Talk:Ghost detainee

message: The article asserts that the term "ghost detainee" was an official term. Earlier today an anonymous user, with no previous posting history, made a number of unsubstantiated edits that I believe show a biased point of view. Among their changes was the unsubstantiated assertion that the term was invented by "critics". The guards were using this term long before critics had ever heard that prisoners were being kept sequestered, in clear-cut violations of the Geneva Conventions. I changed it back to the original wording. -- Geo Swan 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory material to this article has gone through a lot of revisions. I think some parts of the wording from an earlier revision is more neutral than what we currently have, which does not substantiate the assertion that it is an official term. I am not sure what "official" means, given that this practice was secret. If the term was used on a secret memo, does that make it "official"? Being used by enlisted GIs and their officers, does that make it official? Does the inclusion of the term in the Taguba Report make it "official"? IMO, not if he was only repeating the enlisted GI slang. -- Geo Swan 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any evidence that it is an official term of the Bush administration or that it was ever used by anyone in the Bush administration. The provided citation actually says it was used by a particular unit of the Army at Abu Ghraib prison, so I've changed the lead sentence to that effect. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ghost detainee an "official" term? 

message: The US Government has three branches. They have overlapping powers and responsibilities. They are supposed to provide a system of checks and balances on one another.
* The judicial branch has been considering, and has already over-ruled some aspects of the Bush administration's detainee policy.
* The legislative branch has also weighed in, with, for example, the Detainee Treatment Act.
* When the other two branches are amending and over-ruling the executive branch a policy should not be described as a "US Government policy".
I have seen many instances where references to the "Bush administration" were changed to references to the "US Government". Sometimes the contributors put edit summaries like, "correcting blatant POV". But, I would argue, attributing the policy to the US government is what appears more POV. It gives the appearance of trying to present the policy as without controversy, when it is highly controversial. I am sure everyone who makes this "correction" does so in good faith. But I find it frustrating to keep on being called to explain how the US government works when I am not an American myself. -- Geo Swan 10:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such policies should correctly be attributed to the Bush administration, where they originated. This is accurate, not POV. When Congress makes laws that are signed by the president, they can be referred to as laws. But much of Bush's war on terror was created by executive fiat and legal opinions of the Executive Branch, and are correctly attributed there.Parkwells (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush administration policy? Or US Government policy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghost detainee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061120201332/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/generals-cia-hid-abu-ghraib-detainees.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/generals-cia-hid-abu-ghraib-detainees.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost detainee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614103802/http://www.chrgj.org/docs/OffRecord/Off_the_Record_List.pdf to http://www.chrgj.org/docs/OffRecord/Off_the_Record_List.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609212620/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-holding-at-least-39-detainees-in.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-holding-at-least-39-detainees-in.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050531222218/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Having been a ghost detainee twice I know of four ways to detain persons making them essentially be a ghost detainee.
1. Detained but not registered.
2. Detained but intentionality registered under a false name (the victim is not told they're held under a false name.
3. Detained lawfully and registered under real name, and later officially realised but never really released and then held unlawfully and not registered as being detained (victim may not know he's being detained unlawfully).
4. Detained lawfully and registered under real name, and later officially realised but never really released and then secretly re-registered under a false name (victim may not know he's being detained under a false name).
[3 and 4 were done to me]
Such things are common in the country I live.
 HardeeHar (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques