Talk:Camp X-Ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merging

What is the consenus on merging this article into Camp Delta. ant_ie 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not merge Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, article, without all the mispellings and typos. Oh yeah, the NPOV. That too. Joaquin Murietta 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. ant_ie 21:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is now seriously out of date (e.g. it describes how 29 inmates had attempted suicide as of August 2003, without mentioning the June 2006 suicides of three detainees). Due to the difficulty involved in maintaining so many closely-related pages and apparent past agreement on the point, I'm going to add the appropriate tags proposing a merger. Betdud 10:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Calling it Camp X-ray is itself sidelining it to be unnoticed, like its inhabitants! Its referred to as Guanatanamo bay everywhere else, lets do that.TonyClarke 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it even admits that the "Camp X-ray" pretty much refers to the entire Guantánamo camp, which makes it very misleading if someone skips that part —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.90.138.129 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Balance

In editorial fairness every derogatory reference should be counter-balanced so that the reader may arrive at their own conclusions. As I find time, I will make an attempt at this. Tscrum 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO the obligation to comply with NPOV does not require counting the number of references one thinks are on either side of an argument. Some issues don't have an equal number of strong points, on either side, so counting up the number of references, is artificial, and will not lead to the best possible articles.

Instead, perhaps we should judge whether references should be cited, quoted, paraphrased, or summarized, based on whether they add something worthwhile to the article?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation and improvement of articles regarding specific prisons, internment camps, and detention centers here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I deleted most of the sections in this article, as they were no longer about Camp X-Ray. It looked as though this used to be the main article for GTMO, and so it went on and on and on about everything known about GTMO during the years that followed X-Ray's closure.

Now, it's a bit more like the Camp Delta article, which is how it should be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exised section

Removed for POV langauge.

The Guantanamo prison facility is a "black hole" where, as of June 2005, more than 500 detainees are being held without recourse to due process of law. None of them has been charged with a crime and many if not most of them have been tortured. Both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution have been abrogated, and as a result prominent figures such as former President Jimmy Carter and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden have called for the closure of the Guanantamo prison.

As of June 2005, more than 500 detainees are being held in the Guantanamo prison facility without recourse to due process of law. None of them has been charged with a crime a number of them have been tortured. Both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws have not been applied there, and as a result prominent figures such as former President Jimmy Carter and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden have called for the closure of the Guanantamo prison.

? Rama 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

+1. If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that prisoners have been tortured. Eric B. and Rakim 20:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bush administration official Susan Crawford did acknowledge that some captives had been tortured. Geo Swan (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits from Guantanamo...

An edit was made here by a DoD IP address, User:130.22.190.5: [1]. An adjacent IP address, User:130.22.190.10 just said he was a current Guantanamo guard, so I believe these edits were also made by someone at Guantanamo.

I'd like to ask, generally, for good faith editors from the DoD to identify themselves as such.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is DoD? A guard at this camp is by definition a USA soldier I think. I'm trying to figure out how DoD is an abbreviation form GI-Joe etc. --Fremte (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DoD == "Department of Defense". Some of the DoD posters may be civilian employees of the DoD.

In addition to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, Port Security at Guantanamo is provided by the US Coast Guard, officially under the DHS now. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really hip on this Geo Swan, and to be frank I think such a request is outrageous. It stinks of attempted censorship in my opinion. Can you explain why a DOD employee should identify himself in this context, while other anonymous editors should be cloaked in anonymity? How about a military dependent? Isn't this disparate treatment? Why is one "class" of indidivuals treated differently than another? Why should an opponent of GITMO who is employed by a human rights group be provided special protections and anonymity in this case as opposed to an agent of the DOD? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

After you launched a vile personal attack on my charater and motives, I asked you to clarify whether you could be perceived to be in a conflict of interest. At least one other contributor asked you to clarify whether you could be perceived to be in a conflict of interest. You denied being in a conflict of interest without explaining how you became privy to the information that triggered those requests for clarification.

