Jump to content

Talk:Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


A'Del Abdu Al-Hakim

Why doesn't A'Del Abdu Al-Hakim appear to be in the list of people in the article? Is he the same person as Adel Abdulhehim? —Wookipedian 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active Hostilities

The statement that none of the detainees has been alleged to have been involved in combat activities is incorrect and should be changed. Abdullah Abdulqadirakhum is definitely alleged to have been involved in combat activities. See http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/000300-000399.pdf#29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packetmonger (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction camp? Fuzbaby (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, construction camp. That is all their testimony says it was. Maybe you are thinking that the DoD and DoJ had secret evidence to prove it was a training camp? Set your wayback to June of 2008. On June 12 the Supreme Court restored access to the US justice system for captives. Their habeas corpus petitions became unfrozen. On June 20 Parhat v. Gates came to the DC Court of appeals. Over 150 captives had the more limited DTA Appeals initiated through the DC Court of appeals. The DC Court of appeals which did review all the classified evidence, overturned Hassan Parhat's CSR Tribunal -- on the basis that the evidence didn't support the allegation -- including the allegation that the camp was a military camp. The DoD and DoJ could have appealed that ruling to the SCOTUS. They chose not to do so. When the remaining Uyghurs habeas petitions were going to be reviewed in September 2008, a few days before the DoJ would have had to produce the evidence that this was a military camp, they bailed out. Why? We don't know for sure. I think what most commentators have written is that there was no evidence the camp was anything but a construction camp. Maybe someday some commentator is going to suggest that the intelligence establishment did have evidence, of a sort, that the camp was a military camp, but that they decided it was more valuable to let the Uyghurs go free than to reveal the source of their secret intelligence.
Maybe observation of the camp, from predator drones, or spy satellites, could reveal that there were no women, children, or domestic animals there. Reason for suspicion? Yes. Proof it was a military camp? Absolutely not.
Anyhow, our personal speculation that the intelligence establishment really did have some sort of evidence that the camp was a military camp is irrelevant. No WP:RS has suggested this. The DoD and DoJ had an opportunity to produce evidence it was a military camp. They bailed out. I believe that makes if officially a civilian camp, and the only evidence we have of what went on there is from the Uyghur's testimony. They say it was a construction camp, so I have no hesitation to calling it a construction camp here on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan, actually, it doesn't say that about Abdullah Abdulqadirakhum, but it does say something similar about several others that were listed as participating in the battle of Tora Bora. Page 29 of the above PDF discusses Abdulqadirakhum. Among the allegations are:
  1. "The detainee participated in military operations against the United States and its coalition partners".
  2. "The detainee was present at, and participated in, the battle of Tora Bora"
  3. "The detainee retreated from his position in the Tora Bora mountains to Pakistan in late 2001, at which point Pakistani authorities apprehended him and his unit"
Further, other of the detainees have been alleged to have been involved in combat activities. From page 30- "Detainee fired his weapon in the direction of what he believed was the enemy".
I am not arguing that these are elite warriors or that I would take many of the accusations seriously- I don't think its fair to say someone participated in military actions against the US because they fled their camp when we bombed it. But in several of the instances, some cited above, they are clearly being _alleged_ to have been involved in combat activities. Packetmonger (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ziad Said Farg Jahdari is alleged to have said he "...fired his weapon in the direction of what he believed was the enemy". First Ziad Said Farg Jahdari is a Saudi. None of the Saudis spoke Turkic. None of the Uyghurs spoke Arabic. There is no evidence that any of the Uyghurs even met any Saudis, prior to fleeing for their lives after their camp was bombed.
Second, you will note that this allegation about the Saudi firing his weapon is undated. Volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other countries did travel to Afghanistan, prior to 9-11, to aid the Taliban in its war against the Taliban. Was this military service? Yes. Was it dangerous? After reading through all the transcripts it sounds like this period was a "phony war", like the first eight months of WW2, in Western Europe. Digging trenches, very occasional potshots in the direction of what might have been the Northern Alliance trenches. No patrols, no ambushes. From the transcripts some of the foreign volunteers were injured during this period. All those injuries took place in training accidents.
I suggest to you that any Saudi who thought it was his religious duty to defend the Sunni Taliban from the Shiite Northern Alliance, but who, after hearing about al Qaeda's attack on the USA decided they risked getting caught up in a war that involved the USA, if they didn't head home immediately, and had already abandoned the Taliban's cause, and was already heading home, when the USA started its counter-attacks in October 2001, should not be considered an enemy of the USA -- even if they had fired at Northern Alliance soldiers prior to 9-11. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revert unexplained edit

This series of edits is unexplained. I am reverting it. Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? I put "citation needed" in the edit summary. Why do i need to explain this tag [citation needed] to you . You are a long term editor and should know what it means. Otherwise click on the tag an you get an detailed explanation.
Oh, i just see you reverted two of my edits. The second one has "rm - based on the interpretation of the questionable attached source" in the edit summary. Whats going on? You are reverting my edits over a multiply pages at the moment. IQinn (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responsible use of tags

A {{refimprove}} tag was applied to this article in July. At the time the tag was applied the article had close to one hundred references.

