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