Given your comment above I would appreciate it if you re-read WP:Conflict of interest. In particular please review "Declaring an interest". In my opinion civilian relatives, or civilian employees of the DoD, contributing from the IP addresses set aside for Guantanamo, have the same obligation to protect the wikipedia from accusations of hidden bias, as uniformed members of the US Armed Service.

Individuals who post from the range of IP addresses assigned to Guantanamo are not making truly anonymous edits. A couple of years ago wikileaks traced some controversial, neutrality busting, edits to Guantanamo IP addresses. We should avoid non-anonymous "anonymous" edits that give the appearance that the wikipedia is not looking out to preserve its neutrality.

You seem to be suggesting that persons connected with the DoD should be allowed to use anonymous IP addresses, when editing articles connected to the DoD, to mask their conflict of interest, because you believe rogue employees of human rights groups are trying to use anonymous contributions to subvert the neutrality of the project. That is a serious mistake.

If you actually think there is a concerted pattern of conflict of interest edits, by registered users or anonymous contributors, is there some reason you haven't openly and civilly stated the basis for your concern? If you put forward whatever evidence triggered your concern rogue human rights employees are trying to use anonymity to subvert the wikipedia, and that evidence is actually convincing, I will join you if you fairly use the wikipedia's formal procedures to counter those efforts.

Please understand this: No good faith contributor knowingly injects bias. Good faith contributors don't knowingly inject bias because they think it is necessary to protect some topic they think is more important than the overall integrity of the project as a whole. Good faith contributors don't knowingly inject bias because they think it is necessary to counter stealth bias previously inserted by someone from the other side of a real world dispute.

A couple of years ago some support workers for US Congressmen were outed as making concerted attempts to remove embarrassing but referenced material from the articles about their bosses. Anonymous contributions from the block of IP addresses set aside for the US Congress were blocked for a period of time.

Good faith contributors, who are making anonymous IP addresses from a block of IP addresses associated with an institution that will later raise the concern that their contributors were part of a concerted campaign of bad faith would be doing the project a favor by openly acknowledging that they are poisting from a block from that institution. This is true for the DoD, for Congress, for any corporation with a large, identifiable block of dedicated IP addresses. If there were any human rights groups large enough to have a block of dedicated IP addresses set aside for them I would expect anyone making an anonymous contribution from their addresses to openly acknowledge their affiliation. Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would rather judge a person by his contributions rather than where he or she works, which was my point, and I think it just as outrageous to request a person who works for DOD to "identify" themselves as such to quench your thirst for knowledge as a person employed by the ACLU to do that, or a person who is a registered Democrat to "identify" their allegiance before commenting on the Republican Party, for instance. Guilt by association is rather unbecoming, and we are required to assume good faith. We work on the edits themselves, we do not assign motives in an effort to marginalize editors' contributions. In light of this fact, I would urge anyone who makes an IP edit to follow policy in doing so, to avoid bias, to provide cited materials and to be a good editor. I will also take the time to state that any editor who is a member of or agent of the DOD and/or any other organization that either supports or opposes practices of the DOD to maintain their anonymity, notwithstanding the request stated above. As for me. I don't work for DOD or the military -- Nice try though. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to urge you -- again -- to respond to what your correspondents actually wrote. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have no "correspondents". I have not a clue what you are talking about.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In your comment of 17:26 above you did what you often do -- ignored the serious counterarguments, instead choosing to respond to a strawman argument that had not been made. It would be a lot better for the project if you could break this habit. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whereas it would be better for the project if everyone received the same treatment in my opinion. Your counter-argument is to merely ignore my original point, assign motive, leave a comment on another user's talk page to drum up support, and it's not working. If someone provides a biased comment, we as editors are free to edit that comment to achieve neutrality. There exists no requirements that a person identify his affiliations so we can provide their contributions with an extra degree of skepticism or examination for a special search for "stealth" (whever that is) bias. That's called "censorship". The edit "is what it is". Leave it at that. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because those working at the base have inside info, they may make unique contributions to the article - but then we have the issues of reliability, i.e., vested interests influencing what they might add, edit or take away. I suspect the problem could take 3 forms: be just fine and neutral, be pro, be against. I also expect that free speech does not operate fully for these contributors, such is the nature of military and with the suspension or disregard of thie country's constitution at this base. So prudent reading and contributions by all is the best answer. Looking for references/citations. And asking these sorts of questions is completely reasonable. --Fremte (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thus you are now enforcing freedom of speech restrictions as stated within the UCMJ? Wikipedia policy dictates that anyone can contribute. It does not require that an anonymous editor identify himself if his freedom of speech is limited by law and/or regulation (such as a female contributor from Saudi Arabia, for instance). You go by the edit, not your own point of view based on the argument "vested interests influencing what they might add, edit or take away". You take each edit in its own turn, you assume good faith, and you work from there. Certainly, no one has to provide their affiliations for vetting purposes Thank you. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear in this regard.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The average DoD contributors at GTMO may have different perspectives, but they wouldn't have actual vested interests any more than the average non-DoD contributors. Very few DoD personnel make policy. The seriously vested interests on this subject would be in D.C.

