, all the debate, the international law etc. Itsmejudith 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems to be veering off topic, but force-feeding is indeed mentioned in this article, and this very section of the talk page begins with a link to an article on force-feeding in the Lancet. I'll concede that synthesis could be a technical problem, but this article clearly has a factual problem if readers come away thinking that the U.S. is in violation of international law because it keeps detainees alive.

I've made some changes to the article on force-feeding. Maybe the real problem is that Dr. Nicholl was never a credible figure to begin with.

-- Randy2063 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Edmondson was quoted above:

  "Medical care is not provided, denied, or affected by a detainee's cooperation (or not) in interrogations. Further, medical records of detainees are not available to interrogators, and interrogations are not permitted to interfere with the medical needs of detainees."

• Frankly, I don't believe this. In particular the account of the isze of the feeding tubes you quoted is the third differenct accounthe as offered.
  • Initially: version" Total denial that oversize tubes were ever used.
  • The version you quoted: Initially used 3.8mm tubes, then moved to 3mm tubes, out of consideration for the captive's comfort
  • Third version: Initially used standard sized tubes, graduated to larger tubes when they ran out of standard sized. Then graduated to a larger sized, until a shipment of the standard sized tubes arrive.
  • Can this guy have a shred of credibility left?

1. I think the reason the Federal judge ruled that Paracha had a right to withhold consent to the heart surgery, when Edmondson thought Paracha should be forced to have the surgery, was that the judge understands the law, and Edmondson doesn't.
2. Paracha's lawyers offered excellent explanation for why his surgery should not be performed at Guantanamo. Medical personnel there had problem inserting IVs in him on earlier occasion. He is an elderly man, with heart disease, not a young person, in robust health, like most military patients.
3. The Guantanamo rules require Paracha's hands and feet to be shackled to his bed, while he is in the infirmary. A visiting heart specialist (presumably also a DoD doctor) explained that it was essential to his recovery that he be allowed to frequently get up and walk around. The camp authorities were aware of these doctor's orders -- and wouldn't bend. I'd refuse under those circumstances too.
4. I'll address the question of how we would determine what Paracha deserves on User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/What Saifullah Parachar deserves, not here.
5. Why keep the captive's medical records secret? Mamdouh Habib's medical records contained clues that he was being abused. I think we have to be prepared to assume the medical records of some of the other captives also contain information that may be very embarrassing.
   • Sami Al Hajj had cancer in 1998. He is supposed to take medication, every day, to prevent a relapse. He says this medication has been withheld. He believes his cancer has recurred. This would be terrible -- if true. Since this question could be answered so easily -- why not?
   • Candace Gorman's client Al Ghazzawi has liver disease. She believe he is dying, possibly of Hepatitis C he acuired under Edmondson's care.
   • Mustafa Ait Idr reports that when his guards learned he had been the Croatan Karate Champion, in 1995, they called in the IRF, to do a cell extraction, pin him to the ground, and break all his fingers. Some record of this would be on his medical records.

• I don't believe there is a legitimate reason for the DoD to withhold the records.
• Note: All the Guantanamo Attorneys had to get a security clearance. They would be in serious trouble if they leaked information they learned about their clients, or from their clients, if that information has not been cleared. So far, I am not aware of any of them breaching theie secrecy agreements...Gorman, who has really serious concerns about her client's health, is not even being allowed to receive classified copies of her client's medical records.
• Cheers! Geo Swan 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There could easily be another size of the feeding tubes. The sizes I quoted were from almost two years ago. (The first was 4.8, btw, not 3.8.) Maybe they just went back to the 4.8 for a few days when they ran out of the smaller ones. What really matters is that the Bureau of Prisons allows it, and that the UN War Crimes Tribunal does as well. I don't see why he'd need to lie, and this is the sort of thing that would have witnesses present.

I understand the discomfort having to wear shackles, but they're needed. Shackles are commonly used by civilian prisons. I think Lisa Nowak and the Goose Creek plotters were wearing shackles in their preliminary hearings. The GTMO detainees need restraints more than they do.

Yes, the Federal judge may well have ruled correctly on Paracha. Edmondson isn't a lawyer. He's going by what the lawyers tell him the law says, and it's not always clear. As I said (and as much as I don't like it), Edmondson had said he agreed with self-determination if there was no coercion. You win some, and you lose some.

As an example, I found a case in Illinois where a court ordered force-feeding because his hunger strike's purpose was not self-determination, but to manipulate the prison. That's what's going on here. It's kind of amazing how many hunger strikes take place in prisons. (I'm starting to sympathize with Canada's apparent policy of letting them starve.)

The fact that Paracha has heart disease is sad, but not as sad as blowing up over 500 Yazidi. At least Paracha had his CSRT. You may not like that some of it is kept secret, but the law says that's the way it goes. You win some, and you lose some.

You may say you don't believe there is a legitimate reason for the DoD to withhold the records, but you didn't deny that everything disclosed would be used for propaganda, nor did you deny that propaganda kills. Sure, the lawyers can be held to secrecy, but then what good would it do? Even if they had access to the medical records, they still can't tell anyone what it says. They will find something wrong. That's what lawyers do. They're not going to admit that everything went as well as humanly possible.

Al Ghazzawi is a good example of this. You said "possibly of Hepatitis C he acquired under Edmondson's care." The medical records won't prove or disprove that. (That sounds like the kind of thing he can pick up in Pakistan.)

Same with Mustafa Ait Idr's supposedly-crushed fingers. Medical records would only show he had crushed fingers. They wouldn't show how he got them. Whatever the odds that guards could do this intentionally, they're not as high as the odds that he's lying.

If you've looked closely at the socialist link about the hunger strikers at "Canada's Guantanamo" you'll see that they're also complaining about "brutal treatment." Nothing they say can be taken as fact. (I seem to remember learning that the human body would die after 30 days without food; if these guys really wanted to die, they aren't doing it right.)

I'll look for what Saifullah Parachar deserves at your other link.

--Randy2063 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really the case that shackles are "commonly used by civilian prisons", in the United States I expect you mean, Randy? They were discontinued in Britain in the nineteenth century I believe and I would be surprised if they are used anywhere in Europe. Is there anything in writing to show that this is the case? I do not have any reason to doubt you, but we have to bear in mind the need to take a world-wide view, and the use of shackles may be surprising, i.e. notable, to a non-American readership. Itsmejudith 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I should first say that Lisa Nowak and the Goose Creek plotters may only have been in handcuffs. I see now that it's not clear whether they had shackles on their legs looking at the pictures.

There are other examples. This guy was described as being "led out of the courtroom in shackles and handcuffs, has heart problems and wants to go back to Pakistan with his sons, daughter and wife, his attorney Saad Ahmad said."

