Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Archive 1

message: Good that you moved this. I was hoping somebody else would do the heavy lifting! Is there universal approval of the name? At one point Detention of prisoners at ... was tossed out and I wonder if it's more appropriate to have the title reflect the focus of the article (the detentions themselves) rather than the facility per se. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Name lacks the proper á in the title, as do several other articles accessible from the Guantánamo disambig page. --Dupes 04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name formatting 

message: I think the article is too long for the subject matter.  --  (unsigned comment from User:68.166.200.185 22:13, 2006 March 19)
:I don't know what 68.166.200.185 means.  I would ask them -- do you have a concern about the verifiability of the article?  Do you have a concern that you perceive a bias in the article?  The first part of an article is supposed to summarize what is found in the body of the article.  In theory, readers with only a light interest in the subject of the article, should need only read the introductory material of long articles.  So, I don't think your complaint about length is a meaningful one.  --  Geo Swan 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long. 

message: Thanks Dhartung, I couldn't exactly put that in words, with the amount off time I had to write my comment leaving it sounding like it I just thought the article was biased. Your view of it was better written. Geo Swan, sorry, if I'm getting the wrong message but you seem to me as if you are acting like I'm attacking the article. I think it is very accurate, with lots of sources and references. I think, as Dhartung said, that the article need some slight readjustment and every thing will sort itself out.
--Illuminarei 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What he said...*nods*. 

message: This article should have the pictures replaced with more generic, less offensive ones. These show too much of a bias, and it shouldn't show the classified info on treatment of terrorists detained in the prison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.227.43.224 (talk • contribs) .
#Please expand on your reasoning as to why the pictures should be replaced?  Please explain what you mean by "more generic" pictures.  
#*Do you mean that the pictures should be replaced by pictures that could be found at any US military base -- things or HQ buildings, like American flags waving in the wind -- and not showing any detainees?  If that is what you meant, let me point out that the generic bases don't have long articles.  Let me point out that generic bases don't have articles with pictures.  This article is long, and has pictures, because it describes a base that differs from the generic bases.  So those pictures should focus on how it differs from those generic military facilities.  That means showing the detainees.  
#Should the wikipedia link to articles that discuss classified information; formerly classified information; and accidentally declassified information?  Sure, why not, if the links are authoritative and verifiable.  Similarly, why not repeat the information, or a neutral, unbiased summary of it?  Consider, for instance, the accidentally declassified, and subsequently reclassified information about Murat Kurnaz's Combatant Status Review Tribunal dossier, and Justice Joyce Hens Green's (classified) opinion of how unjust it was?  
#*A couple of months ago there were some article about the Bush administration quietly reclassifying a vast amount of previously declassified information, with flimsy or nonexistent justification.  One of the examples concerned a scholar who had been writing about the Korean War.  And the Bush administration was trying to reclassify some very mundane information that he had copies of in his research notes.  
#*My personal opinion is that the real reason why the Bush administration has struggled to keep information about the detainees classified has little to do with fighting the "war on terror".  So far as I am concerned the real reason they have been fighting so hard to keep that information classified is to hide from the public how flimsy the cases against some of the detainees is.  I challenge you to go and download the .pdf files where the DoD put the (declassified) transcripts from the CSRTs can be downloaded.  --  Geo Swan 00:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is too linked to a biased article 

message: The issue of forced feeding fails to mention one point that is frequently raised namely that the forced feeding of detainees when they are capable of making a rational decision and understand the consequences is against the guidelines of various medical and other organisations. This article, while perhaps not suitable as a source since it's an opinion piece, should provide the the basic starting ground as it mentioned various guidelines surrounding forced-feeding  Nil Einne 05:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a good document which should provide the basis for quotes from medical organisations in regards to the forced feeding of detainees.  Nil Einne 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it appears I missed the issue as it is infact discussed. However some of the above, especially the ICRC article may be useful in addition Nil Einne 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced feeding 

message: This is a link to the BBC report on this comment http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5069230.stm . I think both the suicides and the comments about them being "acts of war"/"PR stunts" need to be recorded, but is this particular artical where it should go? If so where in the artical, and should we quote the reactions to this.Hypnosadist 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 "PR Stunts"

message: I made some changes to the article, which involved putting the content into sections (as was stated on the article was required) and revising the introduction. These changes have been reverted by user Hypnosadist. I would like to know why. Madder 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes reverted by Hypnosadist 

message: Cut from article:
:The U.S. government has claimed it has accommodated religious needs.  Religious literature is supplied, daily prayers are respected and all meals are certified halal (adhering to Islamic law) by Guantánamo's Muslim chaplain.  In fact, between April 2002 and March 2003 most detainees had gained an average of 13 pounds.  But continued alleged religious harassment is one of the triggers to the hunger strike that started on August 8 2005.  Detainee Omar Khadr told his lawyer that the camp authorities were only broadcasting the call to prayers four times a day, not the five times Islam requires.  Further, camp authorities were allegedly offending the religious sensibilities of the detainees by having female personnel announce the call to prayers.  Finally, he claimed that camp authorities were allowing guards to disrupt prayer sessions. 
This paragraph is an argument. It uses phrases like The U.S. claimed, In fact, But and Further to imply that the military said X but what really happend was Y.
This can be easily repaired.
First of all, say outright that there is a dispute over conditions. Then identify the positions and the sides which advocates these positions. 
For example, 
*Attorneys and other advocates for some prisoners complained that the U.S. did not accomodate religious needs.
**Khadr insisted that the detaining authorities were obliged to call prisoners to prayer 5 times a day (in a man's voice only), and complained that (1) they only did it 4 times a day and (2) sometimes used female personnel to do so.
**Khadr asserted that the detaining authorities were obliged to respect all prayer sessions of detainees, and complained that sometimes guards "disrupted" prayer sessions.
**Khadr called this "continued religous harassment" went on a hunger strike to protest it.
This could be balanced with something like:
*The Pentagon provided a Muslim chaplain and supplied free religious literature and certified halal meals.
**They argued that prisoners accepted and appreciated these meals, as they gained an average of one pound per month. 
**They denied interrupting anyone's prayers; or,
**They acknowledged interrupting prayers that seemed over-long (one guy "prayed" 75 minutes and refused to re-enter his cell) -- NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE MADE UP JUST TO SHOW THE "FORM" OF A BALANCED TREATMENT
Get the idea? --Uncle Ed 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV about food and religion

message: I'm not likeing the intro at the moment as there is no mention that the mere existance of this prison and the nature of the inmates and "due process" at this facility make it very controversal. Something like the "this facility has been questioned legally, morally and ethically by nations, supra-national groups and NGO's." But at the moment the intro gives no hint a the political implications of this prison.Hypnosadist 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro, Controversy what controversy

message: The Boston Globe has an article today about the Administrative Review Boards.  Data in it is somewhat different than that currently in the Statistics section here.  See  if you want to use it as a source.  GRBerry 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a goldmine of information, its going to take a while to go through it. We should update the statistic's and add the info on the "good faith" finding of witnesses.WTF!!!!. Is Bush really this desperate to visit the Hague.Hypnosadist 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This information about the witnesses should go into a section of its own in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals section. What do the rest of you all think?Hypnosadist 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Globe article today 

message: Many of the sources are advocacy, and not all of them are cited or quoted accurately.  Statements by US officials need to be sourced to official documents or to contemporary news reports -- e.g. Rumsfeld "The worst of the worst." 
The current version reflects little understanding of the difference between municipal criminal law  and the laws of war. A Taliban fighter, wearing appropriate insignia, subdued on the battlefield whil enagged in hostile action against NATO forces, is innocent of any crime but still can be lawfully detained until the end of hostilities between NATO and the Taliban. Judicial review of the detention of combatants is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare.
The section breakup, as others have pointed out, is wildly misleading.  While the US has entertained the idea of using military tribunals to criminally try captured terrorists, it has never alleged that all or even most of the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists or are guilty of any other crime for which they can be tried. Mikedelsol 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi mike how does the section breakup specifically mislead? What order would you place them in? On to your point about the legalities getting mixed up is not surprising as the Bush administration has done everthing it can to evade any and every law applying to prisoners. PS i'm of to find rumsfeld quote's especially to one where he says the geneva convesions don't apply any more.Hypnosadist 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello mikedelsol, I agree with you that many citations are missing, and more sources could be used to create more balance. I've hunted down the sources of some parts, feel free to hunt down others, and also to propose any changes to the content that will create a totally balanced article and rectify any mistakes. Madder 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The camp has drawn strong criticism world-wide for its detainment of prisoners without trial, (although prisoners of war are not generally entitled to judicial review of their detention) and allegations of torture. Many detainees are held by the United States to be illegal combatants, and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
The second part is clearly a biased. There is argument from both sides; the original form gave the opinions of the government and acknowledges that it can be argued. I suppose you can argue that you added the information in the Criticism section; however, when I read that section, it seemed to be somewhat leaning right.--CheeZe 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole thing needs a rewrite 