A {{cleanup-reorganize}} tag was applied to this article in August. The tag placer has not yet explained the reasoning behind their decision to place this tag.

A {{rewrite}} tag was applied to this article in November. The tag placer has not yet explained the reasoning behind their decision to place this tag.

I plan to wait a reasonable amount of time, and then remove these tags. Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing has changed so I have gone ahead and done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.108.82 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VER

I am very concerned that this edit suggests the excising contributor doesn't understand WP:VER. The personal doubts any of us may feel about a WP:RS's credibility do not justify excising referenced material claiming it is from a "questionable source". Our personal opinins are irrelevant. The opinions and positions expressed in WP:RS on the other hand, count -- even if we personally disagree with them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, Page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo → Uyghur captives in Guantanamo —

  • This article was moved from "Uyghur captives in Guantanamo" to "Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo", with no discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary claiming that "Uyghur captives" lapsed from NPOV. I request the restoration of the previous name, and request those in favor of the current name go through the proper procedure for changing the name. I point out that in September 2008, ten months prior to this move, the DoJ and DoD acknowledged that they never had any evidence to justify holding these men, without charge, for the previous seven and half months. Our articles, and our articles' titles should not be biased. We should not adopt the extreme terms used by partisans on either side of a debate in our articles. And "detainee" is an explanation of an extreme term from the one side of a discussion. No one called prisoners "detainees" prior to the opening of the controversial Guantanamo camp. The term was picked by spin doctors because of the false air of normalcy it gives the extraordinary captivity of these men. The use of the term "detainee" falsely implies that the indefinite extrajudicial detention is routine, mundane, and sanctioned by the rule of law. The use of the term "detainee" is inappropriate for the several hundred men, held without charge, who have never had a meaningful opportunity to learn and refute the allegations that triggered their detention. It is doubly inappropriate for the 22 Uyghurs, whose captivity is is now acknowledged had never been justified. Some human rights workers refer to these men as "kidnap victims". We wouldn't use that term either. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds to me like you are pushing the exact sort of POV that I was trying to ward off with the page move. We agree that the detention of these people was unjust, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for decrying injustice. We try to use neutral, sterile terms, even when we disagree with the situation in real life. The famous example is Adolf Hitler: the article doesn't begin "Adolf Hitler was a horrible murderer", even though the vast majority of Wikipedians would agree with that statement.

