"

WRT ""innocent""  this is not a ""verified fact"".  
 Does the Chinese government agree they are ""innocent""?  No.
 The DoJ appealed Urbina's ruling on Razakah's habeas.  Did they think he is ""innocent""?
 Urbina wasn't ruling on Razakah's ""innocence"".  None of the habeas rulings were on whether the captives were ""innocent"" of a crime.  None of the Uyghurs were charged with a crime.  All of the habeas rulings were on whether the ""preponderance of the evidence"" supported the Executive Branch claim that it was justified to hold them because the were enemies of the USA, or had supported al Qaeda.

The first Uyghur to get a ruling was Huzaifa Parhat.  His 2008-06-20 ruling was in the only DTA appeal to run to conclusion.  The Executive Branch considered appealing that ruling.  The Executive Branch had a schedule of when it had to file factual returns in the Uyghurs' habeas cases.  The Uyghur's factual returns were due in October.  In those factual returns they would have been obliged to lay out valid evidence to justify the Uyghur's detention.  It is important to quote our sources accurately.  The DoJ did not acknowledge that the Uyghurs were ""innocent"".  The DoJ did not acknowledge that the Uyghurs were not, after all, ""enemy combatants"".  The DoJ simply said that they were changing their plans, and would not put forward arguments that the Uyghurs were ""enemy combatants"".  Some commentators went on record as interpreting this change of plans not as an acknowledgment that the Uyghurs weren't enemies, but merely as a strategic decision that the value of establishing that the Uyghurs were enemy combatants was insufficient to justify making classified sources public.

Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned.  But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space.  The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy.  We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's ""innocence"" has been an established fact.
As I have explained to you before, if you find Urbina's ruling, and he used that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to Urbina.
If an WP:RS, like a newspaper or legal magazine quotes Urbina's ruling, and he used that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to Urbina.
If an WP:RS, like a newspaper or legal magazine, in summarizing Urbina's ruling, uses that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article  attributed to the WP:RS, not to Urbina.
If you find Urbina's ruling, and he used a different phrase, like, ""...the USA has no legal justification to hold Razakah..."", you are stuck using that phrase, even if other judges used the phrase ""wrongfully imprisoned"" in other habeas rulings.

WRT where to find the DoJ's appeal...  A reference to the CCR's Guantanamo habeas scorecard was offered right in the paragraph where I added that the ruling in his habeas was appealed.  The CCR's Guantanamo habeas scorecard has a column for whether a habeas ruling was appealed.  That column in Razakah's entry says his ruling was appealed.  I urge you to double check references more carefully before claiming assertions were unreferenced.

WRT his ""innocence"", you assert above: ""There is hardly anybody now who doubt this...""  this is an argument based on common knowledge.  Further, your draft asserted that their innocence was established ""early"".  We don't base our articles on common knowledge, or our personal opinions as to what is common knowledge, we base them on what we can verify from authoritative reliable sources.    "