Jump to content

Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 19°54′03″N 75°05′59″W / 19.90083°N 75.09972°W / 19.90083; -75.09972
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Current prisoner numbers and demographics?

I was just reading an article published by the Associated Press on Nov. 10 that states there are approximately 250 detainees still at Guantanamo, and that Yemenis make up the largest group with 90 prisoners. However, it looks like the most recent figures we have listed here are from back in 2005, which claim there are 505 prisoners, with Saudis making up the largest demographic (although that statement doesn't have a citation, so someone might want to dig one up for it). Anyone want to take a stab at further verifying and updating this information?
–67.43.92.191 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Someone who is already invested. in this article should check it for grammar. I skipped around the sections for about thirty seconds and already found three errors. Here are a couple of small but important mistakes for which invested editors should be on the look out:

(1) Commas do not separate just any two clauses. They almost always separate two independent clauses and almost never separate the coupling of an independent and a dependent one.
(2) If we are to use American grammar rules, all commas and periods must go inside of single and double quotation marks, even when the quotation marks are not surrounding an actual quotation (i.e. a piece of dialogue or speech).

Don't mean to be a nag, but this is a great article. And the grammar should be as good as the writing. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Gates Argued for Closing

It is well known and should be mentioned that Robert Gates, President George Bush's Defense Secretary, argued to close it. 98.25.239.215 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gitmo

I think it is within the scope of improving this article to include a note on the moral ethics and implications of the detaining of the 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo, because it is clear the the actual camp (physical) has become much more than that in terms of its meaning and that perhaps this page should reflect that. Lack of information is a form of misinformation and therefore negates the articles validity. Surely on the discussion page at least we could mention some implications etc.

FOR EXAMPLE detaining these combatants and not giving them any legal status under Bush denied them due process and could be seen as having been a way of circumnavigating international law and treaties. Therefore could this signify that if the end justifies the means then international law only applies selectively when needed and that basic rights and legal processes now mean nothing? If all the rules have been thrown out the window then does that help or hinder the world we live in? Have we become as bad as the terrorists themselves and sacrificed our own integrity? Therefore losing the main point of the war, to protect our rights and freedoms and those of others? Have we entered into a world where democracy and law mean nothing? But of course now Obama is in this discussion will never take place. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, these articles already go quite far playing to the odd sensibilities that America's critics claim to feel about these issues.
The fact is that the Bush administration has paid great attention to these very details. People who wish to claim to care about the Geneva Conventions should understand that "due process" has its limits within the laws of war. That's the way it's always been. The Bush administration didn't make that up. The only people "as bad as the terrorists themselves" are the people who defend the terrorists.
After all the legal arguments over the years, you may have noticed that the Supreme Court has not closed down GTMO. The Bush administration lost a few cases, but GTMO is still open, and it's perfectly legal.
The Obama administration may close it down, but his AG did agree with the Bush administration that the U.S. has the right to hold these detainees until the end of the war. That's probably what they'll do for many of them.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Split?

This article's getting a bit big, so I think that a section may need to be split. Any comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo captive Incidents 2006-01 to 2009-01. Note the huge spike in incidents starting last fall.
OK so in the Navy and I'm an ACTUAL guard at guantanamo bay, and I see things in here about torture. First of all I'm sure that happened years ago when the U.S. entered the war, and maybe even a little while after that. But I have been here since May 2nd 2009 and I can assure you there is no torture going on here, unless of course you mean the guards. First of all I work 12 hour shifts 5 days but every now and then 6 days a week. My job is to make sure detainees dont commit "self harm" basically I make sure they don't commit suicide by standing and watching them for almost the whole 12 hours, it is the most boring job ever. After our guard mounts and after action reviews my days last about 13 to 14 hours. Also these detainees throw feces, yes real human feces, at us and the only thing that happens "Loss of cup" from thier cell. How is that fair? As for the detainees the last time it seemed like we were torturing them was when we only gave them we bottles of pepsi, insted of the four they usually get and they bitched for a few hours. So next time you think about someone getting tortued here think about the American soilders and sailors that actually work here because we but up with more b/s than you can imagine, unless you like being a detainee servant. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.190.10 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2009 June 17
You actually work at Guantanamo, right now? That is interesting. I know that I for one would like to ask you some questions about the base.
I have some bad news for you though. While it might seem obvious that, having personal knowledge of the base, you should feel free to make corrections to articles, based on that personal knowledge, this would lapse from the wikipedia's policies. All contributions to the wikipedia's "article space" are supposed to be verifiable. We can't verify your personal experiences.
FWIW, I download and read The Wire (JTF-GTMO) every week.
A couple of years ago there was a controversy when wikileaks traced the posting history of some IP addresses from JTF-GTMO, and found that someone using IP addresses at the JTF-GTMO public affairs office were anonymously editing articles that concerned Guantanamo and Cuba. This was fairly widely reported, and I suspect the GIs who made those posts either got in trouble, or got the scare of their lifetime. I went and looked at the kinds of edits those IP made, and I did not see any sign of anything like an organized disinformation campaign. I remember several random insertions of material like "Fidel Castro sucks dead bears" -- random and insignificant vandalism like we might get from high school or college kids on a prank.
I received one request, from a Guantanamo Press Officer, to amend something I had written. That Press Officer quoted a DoD policy on the use of the internet by DoD personnel. I tried to look that policy up. And, as near as I could determine, it must have said something like only designated press officers were authorized to answer questions from the public. So, before you answer any questions you might want to check with your boss to make sure you don't get in trouble.
Having said that, I'd like to ask you some questions about your Guantanamo service. I am going to ask them at User:Geo Swan/questions for Guantanamo GIs rather than here because it would be inappropriate to discuss some of this stuff on this article's talk page.
Keep safe Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Guantánamo/Guantanamo

Should this page be moved to Guantánamo Bay with a redirect from Guantanamo Bay? Didn't want to move it without a consensus Veggieburgerfish (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a consensus, several years ago -- geographic locations, that would normally be used by hispanophones, like the city and county of Guantánamo, Cuba, would be spelled in the Spanish manner, while locations that would normally be used by anglophones, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Guantanamo Bay detention camp would be spelled in the English manner. This is consistent with the widespread convention. We have an article on Germany -- not Deutchland, after all. I know consensus can change. But I am not aware it has. And if you think it should change, I think you will have to offer some justifications for that change.
Policy states that the most widely accepted English spelling should be used. It's difficult to tell because accents are often omitted in English simply because it's easier not to use them, but Guantánamo seems to be generally accepted as the "correct" spelling. PhageRules1 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? This is contrary to the consensus arrived at, and it would entail a lot of work, so I suggest we stick with the current wording... Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Detainees section

This section says 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain. I know that three committed suicide and one was released after conviction. Is there any information what happened to the other 106 (775-420-245-3-1) prisoners? I followed the citation but the source does not say. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This list of former captive's transfer dates, dated October 9, 2009, was published in late November 2009.
  • OARDEC (2008-10-09). "Consolidated chronological listing of GTMO detainees released, transferred or deceased" (PDF). Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-12-28.
Since this list was published the Bush administration repatriated a half dozen or so captives, and the Obama administration has repatriated just under a dozen captives. The most recent figure I have seen was 229 captives.
FWIW, the 775 figure is not correct. 759 captives were transferred to the camp in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The group of fourteen "high value detainees" was transferred from CIA to military custody on September 6, 2006. A further six captives were transferred in 2007 and 2008: ISN 10025, ISN 10026, ISN 10027, ISN 10028, ISN 10029 and ISN 10030. That is 779 captives, by my arithmetic. Two of the last six are also classed as "high value detainees". None of the last six have had a CSR Tribunal. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hunger strikes - clarification needed

In Hunger strike#Force-feeding it states that "An officer said the number of strikers peaked at 131 around September 11. " This seems unlikely - didn't most of the prisoners arrive after that? Can anyone clear this up?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I tracked dowwn the original source and added the ref. It appears from the article that it's just referring to September 11, 2005 (although I could be wrong as it's a little ambiguous). I've edited the section to reflect that. -- Irn (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
After also looking at the source I agree, it must be sept 11 2005. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The longest and most widespread hunger strike started in May or June of 2005. It has been reported that it was ended through negotiation on July 31, 2005, after camp authorities made some concessions, and recommenced a week or so later when the captives felt the camp authorities were not honoring their promises. The DoD published height and weight records in early 2007. But, for most captives, the records camp authorities published do not include weigh-ins during the hunger strike. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently repatriated ISN 669 had been on that hunger strike since June 2005. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court Case Section

Is it worth making an edit to the section about the supreme court case to post Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, which stated legal precedence that aliens captured abroad have never been extended habeas corpus rights? I figured if the majority's argument was stated, it'd also be fair to post the minority opinion (unless it's stated elsewhere in the article, if someone could kindly point it out to me before I make a fool of myself). Thanks.

Matcat1116 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of Guantanamo Bay detention camp

File:Guantanamo -- motivated seller!.jpg
motivated seller

The plan to open a Free Trade Mall and Education Center on the old camp Xray is only a discussion but it might be notable that plans for normalized relations with Cuba will drastically change the nature of the entire complex with fair trade and education facilities open to the Cuban Population in discussion. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

History

I'd like it if somebody could write a section about the history of the camp, and how it came to be what it is now. Thank you. 76.120.103.127 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should add a history section...this article is incomplete without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.94.11 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon report on released prisoners

If it's not already included, the information reported in this story seems worth noting [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm /us_yemen_guantanamo_usa]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Comment moved here from main article

Per title, - TB (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a description of "Camp No" as it's been described in the Horton article? The US government has repeatedly said that it doesn't exist, but lately there seem to be a lot of high-ranking people who want to talk about that previously unidentified building on the satellite photo. Just asking. Up for discussion. Important? Not important? Mardiste (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have reported on the allegation that the camp exists. Any mention of the allegation should be brief, per WP:UNDUE, and needs to be worded carefully. Assuming that more sources might become available in the future, I personally have decided not to add info about the allegation at the moment, because (a) adding appropriate content would be probably easier later on (b) coverage in the sources might change rapidly, so there would be a need to check this continuouly for accuracy and compliance with WP policies. If you want to do this work, I wouldn't object to it, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1978 German parallel

c.f. US Judge: Berlin Plane Hijack Trial Had Parallels to Guantanamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.132.251 (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This statement is absolutely ridiculous and there's no parallel what so ever between this plane hijack and the concentration camp on Guantanamo! --89.50.28.18 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I see parallels about the rights of the defandants (the hijackers and the Guantanamo detainees). The judge H. J. Stern said in that interview:
"State took the position that they had the right to define what rights the defendants had, because Tiede and Ruske [the hijackers] were neither US citizens [they were East Germans] nor on US territory [they were in West Berlin], but stood before an occupational court [a US court], ... the kind of court they have now instituted at Guantanamo, where the same issues (concerning defendants' rights) have percolated up. ..." Herbert J. Stern
What do you think? WideBlueSky (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama

Wouldn't an entry about what President-Elect Obama plans to do fall under WP:CRYSTAL, and really be inappropriate in this article? Yes, he will be president, but he's not yet, and these are only discussions at this point.  Frank  |  talk  21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered bringing the 'Future' section up to date? It currently includes information from 2009 suggesting that the closing of the detention facility was imminent, yet as of 2010 no action has been taken in that regard. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rent249 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Future section edits and semi-protection

12/17/09 - Hey, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. Sorry to jump into someone else's post, but I don't know how to make my own. I'm just wondering if anyone besides me noticed that the introduction to this article accuses President Bush of signing an executive order in 1999 ... two years before he was sworn into office. Could someone possibly change that, because I don't know how.

Thanks,

Billiardsteve (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ALL - Today, I requested semi-protection for this article, based upon the many edits coming in from entities that have several different motivations for changing, vandalising and otherwise disrupting this article. Granted, the subject of this article is a political "hot potato", but we as Wikipedia editors CANNOT and WILL NOT allow that to affect the quality of our work here.

The most recent information in the Future section (Dec 15 2009) is dated slightly less than one year ago. Nothing in the article speaks to the treatment of detainees during 2010. The "quality of work here" is evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.83.44 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit about family opposition to the base closure, and the report's source: I feel that the sentence should remain as-is, with the source citation. If we wish to be far more "fair and balanced" than that source (I would hope so!), then let's find an opposing view, and cite that as well in the same sentence, something to the effect of; "While some family members voiced opposition to the closure (citation 1), others reacted favorably (citation 2)." That's the ideal solution here, the best one that I can see at this point. If someone has an equally effective idea, by all means posit it here! Edit Centric (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should balance it first. Fox news is known for sensationalism, and should not be the only source describing reaction to something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the last sentence of the lead is not important enough to warrant placement in the lead. It is repeated later on in the article, and its placement is clearly intended to be critical of Obama's decision. While I'm undecided on this issue, I believe wikipedia should be without such biases. Moreover, the inclusion of phrase "US troops and civilians" is especially misleading. Although it could be read to mean "civilians of other nations and US troops", the clear intent is to instill fear over attacks on US civilians. This is without factual basis; the article does not list a single case of an attack on a US civilian by a former detainee. In fact, it doesn't even really cite any attacks at all on Americans by ex-detainees. Would someone with registered status please remove this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedudes44107 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, I agree it was over-the-top POV, many detainees were also arrested in part because of their choice in wristwatch - in fact a larger number than are known to have returned to the battlefield - but we don't mention that in the lead. I included an extra "See also" link though to the list of detainees believed to have returned to the battlefield, to balance things. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence in the "Released Prisoners" section is currently: "If all on the "confirmed" list have returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[132]". Could an editor please insert an "18" thus: "If all 18 on the "confirmed" list...." for the sake of clarity. The cite supports the insertion; the change is in fact a closer paraphrase of the cite. Thank you in advance. 75.154.177.10 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Shutting down the prison or the whole base

Just to be clear, does Obama want to shutdown the military prison or the whole Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? --Melab±1 ☎ 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Congress just said "no". Read this 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Correct second sentence of article

The second sentence of this article is inaccurate: "The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees from the Iraq war."