      As a side note, if the current naming is so horrible, I'm confused as to why it took you 8 months to bring it up. It's not as if you've been on a Wikibreak that whole time. You were active at that article around the same time and have made numerous edits since without objecting to the move until now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Geo -- "No one called prisoners "detainees" prior to the opening of the controversial Guantanamo camp." -- That's not so. The AR 190-8 manual's title (last revised in 1997) includes the word "detainees" in the title, and that's the manual the DoD is supposed to refer to for handling detainees. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Randy, thank you for pointing out two places this term was used. You wrote that its "the manual the DoD is supposed to refer to for handling detainees." That is precisely the point. The Bush administration told the DoD to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to ignore Army Regulation 190-8. If the Bush administration had not taken the extraordinary step of ignoring its Geneva Convention obligations I'd be unconcerned over using the term "detainee" for the captives. Geo Swan (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The GCs were not ignored. They were simply read literally, and five SCOTUS Justices disagreed with that interpretation. The lower court ruled in the Bush administration's favor. Had just one of those Justices ruled differently, the administration's interpretation would have stood, and others might be saying the critics were ignoring Common Article 2. (In fact, your logic would suggest it could now be said about those who wanted GCIII's Article 5 to be implemented.)
In a general sense, I don't think it's at all improper to revise the handling of AR 190-8. That's easily within the administration's duties. Given the enemy's behavior, it would have been irresponsible to give them more benefits than they're due.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney said. The President explicitly said that his administration would not treat the captives as Geneva Convention POWs. I am sorry I do not see how you could describe this as a "literal reading" of the Conventions.
Five SCOTUS Justics ruling against a position is all that is required to confirm athat a policy is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional == not conformant with the law.
IANAL, maybe the President does have the authority to set aside AR-190-8. I am pretty sure the POTUS does not have the authority set aside treaties. I am pretty sure the US Congress has to ratify treaties, and only Congress can rescind treaties.
With regard to "the enemies' behavior" -- I know some commentators have argued that al Qaeda's terrorism and the Taliban's atrocities and repression justify the President throwing the rule of law out the window when dealing with members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. If I agreed with that I would still insist that the first it would be essential to confirm that a suspect WAS a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban or an allied group. The public record shows that under the Bush administrationsecurity officials failed to take even the most basic steps to confirm or refute the captives' alibis. Abdul Razzak Hekmati being a good example. Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even after Hamdan, SCOTUS still agreed that they're not POWs. Common Article 3 doesn't have POWs. We're not at war with the nation of Afghanistan.
Everytime SCOTUS overturns a case against an administration, that means the previous policy was unconstitutional. It doesn't mean the previous policy was ill-intended. That's especially true in a case like this when the lower court had ruled with the administration.
But the argument wasn't that the enemies' behavior means we can ignore the Constitution or the treaties. It's that the treaties don't say they apply in this case.
The topic of Abdul Razzak Hekmati's purported innocence would be more believable if Worthington wasn't attached to it. He may be trained as an historian but he's operating as an activist. But that's really beside the point, however, as the CSRT has the same standard of proof as the competent tribunal. Hekmati would have remained locked up regardless of the Bush administration's legal opinion.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, IANAL, but from what I read, the SCOTUS, and other, lower courts, are almost always very careful to make sure they don't act as "activist judges" -- judges who try to make public policy, rather than simply confirming or refuting whether laws were constitutional. My understanding is that the general way the SCOTUS does this is consider each case that comes before it, and make the most minimal ruling it can. Four Guantanamo cases have made their way to the SCOTUS -- so far. Did the SCOTUS agree that the Guantanamo captives weren't POWs? Or did they merely only make the most minimal ruling they could to resolve whether the Presidentially authorized Guantanamo military commissions had the power to try the Guantanamo captives, reserving judgment on whether the captives qualified for POW status? Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the Court says Common Article 3.
IANAL either, but the ICRC said in their commentaries: "To borrow the phrase of one of the delegates, Article 3 is like a "Convention in miniature". It applies to non-international conflicts only, and will be the only Article applicable to them until such time as a special agreement between the Parties has brought into force between them all or part of the other provisions of the Convention."
If the ICRC says it's "the only Article applicable to them" then I think the SCOTUS is going to let it stand.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read that section of the commentary to the Geneva Conventions. It is commenting on conflicts that are not international in nature. I think we may have two different interpretations of that phrase. Some commentators have asserted that the GC deosn't apply in conflicts with the Taliban, because the Taliban didn't sign the GC. The USA has signed on to the Geneve Convetions, as they have been updated, over the years. And Afghanistan too was a signatory, decades ago. President Obama didn't have to sign on again for the GC to continue to apply to the USA. And the Taliban didn't have to sign on again for the GC to continue to apply to Afghanistan. It seems to me that Afghanistan is an "International conflcit", and all the provisions of the GC apply. The government of Peru, versus the "Shining Path", or the UK versus the IRA -- I believe thes would have been examples of "conflicts not of an International nature". Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan was a signatory, but they weren't the national government of Afghanistan. They were still in a civil war with the Northern Alliance. The Taliban were only formally recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The U.N. didn't recognize them either. Yoo explained it here.
Of course, SCOTUS rejected Yoo's arguments on Common Article 3, but I think it's pretty conclusive by now that it's not going further than that for most of the detainees. I had the impression (sometime after Hamdan) that it wasn't settled for Taliban militia. I don't know whether or not their cases had ever reached their end point, or how many of those are left, or if they'd want to pursue it. Still, it's been four years since Hamdan, and I don't see anything on the horizon that could change this.