message: The contributor who said he planned to "debias" removed reference to Rumsfeld's famous quote.
Removal, because no source was provided, gives the appearance of intolerance, and partisanship.
Next time, put a {fact} tag next to the unsourced quote.
The Denbeaux study cites an article from the October 23 2002 Washington Post as its source for attributing "the worst of the worst" to Rumsfeld.  That article is, unfortunately, no longer online.
But the phrase must have been on one of Karl Rove's list of talking points, because other senior administration spokesmen used it.
*
*
*
*
*
The contributor also conflated the detainee's status with prisoners of war, in a way that is, IMO, deceptive.  --  Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of "the worst of the worst"

message: The section incorrectly stated that the purpose of the tribunals was to ascertain whether the detainees were "illegal combatants".
#The USA had already, secretly, determined the detainees status.  The tribunals were supposed to confirm if the earlier, entirely secret determination had been correct.
#The tribunals were not empowered to determine whether or not the detainees were illegal combatants, but rather merely whether they met a certain definition of "enemy combatant".  --  Geo Swan 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatant status review tribunals 

message: The section entitled "Controversy" contains subsections entitled as follows:
# Actions of the U.S. Government 
# Conditions at the camp 
# Criticisms 
# Prisoner complaints and alleged torture 
# U.S. government denial of allegations of mistreatment 
# Released Prisoners 
# Suicides and attempted suicides 
Most of these subjects contain more than descriptions of controversy.  For example, suicides are not controversy.  There may be a controversy over what to do about them (if anything), but the suicides themselves are not controversy.  Released prisoners are not controversy. Conditions at the camp are simply what they are, they are not controversy by themselves.  Etc.
—Wookipedian 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do some reorganizing around this already. In particular, the current set-up dumps torture allegations two levels deep into skepticism (they're controversial, and a complaint of prisoners), despite the fact that much of the evidence around torture is well sourced by non-prisoners. "Conditions" and "Torture and mistreatment" should come to the root level of the hierarchy, with appropriate qualifications made there.
Aside from the apparent dismissal of these issues, it's just plain hard to extract information from the page as it stands.--Carwil 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural problem with "Controversy" section 

message: This from the BBC  heres the start of the article "A German-born Turkish national has been released from US custody at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where he has been held since 2002, US officials say. 
Murat Kurnaz was handed over to German officials after being flown to the Ramstein air base in Germany." Hypnosadist 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another release

message: This section contains what seems to be an irrelevant picture.  It is a picture of a street protest in Washington DC by a left wing group named DC Anti-War Network.  The picture seems to be unrelated to the Guantanamo Bay camp.  If no one objects, I will remove it.Kevinp2 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditions at the camp

message: I thought this edit did not conform to WP:NPOV.
The anonymous editor dismisses claims of abuse with:
:"...However little to no evidence has beed found to support it..."
Abuse has been documented.  It is not the place of wikipedia contributors to editorialize whether that documentation is insignificant, or slight enough to be dismissed,  Properly cite verifiable, authoritative external sources that reach that conclusions, by all means.  But no editorializting please.
The anonymous editor also asserts"
:"...as well as several open invitations to investigate the camp to prove allagations have been turned down."
Perhaps the anonymous editor was aware that visitors like the UN special reporters on torture had turned down their invitations, but was unaware of their explanation as for why they turned them down.
Visitors to Guantanamo are not allowed to speak with the detainees.  Even visiting US Senators are not allowed to speak with the detainees.  The UN special reporters explained that they couldn't reach an informed opinion as to whether detainees were being abused without interviewing any of them.  They explained that they were concerned that if they agreed to visit, while agreeing to the condition that they couldn't speak with the detainees, their inability to confirm or deny whether abuse took place would allow abuse-deniers a further specious excuse to deny abuse took place.
The anonymous editor also repeats the much quoted passage from the "Al Qaeda Handbook" that:
:"If captured, the manual states 'At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.'"
The anonymous editor would be doing us all a favour if he or she showed a little more due diligence to determine for themselves what documents they criticize actually say.  This "encyclopedia of jihad" tells readers that it is important, when captured, to do everything they can to get a full medical examination.  The manual tells readers that a medical examination prior to their interrogation will alow them to prove that the wounds inflicted on them during their interrogation were not inflicted prior to their interrogation.
Note: documenting one's medical condition prior to interrogations is exactly the opposite of what someone would do if they wanted to lie about being tortured.  
Note: this controversial passage does not actually state what those who claim that the detainees who report abuse are following a pre-established plan to lie about abuse assert it states.  The passage does not actually tell readers to "lie" about torture.  Anyone who looks up the manual, and takes a look at it themselves, can see it was written several years prior to 9-11.  It was written when readers who were captured were likely to be captured by well-known torture states -- countries notorious for relying on torture during prisoner interrogation -- like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uzbekistan.  An equally valid interpretation of this passage is that the writer of the manual assumed the reader was going to be tortured, and mistreated.
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted partisan POV...