Actually, "The Iraq War, the Second Gulf War[45] and Operation Iraqi Freedom[46]) was a military campaign that began on March 20, 2003" per Wikipedia entry OIF.

Begin opinion: The camp at Gitmo was actually opened in response to the murder of CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann (USATODAY.com - CIA officer killed in Afghanistanwhile interogating) while interrogating illegal combatants in an Afghan prison camp and the death of an unknown number of other illegal combatants detained by US Afghan allies who were warehoused in sealed shipping containers.

Cheers,

Redclimateneck (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner complaints

The following was deleted from the article. "However, prisoners released from the camp have alleged that abuse of religion including flushing the Qur'an down the toilet, defacing the Qur'an, writing comments and remarks on the Qur'an, tearing pages out of the Qur'an and denying detainees a copy of the Qur'an." The reference to flushing the qur'an down the toilet which was reported widely including in Newsweek was later determined to be a false accusation. Newsweek even apologized for printing it. The prisoners are well versed in making false accusations in order to create media reports which then can be used as recruiting tools for others to join the terrorist cause. By placing it in this article in the way it was presented there is a suggestion that such false accusations have credibility. While accurate in terms of the accusations being made its misleading without this additional information concerning the fact that many false accusations were made against our military. I'm not posting but deleting so no reference is necessary. However, since I served as a military chaplain to the detention camp for eleven months I have the expertise to speak about these issues. It was part of my job description to help coordinate the handling of Qur'ans. Standard Operating Policy dictated that the Qur'an not be touched by the guards. In each cell there was a surgical mask suspended from the ceiling into which the detainees stored their Qur'an. This was designed so that a guard would not even accidently touch it if needing to go into the cell. Every detainee was issued a Qur'an at the camp. There was a system of rewards and punishments in which religious items were denied the detainees for periods of time when they acted out violently against the quards but the Qur'an was never part of that program. Things included in that program were prayer rug, prayer oil, and prayer beads but never the Qur'an. The detainees always had the direction to Mecca painted on the floor of their cell. Call to prayer was played over the loud speaker system at each time of prayer. The detainees were allowed to participate in Ramadan religious practices. It was also repeatedly impressed upon the guards that one did not touch or mishandle the Muslim holy book because of the violent reaction it would cause and the world reaction that such a thing would cause. We will never know just how many were attacked and lives lost because of information sources falsely stating as fact that a Qur'an was flushed down the toilet. ChaplainSvendsen (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The above text was mistakenly added to the article so I moved it here.
You're right that the Koran flushing story was bogus, and that people were killed because of it. It is ironic that the military's SOP had shown such deference but that's been the way things go. I don't doubt that the people who gleefully spread the story didn't care whether it killed anyone or not.
The part you removed was unreferenced. And as you said, it was incomplete and misleading. I do think the story needs to be mentioned, although it doesn't have to be in this article. The incident is part of the history of the camp, and many people contributed to its propagation. People who spread the Islamists' side of the story are, in effect, defending fascism. Such people should never be forgotten.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The allegations are well sourced 2005 Qur'an desecration controversy. Notable story. True or not. IQinn (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Released detainees returning to terrorist activity

