WRT innocent  this is not a verified fact   Does the Chinese government agree they are innocent  No The DoJ appealed Urbinas ruling on Razakahs habeas  Did they think he is innocent Urbina wasnt ruling on Razakahs 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 QaedaThe first Uyghur to get a ruling was Huzaifa Parhat  His 20080620 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 Uyghurs factual returns were due in October  In those factual returns they would have been obliged to lay out valid evidence to justify the Uyghurs 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 werent 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 publicPersonally I agree that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned  But I understand that personal opinions like that dont belong in article space  The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy  We shouldnt rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghurs innocence has been an established factAs I have explained to you before if you find Urbinas ruling and he used that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to UrbinaIf an WPRS like a newspaper or legal magazine quotes Urbinas ruling and he used that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to UrbinaIf an WPRS like a newspaper or legal magazine in summarizing Urbinas ruling uses that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  attributed to the WPRS not to UrbinaIf you find Urbinas 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 rulingsWRT where to find the DoJs appeal  A reference to the CCRs Guantanamo habeas scorecard was offered right in the paragraph where I added that the ruling in his habeas was appealed  The CCRs Guantanamo habeas scorecard has a column for whether a habeas ruling was appealed  That column in Razakahs entry says his ruling was appealed  I urge you to double check references more carefully before claiming assertions were unreferencedWRT 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 dont 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    

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
WRT innocent  this is not a verified fact   Does the Chinese government agree they are innocent  No The DoJ appealed Urbinas ruling on Razakahs habeas  Did they think he is innocent Urbina wasnt ruling on Razakahs 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 QaedaThe first Uyghur to get a ruling was Huzaifa Parhat  His 20080620 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 Uyghurs factual returns were due in October  In those factual returns they would have been obliged to lay out valid evidence to justify the Uyghurs 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 werent 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 publicPersonally I agree that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned  But I understand that personal opinions like that dont belong in article space  The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy  We shouldnt rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghurs innocence has been an established factAs I have explained to you before if you find Urbinas ruling and he used that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to UrbinaIf an WPRS like a newspaper or legal magazine quotes Urbinas ruling and he used that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  properly attributed to UrbinaIf an WPRS like a newspaper or legal magazine in summarizing Urbinas ruling uses that phrase you can include the phrase in the article  attributed to the WPRS not to UrbinaIf you find Urbinas 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 rulingsWRT where to find the DoJs appeal  A reference to the CCRs Guantanamo habeas scorecard was offered right in the paragraph where I added that the ruling in his habeas was appealed  The CCRs Guantanamo habeas scorecard has a column for whether a habeas ruling was appealed  That column in Razakahs entry says his ruling was appealed  I urge you to double check references more carefully before claiming assertions were unreferencedWRT 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 dont 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    