Perhaps more pertinent, the marines charged in the Hamdaniya incident were "shackled at the hands, waist, and ankles" during their exercise periods. This is a better example because it shows of parity iaw the GCs.

But there's one problem. In looking this stuff up, I now realize that there may be a difference between shackles and leg-cuffs. They're often used interchangably but this interview on those prisoners says, "only in leg irons, not shackles, when they are out." So it could be that some or none of them are technically in shackles. That may also apply to GTMO as well.

-- Randy2063 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I won' address several other points made above, to avoid straying into a discussion not related to wha the article should say. I am referncing verifiable facts abou the captives here, so I figure this is OK.
  • I do not believe you are correct that Mustafa Ait Idr's records would not show his fingers were deliberately broken, through hyper-extension, just like the pool-hall hustler in that old movie.
  • A POV-pusher erased the relevant portion of the H. Candace Gorman article, and I didn't have easy access to what she thought was causing his obvious liver ailment. One thing the records would show her was whether his obvious ailment was being treated. Same with Sami al Hajj.
  • Omar Deghayes went blind in one eye while in Guantanamo. Captives who were released in 2005 were given a copy of their medial records. I'd like to know whether Omar Deghayes was given his medical records, or whether Sami al Laithi, who claimed a guard jumped on his back, breaking his spine, had his medical records released. I'd like to know what Mishal al Harbi's medical records had to say.
  • Regarding your Illinois case... whose prisoner's "purpose was not self-determination, but to manipulate the prison. It is one thing to take retailiatory steps against a convicted criminal, whose detention lies at the end of a legal and transparent process.
  • The captives don't fall under that description.
    • The process they fall under has not had its legality verified before a court of law.
    • The camp authorities haven't even bothered to establish the captive's identities.
      • See Jumma Jan. He told both his Tribunal and ARB hearing that his real name was "Zain al Adedin". He told them he had only had ONE interrogation during the two years he was held in Guantanamo prior to his Tribunal. One 20 minute interrogation.
      • See Guantanamo captive 1037. There are a Tribunal transcript and an ARB transcript for captive 1037. The trouble is they are clearly for two different individuals.
        • The Tribunal transcript was for a guy captured in Kunduz in November 2001. One of the allegations he faced was that he was present duruing the November 2001 Prison riot at Mazari Sharif. He was the father of a son old enough to study on his own in Pakistan. The purpose of his trip, he said, was to visit his son. This guy was a Tajiki, who had spent the months prior to his capture trying to figure out a way to slip back into Tajikistan.
        • The other guy was in his early twenties, had grown up in Pakistan. He was captured in May 2003. He had spent approximately one month in Afghanistan, working for one branch of the authorized security forces there, when someone denounced him on the grounds he was staying in the house of a member of the Taliban. Several other captives, like Hamidullah, were denounced for similar stays in the houses of Taliban members. Like this guy they told their Tribunals, when the Taliban fled, their property was confiscated, and their commander had the authority to repurpose this house to serve as a barracks -- just like the US Army did with Saddam's palaces -- but with less gold fixtures in the WC.
        • The official US records said captive 1037 was an Afghanistan citizen, who they called Nazargul Chaman, was born in Afghanistan -- which doesn't seem to have been true for either of these guys.
    • I think I have already mentioned the very alarming case of Abdullah Khan -- denounced for really being the prominent and well-known Khirullah Khairkhwa. All his interrogations start, and don't get past, his interrogators insistence that they know he is lying about his identity. When he gets to Guantanamo he thinks he has the iron-clad proof that he is not Khirullah Khairkhwa. The real Khirullah Khairkhwa is already in Guantanamo! He was captured a year and a half before he was. He asks his interrogators to please check the prison roster. But they don't. They don't take this obvious step, for a year and a half. It is only the discipline of preparing the Summary of Evidence memo that forces a review of the evidence against him that forces the camp authorities to acknowledge he is not Khirullah Khairkhwa.
  • Your Illinois convict already had his fair trial. And he has avenues for appeal if there are meaningful reasons for such. Your Guantanmo captives are fighting to get their fair trials. Two years ago one of the captive's attorneys said something like: "We are probably the first US attorneys to fight to have charges laid against our clients!".
  • Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were any substitute for a fair trial.
  • Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were even a substitute for a competent tribunal.. While, as was said above, if the USA had convened AR 190-8 Tribunals the USA's implementation of the competent tribunals, they may have considered the same evidence, and have been staffed from the same pool of officers, the difference in the mandates would have made a big difference. At a competent tribunal every captive who, like Nasrat Khan, had been a fighter, of some kind, in the decades prior to 9-11, but who was not fighter after 9-11, would be considered a civilian, who would have to be released.
• Cheers! Geo Swan 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, medical records could show that Mustafa Ait Idr's fingers were broken, but it would not reveal that they were broken by the guards. They could have been broken in any number of ways. The same goes for most of the others. The records can only show that they were injured. They can't show how, or who or what did it to them.

The ICRC should be checking that the detainees are being treated. I think Congress (which is currently hostile to the Bush administration) should also be able to know that they're being treated. I really don't think Edmondson would be committing perjury over this. He has no personal or professional interest to do so. OTOH, lawyers do have an interest in slanting the truth.

Khirullah Khairkhwa has an interesting story but I doubt that the military wouldn't have a good reason to hold him. It's again, another question of what the classified evidence says.

The SCOTUS only said they're entitled to Article 3 protections. Since we're not at war against a High Contracting Power, they can't be given the status of an actual POW (although some argue that it should be different for Taliban members). If you read close, Article 3 doesn't say we need to release them if they're not POWs. That justifies the CSRT's options.

But, even if we were to ignore all that and say that the full Third and Fourth GCs do apply, I think we'd still have the authority to detain people without trial under GC4's Article 5. They're entitled to a trial only if we charge them with something. They get their rights back "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." I think the critics have abandoned talking about the GCs for a reason.

-- Randy2063 19:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Taliban Bounty poster

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:TalibanBounty over the way this wanted poster is currently used on articles who report being sold for a bounty. Without suggesting that anyone here weigh in on one side or the other, I thought contributors here might be interested in that discussion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Prisoners who can't be returned home?

It was my understanding that no one wants some prisoners, so it's a catch 22 about what to do with them. Brian Pearson 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats right brian, some of the "Worst of the Worst" are not being aloud back into their countries of origin or residence because those countries believe they might be terrorists. There is a way out of the catch 22 but its not going to be popular, that is they will have to be given asylum in the USofA, as i say thats not going to go down well with the voters though. Actually a few have been taken by Albania in return for US aid to that country (thats several million a prisoner, thats also not going to be popular with the voters). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be made clear in the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of them, like the Uyghurs, would be accepted back in their home countries. It's just that their home countries would persecute them (perhaps justifiably so, according to the Denbeaux study), and we wouldn't allow that.