On identifying and challenging editors based on their IPs, I think the interest is only natural. (Let's not forget WikiScanner.) That said, it's important that anonymous good faith editors aren't to be intimidated in any way. They can remain anonymous if they want to, but I see no harm in asking politely.

There were a few times that I've looked up an IP, such as when I suspected that an anonymous poster was the subject of an article. It happened at least once with a former GTMO detainee. I don't recall ever commenting about this, but I do reserve the right to do so.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Misc

Does anyone know how many people were interred in Gitmo since the creation of camp X-ray, how many have been released, how many are still detained, and how many were actually charged with crimminal activity (either by the US or their home countries, very curious about this last one). This would be interesting information to add to the article. Thanks!

Well, I know that two have been released, into the United States. So far, there appear to have been little more than two released.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Removed the statement that "unlawful combatant" has no meaning in international law. It does.

Has anyone else noticed that there is another article with the same title yet different content? Perhaps these should be merged.

merging done.

---

Here is a news item of note: [2] ... if someone here is working on this article. Kingturtle 00:15 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Here is a news item of note: [3] ...please add it to this article. Kingturtle 22:01, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the above, Kingturtle, but how reliable/neutral is this source? News articles on the site don't seem to be properly credited, and the site is run as a special interest of just one individual. I for one would prefer to hear the reassuring information it gives from something more like Reuters, or such like. No disrespect intended to the person who runs the site.... TonyClarke 01:15, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• That first story is from the AP. The second one is from Dawn in Pakistan. Take them for what they are worth. Here is another interesting AP story...[4] Kingturtle 21:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

AFAIK Halliburton (or a subsidiary) constructed Camp X-Ray. pir 11:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

International conventions section

I would have thought this section would be better served by another article... it seems a little out-of-place here. Comments? Andrewferrier 18:08, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

I agree that violations of international conventions would sound better.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the word "Detainee"

While, strictly speaking, kidnapping people and torturing them for years on end may be "detaining" I don't think that it is a neutral term. Note the dictionary.com definition of detain.

de·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tn) tr.v. de·tained, de·tain·ing, de·tains

• 1. To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.
• 2. To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.

Hence, the human beings held by force at gitmo cannot accurately be described as detainees. The term is not neutral and to be charitable it represents orwellian military doublespeak. I vote that the term be removed from the article all together. user:TitaniumDreads 03:32am Apr 25, 2005

To be replaced by what ? Rama 09:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think prisoner is more neutral, it indicates that they are being held indefinitely but avoids the ridiculous "are they prisoners of war?" debate. TitaniumDreads 19:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everybody is doing it now

I never heard of a prisoner being called a detainee prior to 9-11. Now they are doing it all over.

