Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Split

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

Name formatting

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

Too long.

I think the article is too long for the subject matter. -- (unsigned comment from User:68.166.200.185 22:13, 2006 March 19)

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

I think the article is biased.

I am concerned about the sentence "only top terrorist is reportedly Mohamed al-Kahtani from Saudi Arabia, who is believed to have planned to participate in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." This statement is not a proven fact. In particular what is a "top" terrorist. It is "believed" by whom? How did he "participate"?

While I disagree with the camp and the limited rights, I believe that the article needs cleaning to conform to a more unbiased view, with more views from the U.S. government explaining their reasoning. -- (unsigned comment from User:Illuminarei 22:33, 2006 March 19)

Lol. Please consider the possibility that what you perceive as a dearth of meaningful explanations from the Bush administration in the article is not a reflection of bias on the part of the article's contributors, but rather is a true reflection of the Bush administration's view of how accountable it should be for its detainee policy.

Note: I use the phrase "Bush administration" purposely. IMO it is simply incorrect to attribute the Bush administration's detainee policy to the "U.S. government". The U.S. government is composed of three branches, with overlapping duties and responsibilities. The branches overlapping responsibilities were designed to provide checks and balances against one another. The judicial branch of the U.S. government has over-ruled some aspects of the Bush administration's detainee policy. Other aspects are before the courts. The legislative branch has also weighed in, with, for example, the Detainee Treatment Act.

Take a close look at the transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. While you will find that a portion of the detainees do sound as if they may actually have had some kind of ties to al Qaeda or the Taliban, I think you will also find that another portion of the detainees clearly had no ties to terrorism. The study conducted by Mark Denbeaux, and his law students, at Seton Hall University, determined through a detailed, methodical review of the DoD's allegations against the detainees, that they weren't even claiming that the majority of the detainees were tied to acts of terrorism. Fully 55% of the allegations against the detainees contain no claim that the detainee was associated with a hostile act. -- Geo Swan 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the anon poster has a point (and believe me, I am no friend of the administration). The article handles this from almost the opening as a scandal which the USG is placed in the position of defending, instead of a factual situation of which there are criticisms. The USG positions are for the most part portrayed as rebuttals, which significantly weakens their impact and, with the more prominent position of the criticisms, gives the article an air of bias even if the facts are all there and properly sourced (in which respect this is a very good article, though not quite at the excellent level it should be).

I often find that fixing an article's structure is a key to helping resolve a POV problem. In this case, the two sections "International concern..." and "US government denial..." are not only separated from each other, they are both very poorly framed. (Among other things, there are plenty of Americans who are concerned about the situation; why is the concern only "international"?) I would put these two together in the same part of the article, but more important, I would create a new section discussing the "Conditions in camp" (perhaps with a more neutral title) in an objective manner, to the extent that they are documented. Example:

Physical conditions for detainees at Camp Delta meet basic standards for maintaining health, prisoners are held in small, mesh-sided cells with little privacy, and lights are kept on day and night. Detainees are said to have rations similar to American forces, with consideration for Muslim dietary needs. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain from the United States Army, provided religious services ... Detainees are kept in isolation most of the day, are blindfolded when moving into Camp Delta and from place to place within the camp, and forbidden to talk in groups of more than three. American doctrine in dealing with prisoners of war state that isolation and silence are effective means in breaking down the will to resist interrogation.

That text has no reason for being in a "concern" section; with a few changes it could be the basis of a basic "Conditions..." section. Once this information is conveyed objectively, then a "Concern" section would make more sense. Another way this needs to be addressed is topical subheads. For example, the allegations of interrogation methods that approach torture almost deserves an entire discussion to itself.

Finally, I think that the Legal Proceedings section is by itself sufficiently dense content that it deserves its own article. (It would need to be better organized -- I think topically is better than venue.) I know, just days after we've separated this one -- but really, that poor little article title was extremely overloaded. The Bay, the Naval Base, the camps, the criticism and defense, and the legal wrangling, all in the article about the Bay! But that was cramping every single subsidiary article. I am really surprised these were not properly separated and disambiguated, literally, years ago.

I disagree that legal proceedings section should be split. That would be a definate content fork. The article is not too long, no need to freak out about the length, the 31kb browser issues were sorted out years ago.Blue Leopard 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So, there's a lot of stuff here, it has just grown by topsy as a section inside the wrong article under the wrong article title, but now's the opportunity to make it a superior article and fix the problems it's had. I don't think that's really an issue of bending over backwards to find nice things to say; it's basically a consequence of poor article structure. Fix the structure and I think much of the perception of bias will go away. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What he said...*nods*.

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

Bush would like end to Guantanamo

"US President George W Bush has said he would like to "end" the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

But in an interview on German TV he says he must wait for a Supreme Court ruling on whether inmates could be tried by military or civilian courts."[1] -- noosphere 01:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually they can do anything they want to the real terrorists but they also put many innocent people into that prison. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It gives him an even lower rating, of course he wants to shut it down, hes the president of the most powerful nation of the world, he could do it whenever he wanted to, yet, days keep passing and the prisoncamp is still there.

This is too linked to a biased article

This article should have the pictures replaced with more generic, less offensive ones. These show too much of a bias, and it shouldn't show the classified info on treatment of terrorists detained in the prison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.227.43.224 (talk • contribs) .

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

About bias...

Geo Swan, I think of it this way. If someone like a news station or a student doing a research report has to discuss opposing views, this article should do that. I think it's better in the intro, but it needs some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminarei (talk • contribs) - 11:57, 2006 May 21

Forced feeding

The issue of forced feeding fails to mention one point that is frequently raised namely that the forced feeding of detainees when they are capable of making a rational decision and understand the consequences is against the guidelines of various medical and other organisations. This article, while perhaps not suitable as a source since it's an opinion piece, should provide the the basic starting ground as it mentioned various guidelines surrounding forced-feeding [2] Nil Einne 05:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a good document which should provide the basis for quotes from medical organisations in regards to the forced feeding of detainees. [3] Nil Einne 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it appears I missed the issue as it is infact discussed. However some of the above, especially the ICRC article may be useful in addition Nil Einne 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3 "PR Stunts"

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

Prison Commander

Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris is not the commander of the base as the article previously stated. That is Captain Mark M. Leary (see [4]). Harris is apparently commander of the prison; nytimes also names him that way - see [5] (registration required).

The Article is Biased

The article is biased and needs to be represented from a neutral view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scherfk (talk • contribs)

This comment is not helpful. Please be specific about the passage(s) you consider biased. You haven't even said whether you consider the article to be biased to favor the Department of Defense, or to favor the detainees.

Please be more specific in your future comments.

Please sign your comments on talk pages. -- Geo Swan 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for "The United States Bill of Rights grants all people (with the exception of prisoners of war), regardless of nationality, Constitutional protection" -some other guy who doesn't give a name (sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.227.110 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2006 June 16

I took a brief look at the article United States Bill of Rights, In the discussion it spoke about protecting the rights of people -- people not citizens.

Does that satisfy your request? No, it is merely indicative. But, let's be frank -- how much effort can you expect other people to make, when you won't sign in? Your comment took you less than a minute to write. You could just be trolling, trying to stir up trouble. Since you didn't sign in we can't check your posting history, to see if you are a serious person, who answers questions in addition asking them. Here is one way you can show you are a serious person. Offer us an explanation why you don't think the traditional respect for human rights, like free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, doesn't apply to non-citizens? -- Geo Swan 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Political cartoon?

Is the "political cartoon" really necessary? It doesn't look professional (if that's the word) by any means and I'm sure that there are countless other images that would work in its place, considering that the section in which it is located is on "prisoner complaints". I would suggest images such as those from The Road to Guantanamo, a docu-drama about the Tipton Three, or photos of former prisoners such as Moazzam Begg. -70.176.93.225 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the cartoon is relivent, there is no need to promote a film though. Lets have more pictures of inmates in gitmo under various conditions, or more pics of the structure or layout..Hypnosadist 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the cartoon, yeah, its unnecesary, first of all, in wich newspapper did it appear?, it looks a lot like if it was made by someone else and placed here, that kind of humour of "ahmeds ass" is not exactly the kind of joke you spect to see next to Ziggy. If a cartoon is necesary to prove the disaproval of people, then i suggest looking for one that did came up on a newspapper.

Changes reverted by Hypnosadist

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

Hi madder i did mean talk here, ok this is a very contentious topic and you made a lot of changes. The ballance of the intro is allways some of the most contested.Could you talk about each of the changes you want to make and why. This is not about the edits themselves just about consultation and concensus on a political charged topic.Hypnosadist 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hyposadist, here are the changes that I made:

• I shuffled text around on the introduction to make it clearer, ie. beginning with 'Article name' is... instead of beginning with 'Since 2002'.

• I moved content under headlines, since headlines were required as was mentioned on the page.