I think it's a safe bet that we'd send them back anyway before we ever gave them asylum here. That's even more likely if we get hit again in another 9/11 attack.

-- Randy2063 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was thinking when I read the article. I know I wouldn't be happy about having them in country. And, I'm not all that sure they would receive a nice welcome in the general population of prisoners. It seems I remember Bush saying something about closing Gitmo, but these problems will have to be figured out. Brian Pearson 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is for example the case of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan national who was brought up in the UK but retains his Libyan nationality. (He came to the UK as a child refugee after his father was assassinated by the Gadafy regime.) When he was picked up in Pakistan by bounty hunters, the UK and USA were still on very bad terms with Libya. Since then these governments have made up with Gadafy so Deghayes' presence in Guantanamo is potentially a great embarrassment to them. It's pretty clear that his is a simple case of mistaken identity and he would have been back in England years ago if he had had UK nationality. Itsmejudith 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where it says Omar Deghayes was picked up in Pakistan by bounty hunters. I know that the Denbeaux study gives the impression that this was common, and some of those who reported on it acted as though most were, but it's probably not true for more than a fraction of them. Moreover, the State department was criticized for not distributing the matchbooks that were printed because they didn't want to agitate the Pakistanis.

As for Deghayes being innocent, I wouldn't recommend you bet any money on it. We have no clue what the classified evidence looks like. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone represented by Clive Stafford Smith.

-- Randy2063 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd better clarify what I'd said about the Denbeaux study vis a vis bounty hunters. I'm not saying they lied. But if you read it, you'll see that they never explicitly claim that most of the detainees were captured by bounty hunters. They merely alluded to it, and let the columnists believe it to be true.

Lawyers rarely need to lie outright when they can play such games with the truth.

-- Randy2063 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was picked up by bounty hunters, who had been given an old photo of someone long since dead. If there's such evidence against him, then why hasn't he been put on trial? Itsmejudith 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course, if you ask whether the Libyans would persecute him, the answer is clearly yes, since they murdered his father for trade union activity, plus he denounced the Gadafy regime to his Gtmo interrogators, unaware that Bush and Blair were newly cosying up to said evil dictator. He still has permanent right of abode in the UK, so when he is released (as he will be as there is no evidence against him), he needs to be released here. To release him to Libya would be a death sentence. Itsmejudith 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he wasn't picked up by bounty hunters. I'm just saying the Omar Deghayes article doesn't say it, and that the bounty hunter meme had been overplayed.

I don't know why he hasn't been tried. It may be that the evidence against him isn't sufficient for a full trial, or that it's classified and they'd prefer that it remain so. They're able to hold someone on secret evidence but they're not able to prosecute him on it.

The fact that Gadafy doesn't like him doesn't mean very much. Al Qaeda doesn't like Gadafy either.

-- Randy2063 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we just talk about how we are going to deal with this in this article or sub article not the usual who's morally right (Randy, Judith i'm talking to you two). Also if you have a source for Omar Deghayes being captured by bounty hunters put it in his article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just warning that the article shouldn't make it appear as though the unwanted detainees are innocent victims who are now men without a country.

-- Randy2063 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sami Al Laithi was one innocent guy, who was without a country.

• He was one of the limited number of captives whose Tribunal determined he was not an enemy combatant. So -- innocent, agreed?
• He was a critic of the Egyptian government. Well, it is government that practices torture. Criticsizing this government doesn't make him a terrorist.
• The guy was an exile -- a man without a country -- just like Randy said.
• How did he end up in Afghanistan? He lived in Pakistan for a while. But, when they started tightening up on statelss people he literally had no other place to go. He tried, and failed, to get refugee status. So Afghanistan was literally his only choice. His stay there did not imply any support for the Taliban.
• Has Guantanamo included any other guys who were there because they were actually democrats? Well, the remaining British residents there would all fit in this category.
• Accepting allegations from Egyptian, Uzbek or Libyan intelligence services is a big mistake. The allegations the captives faced strongly imply that JTF-GTMO did this. Geo Swan 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Being wanted by one's home government doesn't make one a man without a country. Would we say that about James Earl Ray when he was captured in London?

Even if we do call Sami Al Laithi a man without a country, I don't see why we should believe he's innocent. "No longer enemy combatant" doesn't necessarily mean he never was one. It could simply mean that he's an invalid and not likely to present much of a threat other than as yet-another propagandist.

Has it occurred to you that Al Laithi (or his "human rights" lawyer) may simply be lying about being a democrat? Pakistan is a jihadist hotbed. It would not be the first place I'd flee to if I got in trouble for agitating for democracy in Egypt. Ayman al-Zawahiri is also an Egyptian critical of the Egyptian government. That doesn't make him a democrat either. Nor would I say that about the remaining British residents in GTMO.

It is true that allegations from Egyptian, Uzbek or Libyan intelligence services should be considered only with a full understanding of the nature of its source. The same thing should be said about anything coming from these lawyers.

-- Randy2063 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO there are several reasons why captives, who have been cleared for release, aren't being returned.

I think this issus is so complicated it should only be briefly mentioned in this article, and merits an article of its own.

• In most cases the delay in releasing captive who have been cleared for release is due to a failure of the USA, and the country they want to return him to, reaching an agreement as to the captive's treatment upon repatriation.
• The USA wants to return some captives, against their will, to countries where they are likely to face further extrajudicial detention, harrassment, torture, or summary execution.
• Some captives have chosen to return to countries where they face further extrajudicial detention, harrassment, torture, or summary execution -- presumably because they prefer running that risk to further detention in Guantanamo. This is what happenede with Sami Al Laithi. Who can blame him for choosing to risk prison and torture in Egypt. He says a guard broke his spine, rendering him a paraplegic. Even after his Tribunal determined he was not a combatant the camp authorities did not tranfer him to Camp Iguana, with the other NLECs. He is said to have spent a further year in solitary confinement -- what is up with that?
• The USA is not repatriating some captives because they may face extrajudicial detention, harrassment, torture, or summary execution -- and the USA has not been able to obtain assurances it trusts that the captives will be protected from torture and summary execution. This is, IMO, a good thing.
• On the other hand, there are captives the USA will not release becaus they are trying to insist the receiving country agree to place the captives under a lifetime of house arrest, or 24x7 surveillance. This is the situation with the remaining captives who were legal UK residents, not UK citizens. IMO this is a bad thing.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Randy's post above - the spirit behind Wikipedia should encourage us to take the word of a lawyer entrusted to practice in a democratic country like the US or UK many more times more seriously than the word of an undemocratic regime that has a proven record of torture. Moreover, if David Miliband has asked for the UK residents to be released, then that should be sufficient for the US government. I am sure that the next US government, of whatever complexion, will listen to the UK's request. Itsmejudith 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Judith we are here to accurately report what the lawyers say not to vouch for thier truthfulness (which we cant possibly do). Nor do any wikipolicies say we give primacy to what democratic (according to whom) countries say over what dictatorships and theocracies say, the opposite infact we must give both POV's equal weight. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers speak for the people they represent. When you trust the words of lawyers who speak for their clients, you are actually trusting the clients. In this case you'd be trusting Sami Al Laithi, who at the very least has made some extremely poor choices in people to hang around with.

