Talk:Guantanamo Bay/Archive 1

message: I made the map larger to make the “Guantanamo Bay” text readable again. If it is not important for that text to be visible in the article before going to the Image page, then the original :Image:Cu-map.png should be used instead of the new :Image:Cu-map-Guantanamo.png. Rafał Pocztarski 21:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Cuba

message: The image on this page of the Soldier with the dog and the prisoner in an orange jumpsuit () is a duplicate of  which is on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Is this from from Guantanamo or is it from Abu Ghraib? One or other should be deleted. Jooler 12:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Abu Ghraib, and I've removed it from the article. See this Gaurdian article. It was first published by the Washington Post in May. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect image

message: ... or to call the detainees prisonners?  Doesn't prison/prisonner refer to the housing of persons convicted in a criminal justice system?  I think both sides of the debate about GTMO will agree that the detainees/inmates/terrorists/victems do not meet that definition.
This isn't so much a POV/NPOV question as just factual/terminological accuracy. Jeffr 14:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
: ICRC refers to it as "Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp".  The Washington Post has referred to it as a prison.  The White House has referred to those kept at Guantanamo Bay variously as "detainees", divided into "Taliban detainees" and "Al Qaeda detainees".  Scott McLellan also seems to use the terms "prison"  and "prisoners" informally in the context of alleged prisoner abuse by US personnel in Iraq and Guantanamo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prison term refers only to convicted criminals, but prison can mean any detention facility, and is the usual word for accused as well as convicted criminals. Peter Grey 14:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone held by authorities is a prisoner.  It boils down to a restriction in freedom of movement--nothing to do with a building.  Prisoners can be in cars and buses and trains.--Keetoowah 19:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it valid to call it a prison? 

message: This article is supposed to be about Guantanamo Bay but +90% of the content is about the U.S. military base. It would be nice if we could give at least some passing coverage to the geography, history, surrounding communities, etc. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
:I would suggest merging Camp Delta, Camp X-Ray and the Detention section from here into a separate article. The name could be eg Guantanamo Bay detention, or perhaps follow an earlier suggestion, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. That would make the detention material tidier, and leave more space in this article for Guantanamo Bay itself. Rd232 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing info

message: Since GTMO Bay is a detention centre, why is there need of a runway?
:The same reason anywhere else needs a runway. Rd232 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Runway

message: For some reason this Red Cross quote has been deleted and redeleted. There are plenty of sources for the quote which you can view with this search .
Also this sentence has been deleted even though a source is supplied:
:On November 8, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them.  
Also the reference to article 49 of GCIV has been deleted. I'm not a lawyer but it seems perfectly relevant to the article. --Lee Hunter 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lee Hunter:  I am a lawyer and I can assure you that Robertson was completely and totally overturned in July 2005.  The law of the land is the July 2005, not the November 2004 decision that you want to continue put in the article.  I'm going to remove it again.  And if it is reversed again then it is clear that the folks that doing the reversing do not want correct information in the article.  It is as if you want to put in the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson as the law of the land instead of Brown v. Board of Education. It is NOT factually correct to be quoting Robertson.  He got overturned.  So please stop reversing the material unless you understand it.-----Keetoowah 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article makes it clear that this was an earlier ruling that was later overturned. And what's your problem with quoting the Red Cross? --Lee Hunter 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Red Cross is an international organization that does not make the laws of the law.  Now if you want to work in the Red Cross quote in a different way that is quite fine, but quoting them in a section entitled "Legal Status" gives the incorrect impression that what they say has bearing on the actual "legal status" is because that organization dles not.  They are just another outside observer commenting and giving their OPINION.  They don't make the laws of the U.S. and they should not be held out as such.  It is the same point as quoting Judge Robertson.  He has been overturned and his ruling is now wrong.-----Keetoowah 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The ICRC, again, was created by the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the rights in the Conventions. It's opinion does dictate how the Geneva Convention is to be enterperated. (See the section you created about it.) (DaemonSaber 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Keetoowah, we aren't saying that Robertson's decision is the law of the land. We specifically state that it was overturned. So, in actuallity, what you're doing is like trying to delete the Plessy v. Ferguson page. Laws are overturned, not history. (DaemonSaber 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Every person in enemy hands ..." 

message: In the paragraph "'Exceptional treatment' of prisoners" it is stated that Senator Pat Roberts "...challenged the allegations, on July 11, 2001, after taking a tour...". Is this date correct? This predates the 9/11 attacks by 2 months, presumably before any allegations could have been made as to the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 66.238.9.47 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Pat Robertson visit

message: I don't think that the random addition of what U.S. proponents say is useful unless it is quoted and backed up by some sort of expertise or journalistic inquiry, though it is an interesting fact, if true. So, the U.S. cannot just claim something to be true without showing it to indeed be connected to who they say it is. At least make them create the sources, if that is necessary, and they are indeed making this connection up. We know from the "weapons of mass destruction" situation that it is not above the current administration to create such sources and interpretations. If they want to do that in this case, at least make them put it in writing so they can be shown for what they are later on, as they were in the case of WMDs. Please quote from scholarly sources or news sources willing to put themselves out there on this one, and not just some random editor.
Holon67 05:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of hearsay to Prisoner Compliants 

message: This article states that the English fought the War of Jenkins' Ear. However, that entry in Wikipedia refers to British involvement as does the link to the globalization institute's piece. I know it's often misreported in the press, nevertheless British and English aren't interchangable terms.
Dduck 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over Navy