I did not change any content, I merely made it more accessible by putting it under headlines. I believe the changes I made worked very well and don't believe that they should have been reverted. Madder 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i must of been mistaken, i thought you had deleted some sections and added info on the problems the muslim chaplin had and info on ex-detainees re-offending. I did like the work you did putting the two views into independent sections but i thought more needed to be in both sections.Hypnosadist 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've reverted back but I've also incorporated all changes since then made by yourself and Ed Poor. Madder 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats cool so what do you think needs to be done to make this artical better?Hypnosadist 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does feel a bit long, though perhaps there's just a lot to say! Also, a few references are missing, though I'm tracking some sources down now. Madder 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

POV about food and religion

Cut from article:

The U.S. government has claimed it has accommodated religious needs. Religious literature is supplied, daily prayers are respected and all meals are certified halal (adhering to Islamic law) by Guantánamo's Muslim chaplain. In fact, between April 2002 and March 2003 most detainees had gained an average of 13 pounds. But continued alleged religious harassment is one of the triggers to the hunger strike that started on August 8 2005. Detainee Omar Khadr told his lawyer that the camp authorities were only broadcasting the call to prayers four times a day, not the five times Islam requires. Further, camp authorities were allegedly offending the religious sensibilities of the detainees by having female personnel announce the call to prayers. Finally, he claimed that camp authorities were allowing guards to disrupt prayer sessions.

This paragraph is an argument. It uses phrases like The U.S. claimed, In fact, But and Further to imply that the military said X but what really happend was Y.

This can be easily repaired.

First of all, say outright that there is a dispute over conditions. Then identify the positions and the sides which advocates these positions.

For example,

• Attorneys and other advocates for some prisoners complained that the U.S. did not accomodate religious needs.
  • Khadr insisted that the detaining authorities were obliged to call prisoners to prayer 5 times a day (in a man's voice only), and complained that (1) they only did it 4 times a day and (2) sometimes used female personnel to do so.
  • Khadr asserted that the detaining authorities were obliged to respect all prayer sessions of detainees, and complained that sometimes guards "disrupted" prayer sessions.
  • Khadr called this "continued religous harassment" went on a hunger strike to protest it.

This could be balanced with something like:

• The Pentagon provided a Muslim chaplain and supplied free religious literature and certified halal meals.
  • They argued that prisoners accepted and appreciated these meals, as they gained an average of one pound per month.
  • They denied interrupting anyone's prayers; or,
  • They acknowledged interrupting prayers that seemed over-long (one guy "prayed" 75 minutes and refused to re-enter his cell) -- NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE MADE UP JUST TO SHOW THE "FORM" OF A BALANCED TREATMENT

Get the idea? --Uncle Ed 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro, Controversy what controversy

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

I agree with this. There should be something along the lines of: "the camp has drawn strong criticism world-wide for its detainment of prisoners without trial, and allegations of torture" and perhaps a quote against the camp to balance with the quote from Rumsfeld. Madder 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your wording, and we could quote Amnesty International with:- called the prison "an indictment" of the Bush administration's human rights record.Hypnosadist 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, why does the introduction begin with plural 'detainment camps' - shouldn't it reflect the article title which is just 'detainment camp'? Madder 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it refers to the fact that there have been several on this site and it is split up into three bits at the moment.Hypnosadist 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK so will the intro be changed? Madder 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

not by me i'm off to bed. Good editing.Hypnosadist 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Boston Globe article today

The Boston Globe has an article today about the Administrative Review Boards. Data in it is somewhat different than that currently in the Statistics section here. See [6] if you want to use it as a source. GRBerry 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is a goldmine of information, its going to take a while to go through it. We should update the statistic's and add the info on the "good faith" finding of witnesses.WTF!!!!. Is Bush really this desperate to visit the Hague.Hypnosadist 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The whole thing needs a rewrite

Many of the sources are advocacy, and not all of them are cited or quoted accurately. Statements by US officials need to be sourced to official documents or to contemporary news reports -- e.g. Rumsfeld "The worst of the worst."

The current version reflects little understanding of the difference between municipal criminal law and the laws of war. A Taliban fighter, wearing appropriate insignia, subdued on the battlefield whil enagged in hostile action against NATO forces, is innocent of any crime but still can be lawfully detained until the end of hostilities between NATO and the Taliban. Judicial review of the detention of combatants is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare.

The section breakup, as others have pointed out, is wildly misleading. While the US has entertained the idea of using military tribunals to criminally try captured terrorists, it has never alleged that all or even most of the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists or are guilty of any other crime for which they can be tried. Mikedelsol 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi mike how does the section breakup specifically mislead? What order would you place them in? On to your point about the legalities getting mixed up is not surprising as the Bush administration has done everthing it can to evade any and every law applying to prisoners. PS i'm of to find rumsfeld quote's especially to one where he says the geneva convesions don't apply any more.Hypnosadist 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi, I think you changed a lot in that it doesn't fit the neutral point of view anymore.

The camp has drawn strong criticism world-wide for its detainment of prisoners without trial, (although prisoners of war are not generally entitled to judicial review of their detention) and allegations of torture. Many detainees are held by the United States to be illegal combatants, and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

The second part is clearly a biased. There is argument from both sides; the original form gave the opinions of the government and acknowledges that it can be argued. I suppose you can argue that you added the information in the Criticism section; however, when I read that section, it seemed to be somewhat leaning right.--CheeZe 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Its up to america to show evidence that they are illegal combatants and thus not entitled to the protection of the convention. This they failed to do until forced by the US supreme court, now we find out the CSRT's are classic soviet show trials, no witnesses for the defence! Just saying it does not make them illegal combatants.Hypnosadist 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent attempts at "debiasing"

IMO the recent attempts at "debiasing" introduced bias rather than removing it.

You're 99.45% right about that.-A101

removal of "the worst of the worst"

The contributor who said he planned to "debias" removed reference to Rumsfeld's famous quote. Removal, because no source was provided, gives the appearance of intolerance, and partisanship. Next time, put a {fact} tag next to the unsourced quote.

The Denbeaux study cites an article from the October 23 2002 Washington Post as its source for attributing "the worst of the worst" to Rumsfeld. That article is, unfortunately, no longer online. But the phrase must have been on one of Karl Rove's list of talking points, because other senior administration spokesmen used it.

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

The contributor also conflated the detainee's status with prisoners of war, in a way that is, IMO, deceptive. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

illegal combatants

The DoD stopped calling the detainees "illegal combatants". They now call them "enemy combatants", a very broad term, which some critics point out could be applied to the little old lady who sends a donation to what she thought was a legitimate charity, if someone at that charity diverted some portion of its funds to a terrorist or military project.

In the course of his "debiasing" the contributor fails to mention that the Bush administration did not conduct the "competent tribunals" it was obligated to perform under articles, 3, 4 and 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the Third Geneva Convention, the tribunals are not required in order to adjudicate whether persons can be detained at all, but rather whether they are entitled to the protections the Convention affords to lawful combatants. In the article the issue is described in such a way as to be a red herring. Mikedelsol 05:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand this better now. The Combatant Status Review Tribunals had two purposes: a) Under the Geneva Convention, to determine whether the detainees were entitled to the protections the convention affords to prisoners of war; and b) under US law, to adjudicate whether the detainees are in fact "enemy combatants." Will revise accordingly. Mikedelsol 06:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC) This was basically wrong. see below. Mikedelsol 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You asserted that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals had the authority to determine whether the detainees were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Bush administration spin-doctors have implied this. But it is absolutely, completely, one-hundred percent false. See Moazzam Begg#The Tribunal President's view of Begg's POW status, (Note: Begg doesn't claim POW status because he doesn't consider himself a combatant at all, but rather a civilian.) Begg's CSRT is not the only one where the Tribunal's President has explained to the detainee that the CSRTs did not have the authority to determine whether a detainee qualified for POW status. It is just the clearest statement.

If you check the 58 complete unclassified dossiers that the Associated Press made available for download a year or so ago you will see that every single one of them states their purpose is to review whether the detainees qualified for a certain, rather odd definition of "enemy combatant". Let me repeat, it is absolutely, unequivocally incorrect to think that they had the authority to determine that a detainee qualified for POW status.

You are right. See [Defense Department Background Briefing on the Combatant Status Review Tribunal]. Mikedelsol 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "b) under US law..." Oh? Which US law empowers the CSRT? See Judge Rules Detainee Tribunals Illegal. So, I find your interpretation that they operated -under US law- highly controversial, and, if you were to add it to the main article, I would regard it as non-compliant with the NPOV policy. -- Geo Swan 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The tribunals were not the comeptent tribunals required under the Geneva Conventions to determine whther the detainees were entitled to POW status. Such tribunals were never convened, it appears. Instead the Defense Department ordered created tribunals to determine whther the detainees should be held at all, a matter unrelated, strictly speaking, to the Geneva conventions, but required under the due process requirements of US law. As the briefing cited above states:

Well, they're not really Geneva Convention procedures. I mean, it's very -- it's a different issue that the Supreme Court was addressing. In terms of talking about, in the Hamdi case, due process protections, we're trying to extrapolate from that to provide a form of process that happens to mirror the regulation that Justice O'Connor pointed to. But it's not really -- we're not implementing requirements [of] the Geneva Convention ([Defense Department Background Briefing on the Combatant Status Review Tribunal]).

Removal of reference to the Denbeaux study

The contributor who characterized his efforts as "debiasing" removed reference to the Denbeaux study, claiming he could justify its removal because it was "advocacy".