It doesn't take much integrity for a lawyer to be entrusted to practice in a democratic country. But even if this one so-called "human rights" lawyer were speaking for himself, I would never trust a single word he utters. Many of them will put ideology first.

In the U.S., the National Lawyers Guild (following the communist party line) went all the way from opposing any U.S. involvement in WWII to supporting Japanese internment. Many of the GTMO lawyers are cut from the very same cloth. I don't forsee the red-green-brown alliance splitting the way the Nazi-Soviet pact did, but were that to happen, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of these lawyers were to turn on their clients overnight.

-- Randy2063 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hypno. Of course we will try to reflect whether a lawyer is speaking on behalf of his/her client or from his/her own experience. For example - hypothetical case - if a lawyer reported seeing signs of injuries on a client and if the lawyer's statement was reported in a source such as a newspaper then that would constitute a reliable source. Randy, could you desist from posting your own political views, as other editors are tempted to reply and that is not the purpose of this talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Judith. I'm trying to illustrate the problem that's prevalent throughout this category.

It goes beyond lawyers. Amnesty International often repeats detainees' claims with a straight face and then it's repeated here. A casual reader might come away thinking that their credibility has been evaluated in some way (other than its potential for fundraising).

-- Randy2063 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but Amnesty is generally regarded as reliable on WP. It would be better to take up the general point on the talk page of WP:VER, not here. You can cite the discussion on this page as an example for your point. Itsmejudith 07:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respect other people's POV, and cite sources no matter what the circumstance

Since the Afghanistan war 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released.

Riiiiiight...yeah. So, I'm sure if this fact is as uncontested and well-known as it is presented, I'm sure you can come up with a couple of sources for that, right?

Remember, a lot of people think that this place is an utter abomination and could see this merely as "Bush Administration, Pro-U.S." propoganda, as if to say, "Conditions are fine at Guantanamo Bay! Don't ask questions!" Geez, and Fidel Castro's article calls HIM oppressive...

Can you even cite a source?

If not, this "information" should be removed, especially because it's included in the intro. 172.212.94.23 14:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources can be cited. International Red Cross:

"At the end of the year (end of 2006), 396 individuals remained in US custody in Guantanamo Bay, compared to 496 in early 2006." [7]

Maybe you can obtain from this organization. I have limited time, or I would go farther with this. Brian Pearson 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

However, with that last post, you've succeeded in doing one thing and failed to do another. The former is that you've proven that 100 detaineese have been released, but the latter is that you've cited a source that claims that 100 detainees had been released, not 420. What I mean is, sources need to be cited for statements like that one. In fact, maybe the Red Cross is right...maybe 100 people HAVE been freed, however, the Red Cross mentions nothing about a staggering 420. Remember, the US government allows people to be kept here without trial, so to say that 420 people have been freed, when they quite possibly have not been, would show astonishing disrespect to the prisoners and their families. I'm sorry, but if no-one can cite a source that proves this, it's original research to me. 172.142.223.204 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On May 15 2006 The DoD released a list of 759 names -- it said this was a list of everyone who had been held in Guantanamo. A month earlier, on April 20 2006, the DoD released a list of 558 names of the captive who had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal convened for them in the fall of 2004. All the captives in Guantanamo in the fall of 2004 had a CSR Tribunal convened. So 201 captives were released or repatriated prior to the fall of 2004.

The DoD deliberately obfuscates the exact number of captives who remain in Guantanamo. They never announce the names of the men they release. But you can tell who has been cleared for release because every cpative who has not already been cleared for release has an annual Administrative Review Board convened to see if they are still reasons to detain them. Six weeks ago they released a list of all the captives who had an Administrative Review Board convened in 2006. There are just 330 names on that list.

• OARDEC (July 17 2007). "Index of Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mind you some captives will have been released even though their ARB didn't clear them. And dozens (it was once 140) captives were still being held, even though they were cleared for release. One of those hunger strikers who the DoD claims committed suicide on June 10 2006 had been cleared for release. He didn't know this because his lawyers kept getting their letters to him returned. The DoD kept changing the way they spelled his name, and then telling his lawwers they couldn't deliver it because the name was spelled incorrectly.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there is this really cool online tool, called Google. It lets you search for web-sties that have the information you want. It took me less than thirty seconds to do a google search on "330 detainees" + Guantanamo. You should consider trying to use this google tool yourself. Geo Swan 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems there are some who will accept no cites, and will do nothing to find them. Brian Pearson 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that there are many that will do anything to get a quick jab at anyone who's views differ from their's. Nice sarcasm, funny boy. I just said that your cite did nothing to prove what I put forward. I did not once say that your source proved nothing. Besides that, there still doesn't seem to be any credible source to say that 420 of the Guantanamo detainees have been freed anyway. But, beggers can't be choosers, and I know that even better now that your superiour Wikipedian knowledge has corrected my ignorance. Thank you, your majesty, and I'll do my best to cite sources in future. Anyway, again, your cite didn't prove what I put forward, so maybe people who cite the wrong sources are just the opposite extreme from someone who cites no sources. I do not "accept no cites", I merely don't accept sources that don't prove that certain edits are right (I will again give this example: you can prove that, respectively, 100 people not 420, and 330, not 420 had been released AT DIFFERENT TIMES.) I would like to remind everyone again that there is still no source that says that 420 prisoners have been released from Guantanamo Bay, and for some reason, that seems to be my fault. Oh well. So nice try at making me look like an ignorant fool, but I'm sticking to my guns here. 172.143.101.242 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A clarification -- I intended the link to the International Red Cross site as a source, not a cite. Since the article was using a specific time period, I thought possibly they could give a number for that period. I thought I'd suggest that source because they are not exactly buddies with the United States. I also thought they would have access; if the US were hiding something, then everybody would know about it from the IRC. Anyway, I may be wrong, but that was my rationale. BTW, I apologize for my previous 'snippy' remark. Brian Pearson 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, and I apologise for overreacting to it, I get very touchy on topics such as the GBDC. To say that I dislike Guantanamo Bay is a massive understatement, and I get very angry very easy on a subject as sensitive as this, but, again, I do think that sometimes I'm too sensitive on ultra-political issues like these. (In case you hadn't guessed, I'm hardly the Republican's Number 1 fan. I'll do anything to let people know of my left-wing views.) Anyways, I agree with you that were the US commit a human rights atrocity, the IRC will be there to report it, and that hardly gets a thumbs-up from the Bush Administration, however, it's almost always the truth. Again, I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that you were trying to leave my views in the dark purely by saying I may be reluctant to cite sources. Mine was an insulting response and I'm sorry. Still, the search goes on to prove that those 420 people are officialy out of there...172.216.89.251 11:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that this edit thread has been going for months and there is still no citation to the "420 released" information in the article, why is it still part of the article? When I read the article this was by far the most striking piece of "information" I read, so I was disappointed to see no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I was creating some links, and getting rid of all but the first United Kingdom link when I was interrupted, or I would've done it all in one edit. I got a little 'fused.' This note just in case somebody wonders what the heck I was doing. :) Brian Pearson 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

90% innocent?

The article says that 60-80 of 775 prisoners will be put on trial. Does this mean that (at least) 90% of the prisoners were innocent? 70.15.116.59 03:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

no it means they aren't getting a fair trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.72.96 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

please explain more fully...

Someone made a rather extensive excision of sources and references, without putting an explanation here on the talk page, and with the edit summary:

"External links - cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory of links)"

Sorry, but I find this brief explanation cryptic. I think an excision of this size requires more detailed explanation.

How exactly does WP:EL apply? I took a look at WP:EL. The first thing I noticed was that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. The second thing I noticed was that it seems to contradict other wiki documents, like WP:VER and WP:RS. (In particular the guideline recommends not using links that are not online. For about two years most NYTimes articles were freely available only for the first two weeks. Then readers were faced with the choice of only accessing the first 100 words or so of the article, subscribing, or going to a libraries microfiche. I think it is nonsense for this guideline to try to proscribe the use of resources like this. I had a disagreement with another contributor about continuing to cite references that had gone 404. So I posted a query to WP:AN/I. I was told that sources that go 404, or sources that were never online, remained reliable, verifiable sources, provided the reference provided enough information for the interested reader to seek out the paper copy.

I think we are all agreed that we should comply with WP:NOT, and that the wikipedia should not be a directory of links -- or rather that it should not be a directory of random or disorganized links. But, what is wrong with these links? What is wrong with the first link they excised, for instance?

• Reuters: David Hicks Pleads Guilty at Guantanamo Bay To Helping al Qaeda Terror.

Now maybe the excisor is right. Maybe some or all of these links should be excised. But I would be a lot happier if they provided a fuller explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan 10:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

More detainees released

See BBC article here

4 released to the UK 1 to be released back to Saudi Arabia brob (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

10 more saudi nationals released. [8] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

merge Al Qaida facilitator

I concur with the suggestion to merge Al Qaida facilitator. Mathiastck (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

UserDoe's reversion on 27 November

On November 27, UserDoe reverted another user's edits, but accidentally removed many external links, as well as all the categories and interwiki links. Since then, the External links section has been rewritten, so the removed content can't simply be merged back in. The following links were removed before the section was rewritten; feel free to add the more important ones back in:

Other links:

• HomeTown.aol.com — "Statement by The Government of Cuba to the National and International Public Opinion" (January 11, 2002)
• cageprisoners.com — Non-sectarian Islamic human rights website on Guantánamo prisoners as well as war on terror prisoners in the UK and the U.S.
• kuwaitifreedom.org — Site focusing on Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantánamo
• Why Americans Don't Care About GTMO, and Why They Should, JURIST
• Guantánamo Bay, international news and rss-feed by NewsXS
• What is an "Unlawful Combatant" and Why It Matters: The Status Of Detained Al Qaeda And Taliban Fighters, Michael C. Dore, Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law (23 January 2002)
• GITMO-The New Rules Of War (atmo films); Herald Tribune review
• All-Party Parliamentary Group on Guantanamo Bay (APPG-GB)
• UK resident released from Guantanamo, Breaking Legal news, April 1 2007
• Guardian: MPs and peers in Camp Delta plea, January 10, 2004.
• FindLaw: Shafiq Rasul, et al. v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al. etc.
• Supreme Court of the United States of America: Docket for 03-334 (Rasul v Bush)
• 'They tied me up like a beast and began kicking me' The Observer, Sunday 16 May 2004 Account of prisoner treatment in Camp X-Ray.
• Q&A: U.S. Supreme Court Guantánamo ruling BBC News. (8 July 2004)

U.S. military websites:

• NSGtmo.navy.mil — "U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay Cuba: The United States' oldest overseas Naval Base"
• Reprocessed Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) and Administrative Review Board (ARB) Documents
• "Army investigation" (PDF). (84.0 KiB) released to the public

U.S. Congressional Research Service papers:

• Elsea, et. al Detainees at Guantánamo Bay (July 20 2005)".pdf" (PDF). (36.1 KiB) .html — summary of pending court cases

Maps and photos:

• Google Maps
• Photos by Brad Beckett
• Virtual 3D Walkthrough of Camp Delta (from the Art project Zone*Interdite)

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Founding date?

A Danish news site [9] says that today (Jan.11 2008) is the 6 years anniversary of the Guantanamo camp. The reference [10] (of which I cannot read anything but the headline), dated Jan.9, 2002, seems to put that date at least two days earlier. Can it be stated with reasonable certainty when the camp was founded?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

I'm reinserting Red Army Faction#Custody and the Stammheim trial into the "See also" section.

It's not research and so OR isn't a factor. The guidelines don't say we need sources for "See also" sections. It says this "should be approached with common sense."

I said the "See also" section contains other items that are less relevant, and it still does. In what way could it be OR to link mine but not OR to link Disarmed Enemy Forces?

The Red Army Faction's prison shenanigans are much more relevant to GTMO. They used the same techniques to agitate public sympathies, and they (not coincidentally) also received support from extremists running the Center for Constitutional Rights. It's quite likely that some of the same people were involved in both campaigns. Somebody might want to pursue that further but can't if it's censored from view.