Note that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists does not say we're at war against Afghanistan.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This may be an entirely appropriate move but the reasoning behind it screams of POV. On a side grammatical note, should it not be 'at Guantanamo' (given its short form for Guantanamo Bay detention camp) not 'in Guantanamo'. Expanding the name to Guantanamo Bay, not simply Guantanamo, may also be appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I correct to interpret your comment that you think calling the captives "captives", not "detainees", "screams of POV" because you think there is no question as to whether their captivity conforms with the rule of law? Sorry, no offense, but I believe this is a widely held misconception, as I will explain below. Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, my current position is that your move request reasoning lacks the data to establish that it is in fact NPOV. IMO, the reasoning is not written in a neutral tone and fails to reassure me that the request is from a NPOV. I do share the opinion that User:Rjanag should not have moved the page without given its very clear that is was not an uncontroversial move. However, that was 9 months ago and there is no indication that the move was made in bad faith. Poor execution maybe, but not bad faith.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you give a hint as to what kind of information you think you need? Do you continue to think the nature of these individuals' captivity was routine, was consistent with the rule of law? Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those questions are immaterial. Wikipedia articles are not the place to push our views about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of political actions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would have to agree with Rjanag, the questions are largely immaterial. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of holding individuals at Guantanamo Bay is not particularly relevent to the naming discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WRT "appropriateness" -- please don't misattribute to me arguments I didn't make. I didn't say the nature of the captivity under the Bush administration, partially continued under the Obama administration was inappropriate. I said that using terms like "detainee" is very misleading, in that it implies the nature of the detention is routine, mundane, and conformant with the ordinary rule of law. There are lots of pundits, columnists, bloggers -- and their readers in their comments sections, who feel the Guantanamo conditions still weren't nearly harsh enough. Those individuals think that harsh treatment is appropriate. Those individuals say that abandoning the rule of law is appropriate. Representing my position as that I want the wikipedia to say their captivity is inappropriate is unfair to me and to our readers. I want the wikipedia to accurately reflect the truly unique nature of the captivity. The use of the term "detainee" falsely implies the nature of the captivity is routine, not unique. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Labattblueboy. --ISerovian (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- although it probably doesn't matter at this point. The word "captive" is POV, as it appears to be a political reaction from people who think they should be treated as criminal defendants. As I said above, the military has been using the term "detainees" since before this war. The AR 190-8 manual does not use the word "captive." -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I forgot that it moved already. I just reversed the vote. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would find prisoners to be an acceptable alternative. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Fourth Geneva Convention (for treatment of civilians) uses "detainee". That looks NPOV to me. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sherurcij: would you care to explain why, or are you just dropping a vague wave? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- per Randy. IQinn (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the consensus not to move is nearly unanimous (except Sherurcij's drive-by comment with no explanation) and the person originally proposing the move has declined to comment and gone on editing other articles, I suggest this discussion be closed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am sorry -- I looked for this to have been initiated when my request for an uncontroversial move was shelved a week or so ago. I didn't find one. There are some very serious misconceptions here, and I would like to weigh in with my concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The comments here seem to me to be based on a couple of serious misconceptions.
Nations that comply with the rule of law, almost without exception, never hold individuals indefinitely, without charge.
One of the exceptions is in wartime. The Geneva Conventions lay out one of the exceptions. Signatories to the Geneva Conventions are allowed to hold citizens of other nations, indefinitely, without charge. It is important to remember that George W. Bush announced that the USA would not treat these captives as if they were entitled to the ptotections of the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions and Army Regulation 190-8 have both been mentioned in this discussion, and the use of the term "detainee" in those documents.
If the USA had fulfilled its obligations under the Geneva Conventions I would have no concern for calling the individuals held by the USA detainees. But if the USA had fulfilled its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and followed the procedures laid out in Army Regulation 190-8, this question would be moot, because we would be calling these individuals POWs.
George W. Bush announced that these individuals would not be treated as POWs. So using terms from the Geneva Convention to falsely add an air of legitimacy, normalcy to their captivity was highly misleading. There is nothing in international law that permits a law-abiding nation to hold the citizens of other nations, for years, without charge, once the USA threw out the Geneva Conventions. Whether a US President has the authority to hold individuals indefinitely, without charge, by executive fiat, has been before the courts for the last nine years. Every aspect of this policy that has gone before the SCOTUS they have ruled against the policy.
The international press largely repeated the use of this deceptive term. But this does not oblige us to use the deceptive term.
I have suggested the following thought experiment before. How would we cover the institution of slavery, if industrial-scale slavery was still legal? I suggest that just like Big Tobacco hires the meanest, sneakiest lawyers and spin doctors Big Slavery would hire the same mean, sneaky lawyers and spin doctors. And their PR team would try to insist that no one use the terms "slave" or "slavery" any more. They would try to get us to use mealy-mouthed terms. They would try to insist that we call slaves terms like "receipients of guaranteed lifetime employment".
I'd like to think that if slavery were still legal the wikipedia would ignore the pressure of the spin doctors, and determine truly neutral terms to use. That is what we should be doing here -- ignoring the pressure from those who back these controversial policies, and picking the most neutral term.
"Detainee" simply is not a neutral term, implying as it does an air of legitimacy, normalcy, routine, for something truly extraordinary. Two other contributors have said they think "prisoner" would be an alternative. "Internees" is another alternative more neutral than the highly non-neutral "detainee". Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No misconception at all. Detainee is neutral and the common term used in WP:RS [1] [2]. - IQinn (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geo,
Sure, people have been held indefinitely during wartime. The U.S. and Canada later regretted having held thousands of families of Japanese descent during WWII, but few would have any regrets had they only picked a few hundred men, which is the case here.
AR 190-8 says "and Other Detainees." That's regardless whether or not al-Qaeda is a country whose combatants qualify as lawful under the GCs.
The Bush administration didn't ignore the Geneva Conventions. It decided that the GCs didn't apply to this kind of a conflict under Common Articles 2 or 3.
It's true that the Bush administration lost on that one (in a narrow decision), but it only gave them Common Article 3. That still means enemy combatants can be held as long as necessary to security. More importantly, it puts in cement that they're not POWs because that designation doesn't exist at all under Common Article 3.
This is no longer only the Bush administration. President Obama came into office wanting to shut GTMO, but he never said he would give them all trials. So, we had the Supreme Court, and two presidential administrations (of different parties and ideologies) taking this position.
International law is limited. The absence of a treaty against something doesn't mean that it's then illegal. The opposite is true. It means it is up to that nation's laws.
In fact, any country could decide to hold even its own citizens if it wanted to. In the U.S., the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that normally requires a trial, includes this: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..." So, if we can hold Americans, then we can surely hold enemy combatants.
One of the detainees' lawyers said, "Admittedly, under the laws and customs of war, a nation may detain 'enemy combatants' for the duration of an armed conflict." He then whined that this war won't end, but that's not necessarily true, and it's the enemy's fault, regardless.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The war won't end and it's the enemy's fault", I love it. Do you have a collection of these quotes, or are they just unintentionally so amusing? In all seriousness, leaving aside the issue of casting blame for evil in the world...all people who are held against their will, whether by kidnappers, hostage-takers or sitting in federal jails, are "prisoners" - it is the most generic term which makes zero statement about any political/military/otherwise view of the subject. Ergo, when we disagree whether somebody is a "kidnap victim", a "detainee", or a "PUC"...we simply use the term "prisoner". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault that the people who claim to oppose war aren't making a noticeable effort to ask the enemy to stop fighting (or torturing people, or using children as human shields).
As a matter of law, they're still detainees. Perhaps the American people will one day elect a sufficient number of politicians who don't think we're at war. Then the law can change.
But it is interesting that people disagree. It would be good to have a section on that in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees article, or some place similar.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan, that's all TL;DR, but as I said before: the fact that you are harping about how "the term detainee implies legitimacy and that is wrong" shows that you believe the detentions were illegitimate and wrong. In other words, you're trying to change the title of an article to reflect your point of view. Your point of view may well be correct, but Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it is not the place to be saying "By American Law, they are detainees" - half the counties in the world consider them detainees, half don't. Split the difference, call them prisoners. We can people held in federal penitentiaries "prisoners", why the need to differentiate? They are prisoners. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are being held as detainees by government authorities under American law.
Which half doesn't consider them detainees? What law do they cite? Whose side are they on? Is this the same half that doesn't care when children are used as human shields? Can you put this in an article where this can be recorded, and some notable people named?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference what side of a war a population is on, that's like saying if Wikipedia had existed during the Vietnam war, we should always use the term "Charlie" when referring to a member of the Viet Cong? Or that USSR should be moved to Evil Empire since that's how Americans referred to it? It makes absolutely no difference "whose side" definitions support/damage, and the absolute ridiculousness of saying "We shouldn't use term [x], those people [rapeBabies/useHumanShields/enjoyPickledPork]" speaks for itself. We are seeking the most neutral term, not seeking the term that the absolute bestest most awesome and righteous people in the world use with most frequency. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are nicknames. We're using the official legal terms.
I wonder if there's anywhere else on Wikipedia where the official legal terms aren't used.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound flippant, but we're not skipping a trial. We're detaining them until the war is over.
I think if it worked the way you say then we'd have heard that argument somewhere. As I said, even a detainee's lawyer admits that it's legal to hold someone.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming for brevity, didn't you write: the 5th amendment ... requires a trial ... "except ... GIs ... in time of War ..." Now maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make about the 5th amendment?, but the 5th authorizes skipping the grand jury, not skipping the trial.
If President Bush hand't said the captives weren't covered by the Geneva Conventions the situation would be crystal clear. The USA could hold all actual combatants, for the duration. Period. Having stripped the captives of the protection of the GC did Bush strip the USA of legal cover for indefinite detention? IANAL, so I dunno. Many very well-respected jurists seem to think so. In the end the SCOTUS may disappoint those jurists, and back Bush. But, until then, what can be said about the general legality of holding these men indefinitly, without charge? Isn't it fair to say the general legality of the practice of holding captives indefinitely, without charge, outside of the Geneva Conventions, remains undetermined? Geo Swan (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the grand jury is the step to a trial, I think it's basically the same thing.
I disagree that giving POW status would have been helpful. If you recall, most of the detainees were not asking for POW status. If President Bush had said the entire GCs applied to this war, the Taliban militia might take it, but the rest would have gone to court just as they did.
We'd then be recognizing the lowest savages on the face of the earth as being in the same league as soldiers who respect the laws of war. We'd be doing so without asking anything in return. Think of all the children used as human shields. It would be a moral statement that the U.S. government simply doesn't care about that at all.
And what would we get for that? The detainees could be held without trial under GCIV, but we'd be hearing the same arguments of "presumed innocence" that we're hearing now.
It's no longer a matter of backing Bush. President Obama takes the same basic position. Although his Attorney General, Eric Holder, claims to oppose rough interrogation, he had at one time said he opposed treating them as POWs because "you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people."
You might say such limits would have saved us from the criticism over enhanced interrogation, but I don't doubt that they'd have found something else to complain about. Some are already starting to blast Obama over drones.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whether we like it or not, the term being applied to these captives is 'detainees', which makes the existing name the more likely search term. --Haruth (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree 'detainee' is widely used. And if it were a neutral term I would certainly agree to its use. A couple of us have challenged whether it is a neutral term. If, for the sake of argument, you agreed it was not a neutral term, would you still agree to its use in the name of this article? Please bear in mind that all 22 of the Uyghurs have been officially cleared of all allegations that they had ever been the USA's enemies. Geo Swan (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