I find that a very strange interpretation. The Denbeaux study uses the allegations the DoD intelligence officers filed against the detainees for the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Its conclusions were based on sources that anyone can go and read. Whereas the "worst of the worst" assertion is not supported by the evidence. It is contradicted by it. So far as I am concerned anyone who puts forward the assertions of the Bush administration -- which are contradicted by the evidence they struggled to keep classified -- is the person guilty of "advocacy".

If the contributor disagrees with the proportion of the detainees who were handed over to the Americans in return for a bounty, he should amend that passage. Removing the entire paragraph is entirely unjustified. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Denbaux study is advocacy, in that it is signed by attorneys for two detainees, and its allegations were reported (and in the case of the 86%, misreported), as fact. This is a prima facie failure to achieve NPOV. Mikedelsol 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Denbaux study is reportage not advocacy, everything it says can be backed up with the de-classified documents that they studied. Yes they have a point-of-view but if the american legal system was holding POTUS to account they would not have to "advocate".Hypnosadist 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You call the conclusions of the study "allegations", and you complain that they are reported as fact. Can you please explain why they shouldn't be reported as fact? I have read a substantial portion of the transcripts. Since I read the Denbeaux study I look, to see, how the allegations against the detainees are phrased. The study correctly reports that some detainees are described as being al Qaeda or Taliban fighters, some are described as being al Qaeda or Taliban members, and some are described as being merely "associated" with al Qaeda or the Taliban. Are you really disputing that the DoD's allegations against the detainees state what the study says they state? Various newspaper reports that have tried to summarize the study report the 86% figure you object to. What is your interpretation of what the study is claiming, since you believe the sentence in the paragraph you removed got it wrong?

You haven't replied to the suggestion that instead of removing the whole paragraph you could have merely corrected or removed the sentence you felt was in error. -- Geo Swan 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The study states that "86% of the detainees were arrested by Pakistan or Northern Alliance forces and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of detainees were handed over to the United States at a time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies" (p.2-3).

These two statements, taken in themselves, do not imply that 86% were captured for bounty, as the original version of the article claimed.

Let me try to see if I understand your objections. Are you disputing the breakdown of detainees captors as pictured in the left hand pie chart on page 14 of the study? Are you disputing their reasoning that none of the detainees captured by US forces would be found in the "not stated" category? Or are you merely disputing the conclusion that the USA paid bounties for 86% of the detainees?

You are correct that the study doesn't say that the paid bounties for 86% of the detainees. I look forward to someone succeeding in a FOIA request to know how many captors received a bounty in return for handing over or denouncing a suspect.

I've read many of the transcripts from the detainee's CSRTs and ARB hearings. These were released after the study was published. Lots of detainees don't address how they are captured. But when they do, they frequently mention that the detainee was offered a chance to go free if he could pay a ransom, in place of the bounty the USA was offering. Others describe being welcomed by villagers on the Pakistani side, who promised to help deliver them to their embassies. Instead they would find themselves delivered to US custody. I find it credible that a bounty was paid for every detainee who was not actually captured by US forces. I suspect that the US paid bounties for help in capturing Bisher al-Rawi, Jamal el-Banna, the Algerian Six, and the other detainees who were captured continents away from Afghanistan. But what you and I find credible, or obvious, doesn't count.

However, the study does say things which aren't in dispute:

• over half of the detainees were not accused of hostile acts.
• only 5% of the detainees were identified as being captured by American forces.
• only 8% of the detainees were accused of being al Qaeda fighters.

What, if any, objection would you have with replacing the passage you challenged with a passage that is not in dispute? When I say that these conclusions are not in dispute, I mean that when a Guantanamo spokesman commented on the study he criticized it because the authors hadn't had access to classified data. He didn't dispute the conclusions I noted above. Why shouldn't I regard his inability to voice specific criticisms as a tacit admission that the specific conclusions the study made were undisputable?

The Denbeaux study is simply not an authoritative source. If you think their claims are justified by other evidence, including the evidence they cite, then cite that evidence.- Mikedelsol 08:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still need you to explain why you consider the study unauthoritative. Do you consider the DoD authoritative, in spite of their long history of deceit? The authors of the Denbeaux study have no history of deceit. What history of deceit?

• Well, there is the "worst of the worst", and the "captured on the battlefield" claims -- clearly B.S. for anyone whe reads a few of the transcripts.
• Or consider those three guys who succeeded in committing suicide two weeks ago.
  • Initially the DoD denied that any of them had legal representation. This turned out to be untrue.
  • Mani Al-Utaybi lawyers said that the DoD wouldn't forward their mail to him. The DoD claimed they couldn't deliver the mail because they weren't spelling his name correctly. Well, there is something strange about this excuse. The DoD released two official lists of names, on April 20th and May 15th of this year. Those official list spelled his name one way, but they spelled his name another way after he died. If you compare the spelling of the names on the two official lists you will find dozens of detainees whose names are spelled differently on the two lists. In some cases it is clearly a simple typographical error. But, in other cases, the names are totally dissimilar.
• Then there is the Casio F91W claim. A dozen of the detainees whose transcripts have been released -- approximately half of the total number of detainees, were held, in part, because they were captured wearing a casio watch. The claim that wearing a Casio F91W ties one to terrorism is amazingly flimsy. But, if you read the transcripts of detainees like Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari you can see a total lack of concern whether the allegations are actually truthful. When I first read his transcript, nine months ago, when I read that he was held because he wore a Casio F91W I did a google image search on it. If you do the same I am sure you will recognize that watch. It is extremely common. I think I owned one once. But then, when he started to describe his watch to his Tribunal it was instantly clear that he owned a different model of Casio watch. From the features he described I determined he owned a "Casio Prayer Watch". When the Catholic Church went through the steps of nominating someone for sainthood they used to scrutinize that individual's life under a kind of tribunal. A priest was delegated to be "the devil's advocate", and do his best to challenge and disprove all the evidence in favor of the candidate's sainthood. This is one of the things missing from the Tribunals. No one was responsible for doing a sanity check to make sure the allegations were credible. Because the detainees were not granted a presumption of innocence and weren't allowed to confront their accusers allegations that weren't credible carried as much weight as if they were meaningful. It took me less than ten minutes of internet research to disprove this allegation.
• Then there is the detainees mail. It was learned recently that one of the detainees had written letters to US Senators, and the Senators learned that the DoD had quietly decided not to forward those letters.
• There is the claim that all the GIs who committed dishonorable acts are rogue loners, acting on their own, and that they have all been appropriately punished. While I believe that the soldiers who committed dishonorable illegal acts are the exception, not the rule, they clearly haven't been punished. Lewis Welshofer murdered the guy he was interrogating, and he was sentenced to two months confinement to barracks. He wasn't even demoted. Ilario Pantano willing confessed to desecrating the bodies of the corpses of the two unarmed Iraqis he shot, "to send a message". He willing confessed to planning, ahead of time, to use maximum violence "to send a message". Desecrating corpses, scrawling warnings over them, - it's an act of terrorism. His General decided to over-rule the recommendations of his article 32 hearing. -- Geo Swan 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributor removes references to the SCOTUS overruling Bush on detainees

In his next edit the contributor removes reference to the Supreme Court's over-ruling of aspect's of the Bush detainee policy -- without offering any justification whatsover.

Contributor continues to confusing conflate the detainee's status and rights with those of prisoners of war. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem of usage, and a sticky one. The detainees are prisoenrs and they were captured in war, hence they are "prisoners of war." The detaining power has asserted that the detainees are "prisoners of war" in the sense of the Geneva Conventions, and hence are not entitled to the full protections of these conventions. The question is whether we should use "prisoners of war" as shorthand for "prisoners of war in the sense of the Geneva Conventions," or in a looser, non-legalistic sense that is nonethless factually accurate. Cf. the use of stole in "Bob stole Tim's girlfriend," to describe an action not cognizable under the criminal law of theft. Mikedelsol 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem of usage of POW, it has a very deffinite legal meaning. When we are talking about the law, the legal meanings take presidence over every day usage even if that usage was different (but its not!). This attempt to camoflague the legal issues with "misunderstandings" should be stoped.Hypnosadist 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If "prisoner of war" means "prisoner of war in the sense of the Geneva Convention," then we have to say that 1) There were no prisoners of war prior to the conventions, and 2) That insurgent groups not eligible to sign the convention, but who abide by it (POLISARO?), cannot hold prisoners of war. These two claims seem to me implausibly paradoxical. Mikedelsol 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike, from my readings of the Geneva Conventions it defines several classifications. Captured civilians, for instance, are not "prisoners of war". They are "protected persons", with different protections than POWs. The detaining power is supposed to provide them with housing if their homes are unsafe because it is an area of active combat. But, IIRC, it has to let them go free when it is safe to do so. Whereas a POW can be detained until hostilities cease. After reading a substantial fraction of the transcripts from the CSRT and ARB hearings I suspect that there are more innocent civilians remaining in Guantanamo than there are bona fide terrorists.