I have a google news alert on detainee. It reports prisoners being called detainees in Israel and Australia. -- Geo Swan 21:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

They have been declared to not be prisoners of war, check source 10.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"concentration camp"

I removed a reference to the camp as a "concentration camp" without changing the content or context of the original sentence. Although it might be argued that Gitmo technically represents a "concentration camp," I think that the historical and cultural significance of that term with regards to the Holocaust render that term inappropriate. Clearly Guantanamo, although certainly not a pleasant place, does not have the same conditions or goals of the deservedly more infamous Nazi concentration (and extermination) camps.

Yes, it should be labelled a camp, and it is POV to say something like concentration camps when there's no references.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've set up an archive

This makes sure any violators of the page, or spamming of the page, is archived within roughly two months, to keep this page from running badly, in case you wanted to know the reason for it.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Louis sachar

Does anyone notice the camp in louis'book holes looks like this camp and that one of the characters was called X-ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCLL HK (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Leasing

I was under the impression that Guantanamo was not being leased to the US government, and that the Cuban government views it as illegal. Cuba has yet to cash any of the checks it receives. Guantanamo Bay Taboo Tongue (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the U.S. pays $50+ million a year. I'll try to find a source later today. Kingturtle (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Taboo Tongue has the true scoop. Castro hasn't cashed any of the cheques. They are only a couple of grand per year. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The current Cuban government claims the base as being illegal. Since 1959, only a couple (one or two) checks have been cashed. The checks are not cashed, as the Cuban government views this as acknowledgement of the base. The amount is only a few grand per year, as previously stated. So is it a lease? Well, the leasee is paying the lessor, yet the lessor is not cashing the checks. So, the debate as to whether the base is legal is truly a POV issue. User:Aneah 11:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/10/09/story404882346.asp

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheney quote

The article says: Dick Cheney, as the then Vice President in 2002, said:

"Prisoners could be detained until the end of the natural conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan."

However, the actual article being cited on BBC doesn't have this quote in it. Furthermore, how could Cheney have said this in 2002, when the Iraq war started in 2003?Reesorville (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo) → Camp X-Ray – The page was moved here by Geo Swan from Camp X-Ray, who said this was the full name. However, the article does not mention the term in brackets. Seems like an unnecessary disambiguation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

another news item

This news item will be of use to anyone working on this article. Kingturtle 18:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is often described as a concentration camp.

I removed the above statement. The camp is not referred to as a concentration camp in any credible news organization or by academics with an understanding of the definition of a concentration camp. The wikipedia entry for concentration camp itself indicates that camp x-ray could not be accurately described as a concentration camp. Michael A.

Hey, you forgot to sign. I do not quite see why you think the term does not apply or that the article indicates so. The article had a judgement that was not neutral and explained that some people but neither governments nor amnesty international use the term. The definition given kind of fits: A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political opponents, specific ethnic or religious groups, or other groups of people. ... The term refers to situations where the internees are civilians, especially those selected for their conformance to broad criteria without judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. However, unless we have references I do not see why we should mention that the camps were often referred to as concentration camps.Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi - sorry about forgetting to sign. Is there a way to setup some form of autosignature? All I can find is the 3/4 tilde idiom, are you typing yours out each time or am I missing some setting in preferences? I agree with your assertion that the statement shouldn't be included without some references. If people seek references and wish to reintroduce it I will make the case for why the term is inappropriate. Michael A. 02:28, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3 or 4 tildes (generally 4 for talk page comments). It becomes a habit pretty quickly. You can set in your prefs exactly what that's expanded to - David Gerard 07:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

another news item from last summer

might this be helpful to anyone writing here? [5] Kingturtle 18:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prisonner of War vs Criminal prisonner

I am a little bit surprised that the discussion about prisoners of war does not mention the fact that a person under arrest without the protection of the Geneva Conventions faces indictement under the criminal laws of the appropriate State. However, the detainees of Gantanamo have not been treated according US criminal laws. Could this be mentionned somewhere ? Rama 22:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)