explanation

I reverted this puzzling edit. I am puzzled becasue I know the contributor who made this edit has read the Uyghur Information Paper. It alleges that all of the Uyghurs received training at the ETIM training camp. Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The camp where 21 of the 22 Uyghur captives were living prior to the American aerial bombardment is reported to have had 35 Uyghurs living there.[1]

Could you please provide a direct quote from the reference that verifies the given information. I do not see this as given. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph describing a captive in the "Uyghur information paper" concludes with a statement saying he is believed to have trained at the training camp. WP:OR explicitly states:

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing.

Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know i am not a fan of WP:LAWYER and the "Uyghur information paper" does not verify this information even with the bonus of carefully summarizing or rephrasing but to be honest i think you are on the wrong page. I am asking you to provide a direct quote from the reference that is attached to the information but you are also welcome to provide quotes from another source or to exchange the reference or to change the information. The reference that is attached now does not verify the given information.

The camp where 21 of the 22 Uyghur captives were living prior to the American aerial bombardment is reported to have had 35 Uyghurs living there.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Del Quentin Wilber (2009-09-27). "2 Brothers' Grim Tale Of Loyalty And Limbo: To Leave Guantanamo Means Abandoning Family". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2009-09-28.


References

rough work

These two tables were published in Works related to Uyghur joint status report (2008-08-18) at Wikisource