I think the term "protected persons" does not refer to civillians in detention, but to civillians who are, under the Conventions, "protected" from attempts to kill them, principally when they are detained when they are going about their peacable lives. -- Mikedelsol 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You say above: "The detaining power has asserted that the detainees are 'prisoners of war' in the sense of the Geneva Conventions." Would you care to supply a source for this assertion? Isn't the camp controversial, in part, because the Bush administration claims the detainees are -not- Geneva Convention 'prisoners of war'?

missing "not," sorry. Mikedelsol 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: In your reply I don't see you offering a justification for your removal of the SCOTUS reference. -- Geo Swan 22:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because I couldn't figure out what the paragraph was trying to say, or how the US Supreme Court ruling was relevant. Prisoners of war held in the United States are entitled to due process of law, and they can duly and legally be detained by the President of the United States under his article 1 powers.Mikedelsol 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is a matter of active dispute. What you call the President's article 1 powers are from article 1 of the US constitution, correct? My understanding is that this article grants the President these powers following a declaration of war.

The USA has not fought a declared war since World War 2. Some argue that the Congressional act that empowered President Bush to take emergency steps, following the attacks of 911, granted him the same wartime powers as if Congress had declared war. Critics argue that they fell short of granting wartime powers. They argue that if Congress wanted to grant the wartime powers the President can exercise following a declaration of war then Congress would have simply declared war. I believe some critics have pointed to powers the executive branch had specifically asked for, which would have been his automatically, if he had full wartime powers. I believe they argue that if everyone agreed that the President had been granted full wartime powers he wouldn't have needed to specifically request those powers. IIRC, the authority to conduct the kind of wholesale phone monitoring that the President, secretly, authorized the NSA to conduct, were among those powers that the President requested and which Congress decided not to grant him.

Under settled US law Congress does not need to use the magic words "we declare war" in order for the President to exercise his war powers (and note that the proper term is not "wartime powers" but "war powers". In fact, in the face of invasion or rebellion, Congress doesn't have to do anything at all.

I am unaware that the President specifically requested the power to conduct the (illegally) revealed NSA surveillance operations, so I do not think that he was refused. -- Mikedelsol 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So, let me repeat that I believe that whether the President is authorized to exercise the emergency powers that would be his following a full declaration of war is a matter of active dispute.

The only emergency power in the Constitution is the power to suspend enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus. The Administration has not suspended enforcement of the writ, but has detained persons without charge or trial on other legal bases. -- Mikedelsol 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that whether Bush currently has the power to violate the Geneva Conventions is a matter of active dispute. I believe that whether Bush currently has the power to order individuals to be held as "enemy combatants", without charge, is also a matter of active dispute. -- Geo Swan 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody asserts that the Bush Administration has the legal power to violate the Geneva Conventions. The question is whether they have in fact violated the Geneva Conventions. -- Mikedelsol 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The 38 innocent men the DoD acknowledges to be innocent

The contributor asserts that the 38 men who were determined to have been innocent after all were released. This is incorrect. An unknown number of detainees were promptly released. Some of those determined to have been innocent after all remain detained in Guantanamo to this day.

Sami Al Laithi was one of those determined to have been innocent all along. Shortly after his arrival in Guantanamo a guard threw him out of his hospital bed, and started jumping up and down on him. He broke two of his vertebrae, rendering him a paraplegic. Ten of those determined to have been innocent were transferred to Camp Iguana. But the camp authorities kept Al Laithy in solitary confinement for a further six months. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think it should be reverted back. Rather than having another "topic", can we keep all of this in the above? I started to mention about the biasing above so it probably should follow that. :P --CheeZe 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the original version is that it stated that those very 38 had suffered "years of abusive interrogation" (unsourced) and were "held without charge" (combatants do not to be charged with a crime in order to be detained). The problem with my first version is that it claimed the men had been released, which is simply false. Ah, the joys of collaborative editing...

"Innocence" is a concept from the criminal law irrelevant to the question of detention itself, because lawful combatants are innocent of any crime and nonetheless can be lawfully detained. -- Mikedelsol 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike one more time they are not being held as Lawful Combatants and they are innocent as they have not been found guilty in a court of law. They are held without charge because no charge has been placed with a court of law anywhere. And as for "years of abusive interrogation" i thought that was a polite discription of what they do.Hypnosadist 08:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some detainees (but including members of these 38?) were subject to abusive interrogation. At least one of the 38 alleges that he was abused, but from what I have read he does not allege that whe was abused during an interrogation. For the original allegation to be true, ALL of the 38 would have to have been subjected to years of abusive interrogation. What is the evidence? -- Mikedelsol 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People can be lawfully detained for many reasons unconnected with the question of whether they committed a crime, as prisoners of war, as material witnesses, as contagious TB patients, as incompetent to care for themselves, etc. Moreover, detaining someone as an unlawful combatant is not a punishment, just as being detained as a lawful combatant is not a punishment, so the factual question of whether they are an unlawful combatant is not appropriately discribed in terms of guilt or innocence, until someone tries to charge them with a crime in order to punish them. -Mikedelsol 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As hypnosadist has pointed out the Bush detainee policy is that that detainees would not be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention. During the first Gulf War the USA convened proper Geneva Convention "competent tribunals" to consider the cases of over one thousand captives. Those proper Geneva Convention "competent tribunals" determined that something like 70% of those captives were civilians, not combatants, who were sent to civilian refugee camps until it was safe for them to return home. The other 30% were determined to be lawful combatants who were sent to a POW camp. Competent tribunals can reach three conclusions: (1) civilian; (2) combatant, who has satisfied the four conditions in article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention to be classified as a lawful combatant who qualifies for the protections of POW status; (3) combatants who don't satisfy the conditions, and thus don't qualify for the protections of POW status.

From Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

As I understand this, this means that these tribunals are to adjudicate whether persons asserted by the detaining power to have committed a belligerent act are entitled to the protection of the Convention. They are not intended to adjudicate whether these persons in fact committed a belligerent act. -- Mikedelsol 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote from Hamdi v. Rumsfeld writ of habeas corpus (.pdf) page 14:

Moreover, Petitioner disputes that he is a combatant at all. Hamdi IV, 337 F.3d at 360 (Luttig, J., dissenting from denial of hearing en banc). ("[I]t simply is not 'undisputed' that Hamdi was seized in foreign combat zone.") (emphasis in original). Our military history demonstrates that claims of innocence are often adjudicated in favor of the detainees. The 1,196 tribunals convened during Operation Desert Storm resulted in 310 individuals being granted POW status. The remaining 886 detainees who presented claims before the tribunals "were determined to be displaced civilians and were treated as refugees." Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, supra, at 578 (emphasis added).

You say your understanding is that Geneva Convention competent tribunals are not intended to adjudicate whether captives in fact committed a belligerent act? Then how do you explain that the 1,196 competent tribunals the USA convened during the Gulf War determined 886 captives were civilians? -- Geo Swan 09:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the document you cite is not the writ, but an amici brief supporting Hamdi's lawyers' request for the writ.

Second, the brief cites "our military history" as support for the notion that tribunals sometimes "adjudicate claims of innocence in favor of the detainee." The amici bring up the red herring term "innocence," which I doubt was used in any of the tribunal judgments. But the real point here is that they do not cite the Geneva conventions for this claim. Apparently because they know that the right of a prisoner of war for a tribunal to determine whther he in fact committed a belligerent act cannot be found in the Geneva Conventions. - Mikedelsol 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC

Note: Compliance with the Geneva Conventions would require the DoD to have afforded all the detainees captured in Afghanistan the privileges of POW status, until a proper Geneva Convention "competent tribunal" had convened to determine that they did not qualify for POW status. Since Bush ruled, by executive fiat, that none of the captives taken in that conflict would be afforded the privileges of POW status he has lead the USA into a violation of the Geneva Conventions. None of them has been given a competent tribunal yet. So they should all still be treated as if they all qualified for POW status. Inconvenient for the DoD? Perhaps. But, do we believe in the rule of law? Sometimes obeying the law is inconvenient. That's life. -- Geo Swan 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not "competent tribunals" in the sense of the Third Geneva Convention has indeed been upheld by a US Federal District Judge (Joyce Hens Green), and rejected by another (Judge Richard J. Leon) tribunals case. I believe that Judge Green's ruling is under appeal.

So, some (about a dozen or so) detainees had their habeas appeals heard by Leon. And multiple dozens had their habeas appeals heard by Green. IANAL. I suspect you aren't either. May I suggest that if two judges, of the same level of seniority, hear similar cases, and reach different conclusions about the legality of the government's actions, it is premature to claim the government was acting "under US law" as you claimed above? -- Geo Swan 09:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue before Judges Leon and Green was not whether the tribunals were competent under they Geneva Conventions to determine whether they , I now understand, but whether the detainees were lawfully detained under the US constitution. The Administration has not moved from its position that the "enemy combatants" detained at Gitmo are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Mikedelsol 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Combatant status review tribunals

The section incorrectly stated that the purpose of the tribunals was to ascertain whether the detainees were "illegal combatants".

1. The USA had already, secretly, determined the detainees status. The tribunals were supposed to confirm if the earlier, entirely secret determination had been correct.
2. The tribunals were not empowered to determine whether or not the detainees were illegal combatants, but rather merely whether they met a certain definition of "enemy combatant". -- Geo Swan 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Structural problem with "Controversy" section

The section entitled "Controversy" contains subsections entitled as follows:

1. Actions of the U.S. Government
2. Conditions at the camp
3. Criticisms
4. Prisoner complaints and alleged torture
5. U.S. government denial of allegations of mistreatment
6. Released Prisoners
7. Suicides and attempted suicides

Most of these subjects contain more than descriptions of controversy. For example, suicides are not controversy. There may be a controversy over what to do about them (if anything), but the suicides themselves are not controversy. Released prisoners are not controversy. Conditions at the camp are simply what they are, they are not controversy by themselves. Etc. —Wookipedian 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's do some reorganizing around this already. In particular, the current set-up dumps torture allegations two levels deep into skepticism (they're controversial, and a complaint of prisoners), despite the fact that much of the evidence around torture is well sourced by non-prisoners. "Conditions" and "Torture and mistreatment" should come to the root level of the hierarchy, with appropriate qualifications made there.

Aside from the apparent dismissal of these issues, it's just plain hard to extract information from the page as it stands.--Carwil 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Application of Geneva Conventions

When we say that the "Geneva Convention applies" to detainees, we need to clarify (not obscure!) the distinction between:

• the "critics of Bush" POV that it divides all detainees into (1) POWs and (2) civilian noncombatants; or,
• the "all sides agree" interpretation that it requires "humane treatment" to all detainees, even illegal combatants who are not accorded the status of POW or civilian noncombatant

While we're at it, we should probably describe the Bush administration's ideas of humane treatment. --Wing Nut 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop describing other contributors as "critics of Bush". I don't see myself as a critic of Bush. In my private life I consider myself a critic of Bush administration policies. In my wiki life I do my best to maintain an NPOV. And, sorry, I think I do a pretty good job. I ask those who think I am falling short of that goal to assume good faith, be civil, and be specific of where they think I fall short. One of the several specific points I periodically get challenged over was referring to the detainee policy as a "Bush administration policy". Over the last year I have had many occasions where someone has changed that phrase to "US government policy", putting the edit summary that they were correcting a biased POV - or "correcting anti-American bias". And my reply to that suggestion was that the US Government had three branches, so that there were checks and balances on the power of each branch. I'd point out that firs t the judicial branch, and then both the judicial and legislative branches had over-ridden aspects of the Bush administration's detainee policy. I'd offer that, imo, putting "US government" when the other branches of the US government didn't concur with the executive branch, was the position that seemed POV to me, because it implied an unanimity that didn't exist.

I don't expect to always be right. I try to enter a discussion willing to consider the other point of view, and to acknowledge when my correspondent makes good points, and to acknowledge when they convince me. But, on this "Bush administration" v. "US Government" argument, no one who characterized what I wrote as anti-American was willing to defend that view when met with a serious civil challenge.

I encourage you, in your private life, to give your loyalty to principles, not personalities. Americans often don't realize that citizens of other nations can honor the high principles of the American founding fathers as profoundly as anyone else. When someone whose actions, or statements I have previously admired, utters a statement, or takes an action that goes against one of the principles I believe in, I give my loyalty to the principle, not the person. This is why I don't consider myself "anti-Bush" or "pro" anyone else. And I strongly encourage you to forgo taking a position that is "pro" or "anti" a particular person.

The thing about perceiving a bias in someone else point of view is that we all have to be ready to consider that the bias we consider we have found in someone else's point of view may, instead, be a sign that our own view is biased. This is one of the reasons why it is a mistake to characterize others with "pro" and "anti" labels.

Thanks.

Okay, who do you think has suggested that the detainees are either POWs or civilian noncombatants? I don't believe I have ever suggested this. And I haven't seen anyone else suggest it. I have said something completely different, which is that the competent tribunals can rule that captives are either POWs, civilians, or combatants who don't fulfill the requirements to qualify for POW status. While I will certainly challenge anyone who is going to try to insist that all the detainees are terrorists, I've never tried to assert that they are all either POWs or civilians. Further, I think that many of the detainees who asserted they were civilians were mistaken, and would really have been ruled to be POWs if they had been given a competent tribunal.

If I had to guess as to who would be most likely to be stripped of POW status I would guess Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi Al Shirbi. He was one of four of the ten detainees who faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions who were captured from the same safehouse, at the same time as Abu Zubaydah, generally called one of al Qaeda's senior cadre. Of course he is, nevertheless, entitled to a fair trial, in a real court. -- Geo Swan 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Joint Task Force Guantanamo

I added the following words to the first sentence

[joint]...[and interrogation center ( Joint Task Force Guantanamo: JTF-GTMO)]

to clarify that the detention camp is technically a joint task force. I did it in such a way as not to change the internal reference to military prison and connect this article to the already existing article on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo. (may be they should be consolidated?)

I think there are better words to describe the detention camp(s) than prison? Prison is probably not technically correct, either?

I think the reader is helped, factually, by knowing that JTF-GTMO has functioned as an interrogation center in addition to a detention center? This fact is demonstrated by the leaked interrogation logs from the Al Qahtani interrogation (published by Time Magazine) and numerous first hand accounts from the detainees themselves.

Fuzzy Math

"Of the 505 detainees, 100 or more are from Saudi Arabia, about 80 from Yemen, about 65 from Pakistan, about 50 from Afghanistan, two from Syria and one from Australia." - This line from the Statistics section doesn't add up and it isn't clear why not. Could someone clarify this? 65.96.10.148 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the math add up? Simple. Even though the camp authorities have had close to five years, they still don't know who they hold, and they still haven't been able to come up with an adequate way to maintain an accurate roster of who they are holding. Do you remember the case of the Iraqi ghost detainee known as triple x? The roster of the detainees at Guantanamo seems to be just like his case, writ large.

• No, I am not making this up. I wish I were.

Note:

1. On March 3 2006 the DoD ran out of legal appeals and had to comply with a court order from US District Court Justice Jed Rakoff to reveal the identities of all the Guantanamo detainees.
2. The DoD's first attempt to comply was delivered late, to the Associated Press, missing Rakoff's 18:00 deadline by about half an hour. It consisted of dozens pdf files mainly containing transcripts of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings. But it also contained three pdf files that contained 121 memo that contained summaries of the factors for and against the continued detention of 121 of the detainees.
   • The DoD did not include a list of the detainees names -- as stated in the court order -- so not only were they late, but they weren't compliant.
   • However in 5-10 % of the transcripts the detainees spelled out their names. The rest of the detainees were identified only by a detainee ID number. Google News showed approximately 1000 newspaper articles reporting on some of the cases of the detainees whose transcripts had mentioned their names.
   • The DoD didn't release documents from all 558 detainees whose cases they acknowledged had undergone a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Participation was optional for detainees. One of the DoD excuses for not releasing the detainees identities was that they were concerned for the detainees, and wanted to protect their privacy. So, when the court order obliged them to release information they only released transcripts of those detainees who had participated in their Tribunal.
   • No. I am not making this up. I wish I were.
3. Later, on the evening of March 3 2006, representatives of the DoD appeared, and took back the first installment of the released documents and gave the Associated Press a second set of documents. At the 13th hour the DoD had decided they weren't ready to release some of the documents on the first installment after all.
   • No. I am not making this up.
4. On April 20 2006 the DoD released a pdf file which they said listed the official ID numbers, names, and nationalities of the 558 detainees who had undergone a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. They also released updated versions of some of the pdf files containing transcripts. Approximately two dozen of the names were truncated because they were too long for the field meant to hold them.
   • No, I am not making this up.
5. On May 15 2006 the DoD released a pdf file which they claimed listed the official ID number, name, nationality, place of birth and date of birth of all 759 detainees who had ever been held in Guantanamo, in military custody. (Why military custody? Because the CIA detained a small number of "high value" detainees at Guantanamo in their own custody. Following Rasul v. Bush they CIA shipped some of them to their black sites. These Guantanamo detainees wouldn't show up on the May 15th "official" list.)
   • Even though these two lists were issued less than a month apart approximately 15-20 percent of the names were spelled differently on these two official lists.
   • No. I am not making this up. I wish I were.
     • Some of the differently spelled names differed only by minor typographical errors.
     • Other names that were spelled differently differed by the addition or removal of whole words, which may have been tribal or regional disambiguators.
     • Dozens of the detainees were listed with honorifics in place of their first name, suggesting that the intelligence analysts charged with the responsibility of maintaining the prisoner's roster did not know enough about Arabic names to recognize honorifics. For example mullah is an honorific meaning "educated man". After decades of warfare, leaving most Afghanis poverty-stricken and illiterate, a single year of schooling is all it takes to turn someone into an "educated man".
     • Approximately a dozen of the detainee ID numbers had completely different names on the two lists.
     • All of the 121 detainees who were named in those 121 factors memos I mentioned above should have been listed on both official lists, because their cases wouldn't have been reviewed by an Administrative Review Board if they hadn't failed their Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Most of those memo dated back to the fall of 2005, about six months previously. Unlike the transcripts, the memos don't list the detainees ID numbers. Over fifty percent of the names were direct matches to those in one of the official lists. Others were fairly obvious misspellings. Some of the spellings were so different that it was very difficult to determine the most recent spelling the DoD was using for their names. But there were four memos for which I was totally unable to find a close match to the spelling of the name on either official list. These four men were clearly Guantanamo detainees. These four men were clearly in military, not CIA custody. And yet they weren't on either official list. I can't imagine a good, reasonable explanation for this.
6. On June 10 2006 the DoD reported the first detainees they have acknowledged to have died in Guantanamo. On June 11 2006 Saudi authorities gave transliterations of the names of the two Saudis who died. Later, on June 11 2006 the DoD gave the names of all three dead men. They said that none of the dead men had a lawyer, and none of the three men had filed a habeas corpus request.
   • One of the dead men was not listed on either official list under the transliteration used by either the Saudis (Maniy bin Shaman al-Otaibi), on June 11th or the DoD (Mani al-Utaybi) on June 12th -- even though only a month had passed since the official list of May 15th had been issued.

   No. I am not making this up. I wish I were.

7. On June 13 2006 the lawyers for the man missing from the official list issued a press release, stating that, contrary to what the DoD had claimed, he had a lawyer, and they had filed a habeas corpus request on his behalf. Alarming. More alarming was their report that the DoD had been refusing to deliver their mail to their client, and that they had not been allowed to meet him. Why wasn't the DoD delivering his mail or allowing his lawyers to meet him? Because his lawyers weren't spelling his name correctly.
   • No. I am not making this up. I wish I were.
8. On June 16 2006 one single newspaper article reports that they were given the mystery man's Guantanamo detainee ID. The May 15th spelling (Mana Shaman Allabardi Al Tabi.) isn't even close to the June 16th spelling.

So, not fuzzy math...

I concluded, much of the confusion over the numbers of detainees should not be attributed to "fuzzy math".

• Why were the camp authorities unable (or unwilling...) to deliver mail addressed to Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi?
• Mani Al-Utaybi was the detainee who committed suicide who had been cleared to return home. Al-Utaybi didn't know he was cleared to be returned home because the camp authorities failed to forward his mail. Al-Utaybi didn't know his lawyers had, finally, scheduled in scheduling their first visit with him, because the camp authorities failed to forward his mail. Al-Utaybi would not have been cleared for return if he had any intelligence value. So keeping his impending return from him was not part of an interrogation plan.
• At the beginning of this comment I offered the opinion that the Guantanamo camp authorities management of the roster(s) of names was the example of triple x writ large. Triple x, Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul, was an Iraqi, captured in Iraq by Kurds, handed over to the CIA, had taken to one of the CIA black sites. After some time it was pointed that the Geneva Conventions protected captives taken in Iraq, that holding him in secret detention was a war crime, and the CIA were told to repatriate him to Iraq. They did repatriate him to Iraq. But DCI George Tenet asked Rumsfeld to hold Rashul off-the-books. Rashul then spent seven months in secret detention, without being interrogated. The GIs guarding him didn't know who he was. They merely knew he should be hidden from the visiting delegations of inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross. This, also, was a war crime. Why wasn't he interrogated? It seems keeping him off-the-books backfired. The CIA, or military intelligence analysts, couldn't find him, or forgot about him, because they couldn't find him.

Were there several sets of rosters of detainees?

The case of Mani Al-Utaybi argues there was.

Identity confusion: the cases of Abdullah Khan and Khirullah Khairkhwa

Khirullah Khairkhwa was one of the most prominent faces of the Taliban regime. During the Taliban's rise to power, following the defeat of the communists, he was a police offical in the non-Taliban portion of Afghanistan. But following the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan he read all the English translations of the Taliban's press releases. For the final year or two of the Taliban's administration he was the governor of the Province of Herat. He says he was never a member of the Taliban. He was employed as a news reader for them. And then he says, he was surprised to hear, over the radio, that he had been appointed governor. He accepted the appointment, post facto, because Taliban appointments were not the kind someone can refuse. Republican Nixon appointed non-Republican John Connally to his cabinet. Democrat Bill Clinton appointed non-Democrat Cohen to his cabinet. I don't find it beyond belief that the Taliban leadership would appoint the occasional prominent, non-political non-Taliban Afghan to a visible position of authority. Anyhow, without regard to whether he was or wasn't a member of the Taliban, for almost two years the Guantanamo intelligence analysts had two detainees who they thought were Khirullah Khairkhwa.

No, I am not making this up. I wish I were.

There was no doubt as to the identity of the first detainee they believed to be Khirullah Khairkhwa. Hamid Karzai had offered him amnesty, if he surrendered within 72 hours. He was captured less than 72 hours later, at the Pakistan border. He says he was innocently crossing the border to go to a drug store just over the border. He says he wasn't feeling well, and he wanted to be feeling at his best when he surrendered. Whatever. Anyhow, there was no real doubt about his identity.

Abdullah Khan, was captured about 16 months later. As the Denbeaux study has documented, most detainees were captured by bounty hunters, or as the result of denunciations. Khan, and two other men were captured as the result of a denunciation. Apparently his denciators said that he was Khirullah Khairkhwa, among the most prominent faces of the Taliban. Credulous intelligence analysts in Afghanistan believed this obvious lie, and shipped him to Guantanamo. Khan told his Combatant Status Review Tribunal that he kept insisting to his interrogators that he was not Khirullah Khairkhwa, and begging them to check the prison roster to verify what he had been told by other detainees -- that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa was already in their custody.

Unbelievably, his interrogators failed to take the obvious step of checking the prison roster.

No, I am not making this up. I wish I were.

Every time I think about his case, I am shocked, all over again.

The case of the brothers Ullah

A significant minority of Afghan men have just one name, This simple fact seems to have stumped the Guantanamo intelligence analysts. On the first official list there are many detainees whose names end in the "ullah" who are listed with an FNU or an LNU. That is short for "first name unknown" or "last name unknown". By the time the second list official list was published some bright spark decided to break there names into two pieces, and give them all the surname "Ullah".

No, I am not making this up. I wish I were.

More details to follow Monday... -- Geo Swan 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

After all your protestations about following principles of fairness and justice, you turn out to place your faith in suspected terrorists and their one-sided stories. Kevinp2 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The key word here is "suspected terrorists". They are not convicted terrorists, they were merely once suspects. And, if you go read the transcripts of their Tribunals you can see for yourself how flimsy the allegations against them were.
2. I place my faith in the rule of law -- which the USA is violating, by not providing these suspects with a meaningful way to hear and challenge the evidence against them.
3. As for your complaint that their stories are "one-sided" -- so what prevents the USA from being open about the evidence, if any, they have against these guys? The claim, so far, is that they can't reveal the evidence against them without revealing details of the techniques used that will put the USA's National Security at risk. What some critics suspect is that the secrecy doesn't protect any National Security secrets. It merely delays the public learning the extent to which the Bush administration authorized torture, humiliation, and other violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Terrorists are neither criminals (who are entitled to the due process of criminal law) or regular soldiers (who obey the rules of war and are therefore entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
2. These are people who engage in warfare without following any of the laws of war that are aimed at protecting innocent non-combatants. The suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, for example, include Al-Qaeda and Taliban captured in Afghanistan, who disguised themselves and hid among the civilian population and invited combat into civilian areas.
3. For merely fighting and violating the laws of war in that manner, we could execute them on the battlefield after a ten minute military tribunal. They have NO RIGHTS. If they want to have rights, they should obey the rules of war. It really is as simple as that.
4. I think that the creation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was a mistake. We should have kept the suspected terrorists in the tender custody of the Northern Alliance. Instead, we stupidly brought them into US territory thereby giving them access to left wing lawyers organized by the Center for Constitutional Rights. I think we should close down the camp, and return these suspects to the custody of the intelligence agencies of the country where they were found. They would be treated well there, since everybody knows that only the United States runs cruel and inhumane jails where the captives become fat in captivity.
5. In the meantime, since you are so concerned about their welfare, and so convinced of their innocence, I am sure that you would not mind keeping them on parole in your own home. I assume that you trust them and are sure that they would not slit your throat in the middle of the night. This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Be careful who you defend, your actions may help them become free and allow them to return to their fight.
6. It amazes me how some people can invest so much time and energy into helping these people while their compatriots slaughter vast numbers of their co-religionists and unbelievers every year.

Kevinp2 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And it amazes me that you so readily condemn them without reference to evidence. But all of this is doing what, exactly, to improve the article? Wikipedia (and its talk pages) is not a discussion forum, after all. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Geo Swan appears to think that Wikipedia serves as a vehicle for his one-sided crusade for Al-Qaeda and Taliban killers. Just scroll through this one page and compare the volume of his verbiage to mine. You can look at the other pages he has written on behalf of these people. In any case, I have added some content to the page itself.Kevinp2 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But I still don't see what the conversation is doing to help improve the article. I'm not singling you out Kevinp2, I'm referring to this particular conversation's relevance (and others on this talk page, I suppose) to the improvement of a Wikipedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. I will cease engaging in these discussions. It is better to stick to factual discussion. However this talk page is so large that it is hard to find anything in it any more. So is the article for that matter. Perhaps we could archive most of the talk page?Kevinp2 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The misconception that all the Guantanamo detainees are "Taliban or al Qaeda killers"

KevinP, you wrote: "Geo Swan appears to think that Wikipedia serves as a vehicle for his one-sided crusade for Al-Qaeda and Taliban killers." is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Calling my efforts a "one-sided crusade" is a violation of WP:AGF. I make my best efforts to keep my contributions to wikipedia articles well within the NPOV policy. We are all human, and are going to make lapses. If you think you can find a place within my contributions where I have fallen short of writing from a neutral point of view I would appreciate you giving me a civil, specific, coherent description of where you think I lapsed. If you think you have detected a lapse on my part please conform to WP:AGF and assume it was an honest mistake, not an example of a "one-sided crusade". And, FWIW, if you can't specify an instance of clear partisanship in my article contributions, then I suggest you consider offering an apology.