I realize that any objective readers coming here won't be reading all the way through to the bottom of this mess, but still, one link for context shouldn't be asking too much. If anyone really wants to clean up this article, I suggest starting at the top.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We are entitled to clean up the article from the bottom, the top or the middle as we see fit, or to spend our time in other areas of the encyclopedia. My view is that See also should be kept to a minimum. If articles are relevant then there is probably a reason to link to them in the article mainspace. Your comment above makes it clear that you wish to insert the Red Army Faction link into the See also simply in order to accuse some US-based rights organisation of "extremism". You want readers to see parallels, but unless you can find a reliable source making such parallels then you are trying to use the See also to push a POV. If you want to take out Disarmed Enemy Forces, then go ahead. The list needs pruning and most of the links are without interest except to obsessives. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP page for the organisation you refer to identifies it as an advocacy group but there is absolutely nothing there to indicate that it is extremist. If you have RS material that you think does so identify it then add it to that article instead of taking this article down a road that will end up with the inclusion of every group of prison hunger strikers from the IRA to the Suffragists.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with judith on this, why are the red army faction linked to Gitmo any more than the Suffragists, if it is about using hungerstikes to create public sympathy then the Suffragists are the prime example of this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not me alone making the accusation that CCR is an extremist group. That article has links that claim this. But more telling, the very first line of that article acknowledges it was started by "radical lawyer" William Kunstler. Its roots go back to the National Lawyers Guild, which was one of those leftist groups that did a 180 in WWII from "anti-war" to pro-war because Stalin changed sides. It's no accident that the same group would oppose GTMO.

I'll grant that that article needs improving. They all do. It doesn't mention the ties to the Red Army Faction, although other sources do, and I'll eventually add to it. You can criticize me for not having enough sources already in place, but there's an obvious resemblance even if you don't know about the connections. Reading the articles, it looks as though CCR simply went back to their old playbook.

GTMO detainees don't share many similarities with Suffragists that they do with the Red Army Faction. I'm not asking that every prison hunger strike be added. Just this one -- because of the connections.

I'm not going to argue this out. The guidelines say common sense but your POV on that is obviously different than mine. I've said what I think and I don't care as much about this article as you do. If you want to keep this article in its current state, which I think is biased in favor of extremism, then go right ahead and remove it again. One more link for context isn't going to help much anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a source that shows this link and i'll change my mind, but given that Al qaeda was created and funded by the CIA and the Bin Laden familly to fight the ATHIEST Communist forces of the USSR in afganistan, i don't see the link between them and some middle class german commie terrorists. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

They're obviously communists even if you close your eyes. I didn't think that was disputed.

Here's an article about Yu Kikumura (an affiliate) that says he was represented by Kunstler. (He's not the only one, but I'm not digging them all up tonight.) Kunstler and his gang are also noted in the Baader-Meinhof website timeline.

BTW: You've got your Al Qaeda history wrong. They weren't created nor funded by the CIA. It's a popular misconception. People tend to forget that the Saudis were also involved in funding that war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So they got the stingers from k-mart? That aside the link between Gitmo and the Red Army Faction is a lawyer who won a bronze star in WWII. He protested legal changes to the west german constitution (perfectly legal) and now defends an illegal alien from numerous serious charges. Thats what lawyers do, all deffendants have a right to a lawyer, and the pot of "terrorism" laywers is small (but unfortunately getting more numerous). Not getting a strong link here, infact i get no real link at all, if you think William Kunstler is connected to GITMO then you'll have to do better.^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're making it clear that you are here in order to conduct an exposure of the CCR. That is not a legitimate purpose of this page and if you carry on then it will begin to look like trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my intention was to provide context to an article that badly needs it.

One "See also" link for this POV cesspool isn't trolling.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditions Bias??

The first paragraph of the Conditions of Guantanamo Bay has many accusations but no citations. Most of these are negative, showing a bias and POV, and we all know that wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV...72.213.128.243 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue: Somebody removed the citation needed template, and added this reference for one item in the Conditions section. The funny thing is, the reference used almost the same phrasing as is used in this article, which makes it seem like the Guardian writer used this article as his source.

The Guardian says: "Prisoners are held in four camps, in small, mesh-sided cells, for up to 24 hours a day."

This article says: "Prisoners are held in small mesh-sided cells, and lights are kept on day and night."

It's possible that he used text from an older reference, and not from here.

Either way, I'm still not sure that this is valid. The pictures of GTMO cells do not fit that description. It sounds like the old temporary cells at X-Ray.

But to answer your specific point: Expect bias. The military isn't that good at P.R., and they're limited in what they can say while the opponents can say anything they like. The best you can hope for is that we take notes of who said what so that no one ever forgets where people stood.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's now clear that the guy who wrote "mesh-sided cells" was looking at old photos.

Here is what the medium security living area looks like.

That's a DoD website, and the pictures are taken by a military photographer, so it's public domain and may be used here.

We also need a section on the myths, like those "mesh-sided cells." It's not enough to just fix it here. It needs to be remembered that these things were said. More photos here, including one of Camp X-Ray now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide bombing by ex inmate

This story [11] is about "A spokesman for US Central Command told the Associated Press that Abdullah al-Ajmi took part in an attack in Mosul on 29 April that killed several people". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Operating Procedures

I removed "which verifies the use of isolation and sensory deprivation" which I realize might generate some controversy. However, the claims are unsourced; the document contains zero hits for the words "solitary" and "sensory", 3 hits for "isolation" of which two are index entries and one is in the section regarding mail, and one hit for "depriv" which refers to things which will detainees will NOT be deprived of. (I searched for "depriv" to cover both "deprive" and "deprivation".)

Please note that I am saying the claims are unsourced, not that they are untrue. I did not read the entire document to see that nothing in there specifies either of these two activities. However, these are controversial claims and they must be properly cited if they are included in the article. Furthermore, even if they are found and cited, they do not verify the use of these activities; they merely confirm that on the date of publication, such were allowed by policy. So the wording would have to be changed as well - and again, this is only if the cites can be found in the first place.

There remains a possibility of some discussion as to the authenticity of the document as well, but I have no opinion on that at the moment.  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: the word "torture" does not appear in the document either.  Frank  |  talk  17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I was mainly interested in fixing the phrase "which verifies torture" and found isolation and stress positions in one of the link's associated articles (it turns out I misinterpreted that). I stupidly assumed that the "verifies torture" had at least some minor basis in fact.

I looked into the actual PDF, and see nothing about this. They do isolate the detainee initially, but that's not the same type of isolation, as it's not without human contact.

If anything, this manual is a foil to the torture meme, as it shows how well organized the camp is, and its devotion to following the law.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. From what I read, there's not much of a smoking gun, so to speak, and the attention to detail runs throughout.  Frank  |  talk  12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing part where Gen. Miller was supposedly tasked to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib. There are a lot of references for it, but the only direct sources I can find stem from claims made by Karpinski while she was fighting off charges that she had responsibility for Abu Ghraib. That was still early in the investigation when much of what was believed turned out to be twisted.