EXHIBIT 1 – STATUS OF UIGHUR PETITIONERS [1]
Name ISN Civil>br>Action
Number		 Name As Listed in
Habeas Petition		 Capture Date Date Approved For
Release or Transfer
Abdul Sabour 275 05-1509 Abdusabur Doe Dec. 2001 Release – Nov. 2003
Abdul Nasser 278 05-1509 Abdunasir Doe Dec. 2001 Transfer – Nov. 2005
Khalid Ali 280 05-1509 Khalid Doe Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Sabir Osman 282 05-1509 Saabir Doe Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Jalal Jalaldin 285 05-1509 Jalaal Doe Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Abdul Semet 295 05-1509 Abdusamad Doe Dec. 2001 Release – June 2003
Huzaifa Parhat 320 05-1509 Hudhaifa Doe Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Hammad Memet 328 05-1509 Hammad Doe Dec. 2001 Transfer – May 2008
Edham Mamet 102 05-1602 Edham Mamet Nov. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Arkin Mahmud 103 05-1704 Arkeen Doe Nov. 2001 Transfer – Jan. 2006
Bahtiyar Mahnut 277 05-1704 Sadar Doe Dec. 2001 Transfer – Dec. 2005
Ahmad Tourson 201 05-2370 Ahmad Doe Nov. 2001 Release – Dec. 2005
Abdur Razakah 219 05-2370 Abdur Razakah Dec. 2001 Transfer – Dec. 2005
Anwar Hassan 250 05-2398 Ali Dec. 2001 Release – June 2003
Dawut Abdurehim 289 05-2398 Thabid Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman 281 08-1310 Abdurahman Dec. 2001 Release – Aug. 2003
Adel Noori 584 08-1310 Adel LNU May 2002 Transfer – Oct. 2005
Exhibit 2[2]
Preferred Name ISN Case Caption Next Friend Date of Next Friend
Authorization
Abdul Nasser 278 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Abdul Sabour 275 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Abdul Semet 295 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Hammad Memet 328 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Huzaifa Parhat 329 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Jalal Jalaldin 285 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Khalid Ali 280 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Sabir Osman 282 Kiyemba v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1509		 Jamal Kiyemba March 10, 2005
Edham Mamet 102 Mamet v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1602		 Ibrahim Mamet August 2, 2005
Bahtiyar Mahnut 277 Kabir v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1704		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Arkin Mahmud 103 Kabir v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1704		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Abdur Razakah 219 Kabir v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-1704		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Ahmad Tourson 201 Razakah v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-2370		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Anwar Hassan 250 Thabid v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-2398		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Dawut Abdurehim 289 Thabid v. Bush,
No. 05-cv-2398		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman 281 Ghaffar v. Bush,
No. 08-cv-1310		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005
Adel Noori 584 Ghaffar v. Bush,
No. 08-cv-1310		 Usama Hasan Abu Kabir May 1, 2005

References

  1. ^
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
  2. ^ Works related to Uyghur joint status report: Exhibit 2 at Wikisource

Rough work DTA appeal

The following Uyghurs had DTA appeals filed on their behalf. Works related to Uyghur joint status report (2008-08-18) at Wikisource

isn name notes
102 Edham Mamet unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a habeas petition
219 Abdur Razakah unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a habeas petition
201 Ahmad Tourson unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a habeas petition
250 Anwar Hassan unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a habeas petition
289 Dawut Abdurehim unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a habeas petition
278 Abdul Nasser unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
295 Abdul Semet unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
328 Hammad Memet unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
320 Huzaifa Parhat unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
285 Jalal Jalaldin unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
280 Khalid Ali unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
282 Sabir Osman unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
281 Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
277 Bahtiyar Mahnut unclassified return prepared in response to habeas petition
103 Arkin Mahmud unclassified return prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
275 Abdul Sabour unclassified return prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal
584 Adel Noori no factual returns, other than one through a FOAI filed by the Associated Press

WRT "dehumanizing"

User:Iqinn has justified hundreds of controversial edits with edit summaries that assert a justification that the material being excised is "dehumanizing", including this one. The edit summary User:Iqinn used here was "name corrections and clarify by removing the confusing dehumanizing additional names".

I have repeatedly asked User:Iqinn which wikipedia policy, guideline, or established consensus he was relying on in concluding this material was "dehumanizing". I am sorry to say that although I really made a great effort to find a meaningful, substantive justification in the explanations offered by this wiki-id, I wasn't able to find one.

It seems to me the exact opposite is true. These individuals are known by multiple names. If readers come to this article, looking for information on a particular Uyghur captive after reading their name in a press report. If anything is "dehumanizing", I suggest it obfuscating the the captives names so readers can't find information about that individual they are looking for.

At the time User:Iqinn obfuscated the other names the captives were known by each of their alternate name was a wikilink. That must have been left from when I made sure there was a redirect for all the known names. That was a mistake. Each individual should have had just one wikilink. But I continue to believe it is essential to list all the known names the captives were known by.

I suggest this revision be rolled back.

Because all my previous attempts to ask User:Iqinn for an explanation of his "dehumanizing" concern I am going to ask for opinions on WP:BLPN -- WP:BLPN#WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing". Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to this discussion and for the ad hominum part and extensive name calling i would like to remind you on WP:CIVIL. IQinn (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "dehumanizing" objection doesn't hold up. What matters here is notablity. If Geo Swan can show the alternate names have been widely used in reliable sources, they can and should be included. If they haven't been used in a RS, they cannot. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT bare-naked URLs

Another contributor continues to make use of unpopulated, bare-naked URLs, even though several good faith contributors have explained how disruptive they can be. I have started to populate some of these bad references.