Can you explain why I shouldn't regard your assertion that I defend "Taliban and Al-Qaeda killers" as a personal attack. I don't believe you would be able to find a single instance where I have defended an act of terrorism, because I don't defend terrorism.

As Jersyko has pointed out, none of the Guantanamo detainees has been charged, in a court of law. Those of us who believe in the rule of law believe suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Do I believe some of the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists? Yes, I believe some of the Guantanamo detainees would have been stripped of the protections of POW status, if the Bush administration had complied with its obligations under the Geneva Conventions to convene a "competent tribunal" for every captive whose status as a POW was in doubt.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals don't fulfill the USA's treaty obligations. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of independent scholars of military law. As contributors to wikipedia articles, we are supposed to restrict ourselves from inserting our own opinions, speculation. Similarly, however, we should not be merely parroting Department of Defense press releases without question.

Please, before you continue to characterize all the Guantanamo detainees as terrorists, you owe it to yourself, and to your readers, to download and read the Denbeaux studies.

• "Report on Guantanamo Detainees, A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data", February 8 2006
• "Second Report on the Guantanamo Detainees: Inter and Intra Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy", March 20 2006
• "The Guantanamo Detainees During Detention", July 10 2006
• "June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo", August 21 2006
• "No-hearing hearings", November 17 2006

In Denbeaux's first study he and his team did a methodical study of the allegations the detainees faced during their Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Their analysis of the allegations against the detainees was that 55% of the detainees were not accused of involvement in a hostile act. In other words, when you examine what the Guantanamo intelligence analysts believe about the detainees, in detail, the DoD does not believe they are killers.

I am not, as you accused me of, "defending killers". Any of the Guantanamo detainees, Bagram detainees, or detainees remaining in the CIA's black sites, who has evidence against them that could stand up in a court of law, should be prosecuted and punished, according to the rule of law.

Some defenders of the Bush detainee policy mock the idea of providing the detainees with full, meaningful trials, in real courts of law. They state, mockingly, "What? You want GIs to read captives their Miranda rights, on the battlefield, with bullets whizzing about their head?" Strawman. As Denbeaux and his colleagues point out, only a tiny fraction of the detainees were captured by American GIs. Most were captured by bounty hunters. Go read the transcripts, and form your own opinion as to how many of the detainees were "captured on the battlefield".

If you read some of the transcripts you will come across case after case that demonstrates the importance of following the example of professional law enforcement investigators, and maintaining an unbroken chain of evidence.

We are all less safe if we allow those who make the decisions about how to spend our limited counter-terrorism resources base their decisions on bad intelligence, extracted, through coercion, from men whose innocence could easily be established. Several newspapers have followed up on the CSRTs of detainees who were not allowed to call upon the testimony of off-Island witnesses. They documented that tracking down these witnesses was trivial.

Or, consider detainees like "Pimp-Daddy" Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea. There are a small handful of "compliant" detainees who have leveled the lion's share of allegations against the other detainees. Go read Al Tayeea's transcript. Like many of the detainees, it sounds to me as if he has lost his marbles. Read his transcript and tell me you retain confidence in the allegations he leveled against the other detainees. When I read his transcript it seemed to me that he was bragging to his Tribunal that he didn't want to leave Guantanamo, and that he derived great satisfaction from leveling false denunciations againt his fellow detainees.

This article, and related articles, cannot comply with WP:NPOV, so long as they are written by contributors, who contributions incorporate the hidden assumption that it has been established that the detainees are all terrorists, or all "killers". I don't think I need to apologize continuing to question when I think the hidden assumptions of other contributors have lead them to, innocently, make contributions that do not comply with NPOV.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Geo Swan, your entire section above is such obvious proof of your motivations. You are using Wikipedia to advance your one-sided Point of View that the US government is engaged in illegal actions against innocent people. You have contributed a large part of the Guantanamo Bay article which any neutral party can see is a laundry list of complaints about the facility. Then you complain that others take objection to your one sided POV. The Wikipedia policies about assuming good faith can't exist in a vacuum. I do in fact believe that you have a POV that you are trying to push, and that the sum total of your contributions to Wikipedia reveals this. A brief look at your contribution history should reveal this to anyone. I think that you probably justify it to yourself as being the right thing to do - that even suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban killers are entitled to due process in civilian courts accompanied by presumption of innocence and rules of evidence that are the safeguards of a civilized and peaceful society. That is not an unreasonable position, in and of itself. But you choose to advocate it vigorously by using Wikipedia to showcase every single allegation of illegality and mistreatment, while diminishing the very serious reasons why this detention facility exists. You use Wikipedia to accuse the people in the US government and military of illegal and inhumane treatment. But when other people make the very mild charge that you are advocating a Point of View, you claim that you have no POV and demand that no one question you about it. Free speech is for everyone, not just you.

Here is a specific and recent instance where you added a Point of View to the Guantanamo Bay article. Neutral readers, please read the last two paragraph added by Geo Swan and tell me if they convey a Point of View.

I have tried to keep the discussions about ViewPoint to this Talk Page. I should note that your own contributions to the Talk Page are filled with ViewPoint like: No. I am not making this up. I wish I were.Kevinp2 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me state a few things I hope we can all agree to.

1. We should all be trying our best to write from a neutral point of view.
2. We are all human, and should expect to make the occasional lapse from NPOV.
   • And, we should do our best to be open to feedback from others when they say they find an instance of bias in our writing.
   • And, in addition, we should do our best, when we offer feedback, when we think another wikipedia contributor has lapsed from NPOV, to make an effort to frame our feedback as if we are willing to consider that it was an honest mistake.

KevinP, do you agree with the above?

KevinP, accusing me of being an apologist for killers -- that is, IMO, inconsistent with WP:NPA. I think you should apologize for comments like that.

Do you want to explain more fully what you mean by the comment:

• "But you choose to advocate it vigorously by using Wikipedia to showcase every single allegation of illegality and mistreatment, while diminishing the 9/11 -- very serious reasons why this detention facility exists."

For the record, I dispute that I am advocating a biased point of view in article space.

• That the VPOTUS has advanced the justification that Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar tricked his interrogators into thinking he was a harmless, run-of-the-mill captive, and tricked his way out of Guantanamo, so he could return to the battlefield, is a matter of public record. I provided a reference.
• That neither Ghaffar or Abdullah Mehsud, the only two individuals named "who returned to the battlefield" is listed on the full official list of all the detainees who were in military custody is also a matter of public record. Did I add the conclusion to the article that they couldn't be "run of the mill" captives if they weren't on the full official list? No, I did not. I provided the facts -- neutral facts, in I believe, a neutral manner -- and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Contrast this with this contribution, of yours:

• "...compare the Guantánamo Bay detainment camp to the Soviet Gulag forced labor camps in which 20 million Soviet citizens labored under harsh conditions, and in which an estimated million people died."

This is a distortion of what Amnesty International said, contradicted by the quote from AI immediately below. It is uncited. It is an unsubstantiated opinion, inserted in article space. The comparison they were drawing was to the forced disappearances, the years of imprisonment, without charge, without presenting the captives a chance to hear or dispute the evidence against them, the indefinite terms of the extrajudicial imprisonment, and the brutal conditions of their detention. Yes, some commentators criticized AI by pointing out that the Soviet's KGB Gulag grew to be much larger than the American gulag. But, let me suggest, this is not an NPOV way to add that kind of material to an article. Instead, let me suggest, you find an authoritative commentator who mounted this criticism of the AI comment, and provide a referenced quote after the AI quote. Say something like: "In response to AI's comparison of the detention of of captived in the war on terror to the Soviet Gulag Rush Limbaugh wrote, in his column: 'How dare AI compare our secret prisons to the Soviet secret prisons, when theirs were 1000 times more extensive!"<ref name=Limbaugh/>

You seem to be inserting your own, unattributed, opinion into the article, as if it were certain fact. That is, IMO, a violation of WP:NPOV.

Note: I didn't add an interpretation, to the article, as to why Ghaffar and Mehsud were missing from the official list. If an authoritative commentator advances some theories as to why they are missing, I can add them. Meanwhile I have provided the facts upon which readers can reach their own conclusions.

KevinP, you didn't explain what you mean by your comment about my dismissal of the reasons why Guantanamo exists. I am going to take a crack at guessing at what you mean. I am going to guess that you mean that following the attacks of 9-11 we should all take the prospects of future terrorist attacks seriously, and should take steps, and expect our government to take steps, to counter future terrorist attacks. If this is what you mean, I could agree with this, provided only that we take effective measures, and expect our governments to take effective measures.