Miller said he never used the word "Gitmoize" And although Karpinski does say Miller used the word, she also says he wasn't given the authority to do that. There may be a place for this stuff in the Abu Ghraib drama but it doesn't belong in this article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note 12, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-12, has been removed from Yahoo. Used "A recent report by the Associated Press indicates that a 7th camp, entitled Camp 7, is also a separate facility on the naval base. It is considered the highest security among all jails on the base, and its location is classified.[13]"

FBI involvement? 71.82.17.483 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.72.96 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pdf Decision

I added this pdf full text of the Court decision as ext. link:*supremecourtus.gov, BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., No. 06–1195, June 12, 2008--Florentino floro (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

America using communist China interrogation/torture methods

China inspired interrogations at Guantánamo

"The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners." Sbw01f (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When is this going to be integrated into the article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reluctant in adding it myself because as you can see below, Wikipedia is filled with blind patriots/apologists who will find any old excuse, legit or not, to keep information like this from being added. (We all know the IHT is an extremely reliable source.) I've seen it in all kinds of articles like the Iraq war, human rights in America, Vietnam war, allegations of state terrorism etc.. it's always the same sad story of patriotism and censorship. I'll add it once, and I will not edit war further when the patriots inevitably come marching in to defend their perfect do-no-wrong country. Sbw01f (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Soon I hope, and by rights it should be in the lead, too.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it doesn't appear to be the entire truth. It's well known that the techniques used by the military had limits and guidelines. It's doubtful that any communist would set the same ones.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impeccably sourced to the International Herald Tribune. What leads you to say that it is not the entire truth, Randy? Do you have another source in mind that contradicts it? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "impeccably sourced" to where? It doesn't substantiate the connections that it makes.

Although the article relies heavily on the overblown SERE connection, let's assume for the moment that that part of it is perfectly valid. Is it your opinion that any communists (or any socialists for that matter) would set the same limits to these methods as U.S. interrogators?

If you look back over the years that the GTMO controversy has been in play, you'll see everything was reviewed by lawyers through the entire process. The techniques were revised while they argued this out behind closed doors. Who is it that truly believes that any communist government acts this way? Who would put their name to such a belief?

Let's compare this to reality. The various actual interrogation methods have been either leaked or released over the last few years. Read the Mohamed al-Kahtani leaked interrogation log and you'll see what was very likely the extreme limit. The log (rather conveniently) ends just before Alberto J. Mora clamped down on what could be authorized -- and that was back in January 2003. (Compare that to what this IHT article says about these methods coming over in December 2002.)

If you read the testimony of the interrogators you'll see that they cited various limits to sleep deprivation. At one time it's 20 hours, and later it's 15 -- and that requires special permission. Compare that to what communists have done (and will always continue to do) while their supporters never batted an eye.

The bottom line is, would making this connection be honest? I say no. We know too much right now for these kinds of leaps to be useful in any manner that tries to maintain integrity.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced to an article in the International Herald Tribune, one of the world's best known and best respected publications. That fully meets WP:V. I don't have a view on the other issues you raise, and this talk page is not a forum. If you have another source that contradicts the IHT then both can be cited. If not then you will have to drop it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The al-Kahtani interrogation log I noted is here. It shows these techniques were in place before that article says they were imported.

Maybe it's true that WP:V allows posting slippery "facts" as long as they're sourced. That doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Keep in mind that Lapsed Pacifist just said that this should be in the lead. I don't see why you'd want your name on it (even a pseudonymous one).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: If you read the IHT article, I don't see where it actually makes the claim that the Chinese techniques were used. It says a class based on them was taught "from Dec. 29, 2002, to Jan. 4, 2003." The Mora memo was issued less than two weeks later.

Then consider that much of this article was inspired by a politician during an election year. That's pretty pathetic.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Randy, all of what you're saying is original research. The article says what it says, and nothing you say can change that fact. The content from the article is obviously notable and should be accurately and responsibly incorporated into wikipedia. The only possible legit argument you can make is that the IHT does not meet the requirements of WP:V. If that's the case, try asking the Reliable sources Noticeboard and see what they think. Otherwise, as itsmejudith said, this isn't a forum for discussion and opinions. Sbw01f (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about what I'm saying here.

First, IHT is normally perfectly acceptable. In fact, that article is really just the IHT version of what appeared in the New York Times. (That's probably the better link.)

Yes, the article says what it says. The trouble is, it may not say what you think it says.

Ignore the headline. There's no guarantee that the headline was written by the article's writer. Read the article itself. Note that it says "for possible use on prisoners" and not what lessons may have been applied.

Please look closely at the example the Times uses: It does mention Mohamed al-Kahtani (spelled by the Times as "Mohammed al-Qahtani") but it fails to clarify the discrepency of dates I sourced above. Do you doubt those dates? It's patently obvious that the interrogators already knew about sleep deprivation. (I doubt the Chinese invented it.)

In fact, if you read close, the Times doesn't even make the claim that Kahtani's interrogation was based on those lessons.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, if you read close, the Times doesn't even make the claim that Kahtani's interrogation was based on those lessons." Wrong, from the NYT article "The harshest known interrogation at Guantánamo was that of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a member of Al Qaeda suspected of being the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Qahtani’s interrogation involved sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold and other methods also used by the Chinese." Now i'm not saying that this document is the only source of US information on “thought reform” but it was taught and there are multiple credable reports of these methods being used.^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Is it truly your position that those who took that class at the end of December 2002 then went back in time to November so that they could begin using those techniques?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean, look closely at text you just quoted. It says that techniques similar to the Chinese techniques were used, but it doesn't actually claim that what they used came from those lessons.

All those techniques have been around for a long time. They weren't taught in December 2002. Most or all of them probably pre-date the Korean war.

I doubt that U.S. "sleep deprivation" techniques are anything like what the Chinese did. I've heard ours called "sleep management" since we're not allowed to do anything close.

It would be an interesting exercise to look through the Kahtani interrogation logs to see if they changed much in the week after that class ended.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The techniques existed before the Korean War, but it was only when their own soldiers had been subjected to them that the US military began to study their effects in depth. Which brings us to where we are today.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We are not (and cannot be) in the the business of creating or determining truth. Our position as editors of this project is to find sources that support what we write here. Nothing more, and nothing less.  Frank  |  talk  14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What is being verified here? As I said above, this source doesn't really say much about GTMO that we didn't know before. A close reading shows that this source is not actually making a claim that that class had influenced the treatment of al-Kahtani or anyone else. We don't even know what was taught at that class. (It could well be that they were teaching about the unreliability of some of these methods.)

Why allow a deliberate distortion of the truth?