In doing so I found that they were citing references to back up their assertion that the Uyghurs were innocent with references where the term "innocent" was only applied to the five Uyghurs whose CSR Tribunal determined they were NLEC, not to all 22 Uyghurs. I consider this careless and misleading. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disruptive is just user Geo Swans comment here. To use bare urls is perfectly fine. He should understand that we are a community here. Some add references other fill them out. Look here i start a whole article just with "bare urls". Other constructive editors from the community them out Many members of the community have worked on the article since is have started it, they have all different skills and the article has grown respectively. Please understand that editors have different preferences and skills and that everything is a process. I am sorry but your post here, that is just one in a whole series is disruptive and against the core values of our community. Please do not put your own preferences and POV over the greater goal of the community. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are using references to support a contentious statement, you should have quotes to show what text you are referencing exactly, and the publisher at the very least to show that they are reliable sources and they support what you say. Geo Swan followed the references and found that the sources did not support that sweeping generalization, taking considerable effort where the obfuscation of bare references would have lead other editors to passively accept it. That's not disruptive; that's anti-disruptive. Quigley (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely wrong. Bare urls are perfectly fine and i do not consider every edit and adding of references as perfect in the first go. User Geo Swan may have found some sources that in his opinion and POV does not support innocent and that is fine. So, let's have a look at them in detail in a civil way without bogus accusations of bad faith. Anyway there are still more than enough references that fully verify the claim. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iqinn, you have made over 15,000 edits, so you are not a newbie. You should be familiar by now with the various guidelines and manuals of style. Bare urls are not acceptable in references.
No one has challenged that some WP:RS assert the opinion that the Uyghurs are innocent. What you don't seem ready to acknowledge is that RS stating their opinions do not make their innocence a "fact", that can be inserted into an article without attribution. Geo Swan (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bare urls are perfectly fine for the start. Better bare urls than nothing. Their innocence is a "fact" because it is verified in enough sources and because they have never done anything wrong what is also verified. IQinn (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "innocent" from the first graf

Several news reports indicate that the Uighurs trained in camps in Afghanistan, and according to their testimony learned how to fire AK-47s for the cause of "liberation." http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/the_uighurs_in_their.php

While they maybe innocent of fighting against the US, there is no disputing that they received arms training for the separatist movement in Xinjiang. So to definitively call them innocent is unfair to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.49.140 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user Zhoban

I'm wanting to revert recent changes by Kirbytoo as an edit made by a banned user, but I'm not quite sure if I want to remove the content he has added. Hto9950 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

revert part of the Iqinn legacy

The User:Iqinn wiki-id was active for approximately 28 months. For most of that time the individuals behind that wiki-id devoted something like 80 plus percent of their edits was either to material I had first contributed, or was about material I had first contributed.

I think the record shows I spent 100s of hours trying to get those using the Iqinn ID to cooperate, be collegial, and participate in civil discussion when they felt they had policy based disagreement. Those pleas for collegiality were, I am sorry to say, routinely rejected.

When I took a semi-wiki-break in response to the constant temptations to engage in edit-warring the Iqinn ID presented me with the individuals using this ID turned their edit-warring to other contributors. I managed to refrain from responding the Iqinn's edit war triggers. When I took that semi-wiki-break Iqinn's new targets didn't. Iqinn and his targets were given blocks, for edit-warring, of increasing length, until they were finally given indefinite blocks.

Following that indefinite block I considered, and rejected, the idea of generally reverting Iqinn ID, where-ever we disagreed. I rejected that temptation because some of the ID's initiatives did have some third party support.

However, initiatives where Iqinn neither sought or won any support, and for which I do not believe anyone could support, I think I can safely revert on my sole judgment. Guantanamo held individuals from several dozen nations. I updated the articles about the individuals from particular nations with a field stating the date when the individual was transferred from Guantanamo. If they were still in GuantanAMAO I left the field blank. It represented about 5 minutes work, per individual.

The Iqinn ID started changing the tables, placing "held" for individuals still in custody, and "released" for those released. I argued that placing the actual date was more useful. I pointed out it made it possible for the table to be sorted on release date. Iqinn never offered a meaningful defense, but went ahead and altered the tables on all the several dozen articles to use their, IMO, inferior scheme.

I believe this is the kind of disruptive editing I should feel free to revert on my sole judgment. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 60 external links on List of Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay&oldid=1252609198"