The way I see it for ordinary people to form their own fact-based opinion on what effective measures would be, they need access to the real facts. The way I see it for the leaders of our governments, our counter-terrorism organs, or our corporations, schools, transit agencies, to take effective steps to protect against future terrorist attacks, they need to examine the real threats, in a professional, unemotional manner. The key words there are the "real threats" and "professional, unemotional manner".

Threats that are based on an analysis of false confessions arising from coercive interrogation techniques are not real threats. Counter-terrorism protective measures taken in response to the unprofessonal analysis of false confessions that arose through the use of coercive interrogation techniques are not effective steps.

I am still assuming your lapses were honest mistakes, that you didn't realize that you were introducing a biased point of view into article space. I acknowledge that one could guess at my personal point of view from what I have written here in this talk page. It has been my intent to introduce my point of view to show, by example, that there are other points of view that can explain the facts we know equally well, or better, than explanations that have made their way into the article itself, because someone has assumed they were offering the only possible explanation -- or reasonable equivalent. Any offering of my personal opinion here, that can't be traced to someone else's unsubstantiated opinion in article space, or question here on the talk page, is a lapse on my part. Draw my attention to it, in a civil manner, and I will apologize, and undertake any fixup that seems necessary and possible.

You have expressed a concern over my addition of two paragraphs following your introduction of the notion that Guantanamo captives have tricked their way out of detention and "returned to the battlefield".

KevinP, don't kill the messenger. You rewrote the introduction to this article to state, as a fact, that a meaningful number of Guantanamo captives had tricked their way out of Guantanamo, and had returned to the battlefield. I urge you to consider that this gives the slants the article. To state this, as an undisputed fact, offers a defence for the current harsh measures in place at the camp.

I am willing to assume that this rewrite of yours was an honest mistake, that you honestly believed you were introducing true material into the article, that could be documented from verifiable sources.

I replied, in detail, in an attempt to show that the documents do not support the interpretation you advanced. The verifiable sources we have at our disposal do not support this interpretation -- they contradict it.

Over the last two years I have spent many hours trying to find if there is a kernel of truth to the claim that Guantanamo captives had tricked their way out of detention, and then "returned to the battlefield". If I had found a single instance where verifiable sources supported this claim I would have incorporated it into the wikipedia's coverage of this topic.

Intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge when a verifiable source contradicts what we believe is true. If I had found a single instance I would regard this as highly significant, and I would find a place for it.

It seems the worse the war is going the more exaggerated the claims that Guantanamo captives returned to the battlefield become. A month or so ago I read a claim that 20 count them 20 captives had returned to the battlefield.

KevinP, that the VPOTUS is a proponent of the view you echoed is well documented. I provided a reference. Is there any evidence that any Guantanamo captives "returned to the battlefield"? Yes, two individuals. But the part of the claim that these two were regarded as simple ordinary, "run of the mill" captives, who were able to talk their way out of detention -- is not consistent with the documentary evidence we have at our disposal.

In the next paragraph I provided a link to a DoD document which, I believe, documents that these two men were anything but ordinary, run of the mill captives.

KevinP, let me repeat, don't try to kill the messenger. Let me repeat, I am will to offer you the benefit of the doubt, and assume your introduction of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo to article space was an honest mistake. Please offer me the same courtesy.

WP:NOT says we should not be using the wikipedia to advance a political agenda. I want the wikipedia's coverage of the material necessary for readers to reach an informed opinion of their own to be complete, while conforming to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VER.

Now, maybe I have lapsed, and introduced bias of my own to article space. I'd like you to show me the courtesy of being more specific. Can you explain how documenting that Ghaffar and Mehsud have been cited as examples of captives who tricked their interrogators into thinking they were way out of imprisonment shows bias? Can you explain how documenting that they weren't listed on the same list as all the run-of-the-mill captives in military custody shows bias?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another release

This from the BBC [12] heres the start of the article "A German-born Turkish national has been released from US custody at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where he has been held since 2002, US officials say. Murat Kurnaz was handed over to German officials after being flown to the Ramstein air base in Germany." Hypnosadist 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added under released prisoners. Madder 20:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of text section under Prisoner Complaints and Alledged Torture

I noticed a section of text under this heading that was an exact copy of the preceeding paragraph and have therefore removed it.

Conditions at the camp

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

Demonstration against what is done in Guantanamo Bay detention center, Washington D.C.

reverted partisan POV...

I thought this edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. The anonymous editor dismisses claims of abuse with:

"...However little to no evidence has beed found to support it..."

Abuse has been documented. It is not the place of wikipedia contributors to editorialize whether that documentation is insignificant, or slight enough to be dismissed, Properly cite verifiable, authoritative external sources that reach that conclusions, by all means. But no editorializting please.

The anonymous editor also asserts"

"...as well as several open invitations to investigate the camp to prove allagations have been turned down."

Perhaps the anonymous editor was aware that visitors like the UN special reporters on torture had turned down their invitations, but was unaware of their explanation as for why they turned them down.

Visitors to Guantanamo are not allowed to speak with the detainees. Even visiting US Senators are not allowed to speak with the detainees. The UN special reporters explained that they couldn't reach an informed opinion as to whether detainees were being abused without interviewing any of them. They explained that they were concerned that if they agreed to visit, while agreeing to the condition that they couldn't speak with the detainees, their inability to confirm or deny whether abuse took place would allow abuse-deniers a further specious excuse to deny abuse took place.

The anonymous editor also repeats the much quoted passage from the "Al Qaeda Handbook" that:

"If captured, the manual states 'At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.'"

The anonymous editor would be doing us all a favour if he or she showed a little more due diligence to determine for themselves what documents they criticize actually say. This "encyclopedia of jihad" tells readers that it is important, when captured, to do everything they can to get a full medical examination. The manual tells readers that a medical examination prior to their interrogation will alow them to prove that the wounds inflicted on them during their interrogation were not inflicted prior to their interrogation.

Note: documenting one's medical condition prior to interrogations is exactly the opposite of what someone would do if they wanted to lie about being tortured.

Note: this controversial passage does not actually state what those who claim that the detainees who report abuse are following a pre-established plan to lie about abuse assert it states. The passage does not actually tell readers to "lie" about torture. Anyone who looks up the manual, and takes a look at it themselves, can see it was written several years prior to 9-11. It was written when readers who were captured were likely to be captured by well-known torture states -- countries notorious for relying on torture during prisoner interrogation -- like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uzbekistan. An equally valid interpretation of this passage is that the writer of the manual assumed the reader was going to be tortured, and mistreated.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The credibility of the US claims that released detainees "returned to the battlefield"

Another wikipedia contributor added the claim that the USA had mistakenly released wily Guantanamo detainees who then returned to the battlefield, to the introductory paragraphs of the article.

I don't believe coverage of this claim belongs in the introductory paragraph, because the claims are largely unsubstantiated, and lack credibility.

The October 2004 article the contributor cites asserts that one of three children held in Camp Iguana "returned to the battlefield". The article makes a number of key mistakes about the Camp Iguana detainees. When released these three children were all under fifteen years of age. The article, written nine months after the children's release states that the one who was recaptured was eighteen years of age. He aged over three years in just a few months?

Although VPOTUS Dick Cheney cited Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar as an example of a wily terrorist who was released because he tricked his interrogrators into thinking he was a harmless, illiterate peasant. Dana Priest, and others, have written that prior to Rasul v. Bush being decided by the SCOTUS, the CIA had one of the black sites in their clandestine network on covert detainment camps in a corner of Guantanamo. This explains why the DoD keeps adding the caveat that their full list is of those detainees who were held in military custody.

Ghaffar and Mehsud's absence from the "full official list" could be explained by them being held in CIA custody. If so, it the claim that they tricked their interrogators would be, at best, "disinformation", at worst, a bald-faced lie. Why would the Tenet have released them? Their release could be explained if the CIA's intention was to turn them, get them to agree to be moles, double-agents.

That is just speculation. And article space is not the place for speculation. But any account of the theory that they tricked interrogators has to explain why their names are missing from the list of detainees who were in military custody. -- Geo Swan 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I plan to remove this paragraph from the introductory paragraphs, (1) it lacks credibility; (2) it is speculation. We don't know why the Bush administration released Mehsud and Ghaffar. If you disagree, please offer an explanation as to why it belongs. -- Geo Swan 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in the fact that children have been held in the camp. This is highly notable information IF (big if) there is a reliable source for it. And it should perhaps be foregrounded under a heading "Child Prisoners" rather than hidden away in detail about who did or did not "return to the battlefield". Thanks.Itsmejudith 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there is documentary evidence for it. See minors detained in the war on terror. What I haven't been able to find any real evidence for is that any released detainees, beyond Abdullah Mehsud and Abdul Ghaffar ever "returned to the battlefield". And, personally, while I find it credible that the two returned to the battlefield, I don't find it credible that they tricked their way out.

During their Administrative Review Board hearings you will come across captives, whose continued detention did not hinge on whether they were ever terrorists, or whether they ever committed a war crime -- not even on whether they had ever been a conscripted Taliban soldier. Nope, several of the Boards asked captives to explain how years of unjust detention had not embittered them against the USA so much that they would start to pose a threat to the USA. -- Geo Swan 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)