As for the military studying the effects of these techniques only after the Korean War, we don't know that either. Since Americans had been tortured in WWII, it's hard to believe that the military wasn't studying this back then. Since wartime secrecy was better protected while the communists were our allies, it's less likely that this would have made it to the front page.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"It's well known that the techniques used by the military had limits and guidelines. It's doubtful that any communist would set the same ones."

You lost me right there, Randy. Your opinions on US military or communist ethics are neither relevant nor persuasive.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(part of response removed by someone else)

But I have no expectation of persuading you personally. This is about the worthiness of this article. I'm just trying to get each one of you on record.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this edit appears to win, I'll make the proposal I've made elsewhere: If anyone truly believes it's a good source then try using it for the Mohamed al-Kahtani article. I might point it out outside of WP but I won't dispute it here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Omar Khadr really sob "kill me, kill me"?

Today, on July 25th, one can still check the google cache. On the day the Khadr video was released it was widely reported that he was sobbing "kill me, kill me".

I waited for the release of the video. The initial reports were that he was sobbing "help me, help me". But, within the first hour of the video's release, when I watched the video for myself, I was shocked. I thought "Cheeses K. Riest! He is not saying 'help me!' He is sobbing 'kill me!'" Within a couple of hours he was widely reported to be saying "kill me!" When reporters asked his lawyers to clarify what he actually said, about four hours after the video release, they replied, "Your guess is as good as mine." Later in the day his family stated they heard "Ya Umma" -- Arabic for "my mother". If you listen to the video his sobs sound nothing like "Ya Umma".

My theory about the lawyer's answer is that they had consciously chose not to assert he was saying "kill me" in order not to seem to be pressing an assertion that was open to multiple interpretations.

Now, if you do a google search you will still find references to news articles that reported "kill me". But most of those references have been revised to state that he was calling for his mother.

The article has to go with what can be verified. Which is that some listeners heard "kill me!" but that Arabic speakers said he was saying "my mother". My personal interpretation is that his family heard "my mother" because "kill me" was too heartbreaking for them. My personal interpretation is that the press backed away from more accurate reporting because his actual utterance was too shocking. But, we have to go with what the references say. I am recording this note just to record that we are witnessing an Orwellian revision of history. I don't see this as an organized conspiracy, rather, as a collective lack of courage on the part of editors.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Statement Contradiction?

"As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest."

--70.142.35.83 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch i've fixed it, using "those" so we now only have to update one number in the intro. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone ought to make templates for these numbers so that they can all be updated in one place. If so, we'd need to look at how phrases like "As of May 2008" are used.

BTW: I'm pretty sure that "free the rest" is not accurate. There are some who can never be put on trial, and who are still considered too dangerous to release. The Boumediene decision makes it more clumsy to continue holding them but it's not likely to end their detainment any time soon.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"free the rest" is exactly what will have to happen, had the people at gitmo been given POW status america could legally (under the GC3) hold them until atleast the end of the war in afganistan and probably the whole war on terror. Having played fast and loose with the GC3 that right of america does not apply anyone at gitmo as they are not POW's. Only those on their way to a trial can possibly be concidered being legally held, and even then the conditions/length of their detention and methods of evidence gathering will reduce the number of convictions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I don't see a reference. You're assuming that there was ever a decent case to be made for the balance of the GCs to apply to this war. Without that, there's no call for POW status. SCOTUS ruled that only GC article 3 applies. It has no provision for POW status. (I'm not even aware of a minority of the court saying the full GCs could apply, although that could be worth looking into.)

You're also assuming that critics of the U.S. and their anti-American lawyers would have easily accepted that these detainees could be considered POWs. There is no reason to believe that, and ample reason not to. They've always demanded civilian trials. And just look at the facts: Most of the loudest critics on this issue are socialists, and there is no history of socialists ever fighting a war by the GCs. It was always just a convenient tool for them. When you get down to it, it is only the U.S. side in this war that respects the GCs. That's the way it's always been. These lawyers would be opposed to GC-III treatment if that's how it worked out. If you read carefully, even these WP articles don't suggest otherwise.

You're also wrong to think that POW is the only option for holding someone this way. Even if the full GCs applied to this war, GC-IV allows for detaining civilians without trial as long as it's militarily necessary.

And besides that, Boumediene left a few things open. The U.S. has detention centers right now for illegal aliens. Even if nothing else is done, there's no reason to think they wouldn't eventually be shipped there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating an indefinite detention entry

Has anyone suggested this before? We have a wiki entry on torture, but nothing on indefinite detention. Mildly shameful;) See this article. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The shame is not on the part of the U.S.

It is only "indefinite detention" to the extent that the length of this war is indefinite. That's no different at all that other wars.

Joanne Mariner's editorial (which is where your link is supposed to go) seems to be based upon the limits of criminal law. In fact, Mariner cites the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which, as I may understand it, seems to be about the rights citizens should have within their own countries. That Covenant even makes exceptions for wartime.

The U.S. has justified its detention policies on the laws of war, and the limits of the Geneva Conventions. And if you look around Wikipedia, including this very Guantanamo Bay detention camp article, you'll see plenty of America's critics referring to the Geneva Conventions (at one time, anyway).

If you want to pursue this, I think you'll need to make a separate section on whether the laws of war should apply at all, and who it is that doesn't believe that to be the case.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I meant, shameful that we have not created such an entry. And as a newcomer to this page, I am shocked to see that anyone would defend indefinite detention in the context of a democracy. I am Israeli, where we have administrative detention, and I can tell you, when the war goes on and on for decades, so does indefinite detention. I am not suggesting creating a section on indefinite detention here, but a separate entry.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a particularly difficult defense to make. In principle, this is just how it's always been. In reality, I don't believe for a second that other countries would have detained as few people had they been in these circumstances. I've recently heard that the U.S. has detained almost 100,000 people in Afghanistan. It'll probably be less than 100 who get "indefinite" detention.

If the war looks like it may continue longer than critics claim to think acceptable, then those critics should do a little less demanding that the U.S. stop its fighting, and they should begin to do a little more demanding the other side to stop its fighting.

I don't know that we need an article on indefinite detention, but you can certainly make one if you wish. Just don't forget the laws of war, as people like Mariner apparently has.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think you could also create a section on "indefinite" detention in the article on Detention (imprisonment). That article already talks about indefinite detention as though it was suddenly invented by the Bush administration. I don't know that there's much more that could be said on the subject other than listing more opinions.

Other articles you could look at would be Security certificate and Defence Regulation 18B. They're different in that they dealt with people residing within the borders of the nations that implemented those laws, but that may be a minor distinction for critics who don't care about the laws of war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, LamaLo, we should have such an article.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should first flesh out Detention (imprisonment) with valid information on this angle to see if there's enough for more than a small section of that article.

The only thing I see behind this topic is inflammatory opinion.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3