Recently there has been lots of news coverage in the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, etc. about how a large number of former detainees are returning to their terrorist activities. As this issue has apparently received lots of coverage in reliable sources this should be atleast mentioned in a section in this article. I do agree that it might be best for a whole article about this issue, but a section in this article should suffice for now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not necessarily true that they are all "returning to their terrorist activities." Surely many of these men were not terrorists and were locked up unjustly. However, when they were sent to a place that was not their home after years of arbitrary detention among some self-avowed terrorists, they felt anger and wished for retribution. Furthermore, it is libel to claim that they were all engaged in terrorist activities as they were not all, and no court found them all guilty of such. Twocs (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There is already an entire article on the subject. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A list is not an article. In any case, as this issue has received significant coverage it requires atleast a small section in this main article. This issue is obviously an integral element in all the controversy surrounding GB.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As Peter Bergen points out, big deal. Hardly a large number as is being claimed. A 4% recidivism rate compared to 65% for the U.S domestic prison system and that ignores that the government definition of terrorism is rather wide, quote: "some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements". Mention is ok but there is no justification for a section. Wayne (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the International Herald Tribune source which I placed in the article (now removed), the recidivism rate is as high as high as 10 percent. A 65% general recidivism rate is incomparable. Returning to murdering people is not the same as returning to public urination and cocaine possession. In addition, recidivism in this situation is more notable where there has been accusations that the US just picked up random foreigners in Afghanistan who had no intentions of fighting. But mine and your opinions are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether this issue has received coverage in reliable sources. To that end, a front-page long article in the New York Times clearly satisfies the notability requirements for the inclusion of atleast a section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The recidivism issue is a very notable aspect surrounding the whole Guantanamo Bay controversy. If it deserves its own article it surely deserves a small section with a link to the main article (in the {{main article}} format. It is important that we not censor and hide facts that do not comport with our world views. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. The {{main}} mechanism should point to the article on this topic, in a section that provides a neutral paragraph or so of context. This article did contain a good section on these claims a couple of years ago. I haven't been following this article closely enough to have noticed its removal. If the person who removed it is still around perhaps they could explain why they did so? Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Herald Tribune does not claim 10%. It says that Pete Hoekstra claims that there are indications that as many as 10 percent of the men released from Guantanamo are "back on the battlefield". What is sourced are Hoekstra's claims, and even those are extremely weak ("indication", "up to"). So if you include this or not: Make sure that you reflect the sources fairly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The 4% recidivism rate is not my opinion but Peter Bergen's based on the number of released prisoners the Pentagon claimed returned to terrorism (if that number is true). He points out that the Pentagon refuses to name them for "security reasons" so experts believe it is doubtful if more than a handfull really did. Wayne (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wayne: I was not clear enough. The "opinions" I was referring to was not the difference in numbers. You think the return to terrorism allegations are unimportant and I think the allegations are important. It's these opinions that are irrelevant if these allegations have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, we can report on this, but we need to avoid framing this in a POV manner, i.e. by accepting the "return" part for people who may never have been terrorists in the first place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! So I take it that we have you on record as supporting the section's inclusion as long as it's clearly shown that all "returns" are allegations. By the way, the deleted section did state explicitly that they were allegations. Also, some of the information about new terrorist activities comes from the former detainees themselves. See this Associated Press article. The terrorist group themselves announced that former detainee Said Ali al-Shihri is now second of command of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have not stated my opinion on the issue yet, because I am on the fence - a) because it seems to be slightly off-topic for the camp article, and b) because I've not seen more external source on this so far. And since when has Al-Qaida been a reliable source? Your reverted edit plainly stated "A number of detainees have returned to attacking US troops and civilians after their release" - no "allegations", no qualifiers - in the lede. The paragraph later on is better, but still accepts the framing of the issue by the Pentagon (one of the directly involved actors) by repeating "return" in a way that makes it unclear if this is the Pentagon's or the editorial voice, and makes a stronger statement than Hoekstra actually did. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I admit that the sentence in the lede was wrongly stated; it should have manifested the "allegations" as in the section. But with all respect, I don't see how this is off-topic. The article is not about the geographic area known as Guantanamo Bay, buy about the process, the controversy, and all its surrounding issues.
There's no history of Al-Qaida lying about its members and leaders (murderers have a tendency to be truthful) so I don't think there's a need to qualify the claims, especially since it has been confirmed by the Pentagon. We have to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a legal brief. Over-qualifying can get kinda silly at times. I don't know if it's the best prose to have a sentence that goes: "According to the Associated Press, the Pentagon and Al-Qaida have confirmed that.........." We're 13 words into the sentence and we haven't begun the point yet. But prose can be discussed at a later time. At this time, we can't claim that the article is WP:NPOV if we are to censor the DOD's POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism claims

I suggest that the use of the term recidivism is highly confusing in this discussion. The usual use of this term is to refer to individuals who were first convicted in a court of law, served out the sentence imposed in a court of law, only to be convicted of a similar crime, after their release.

Only three Guantanamo captives have been sentenced David Hicks, Ahmed Salim Hamdan and Ali al-Bahlul. Hicks and Hamdan have served the very light sentences that were given. Neither one has been charged with a crime following their release. So, by one interpretation of recidivism, the current rate is 0.0 percent.

If you read the transcripts of the Administrative Review Board hearings you will come across repeated instances where a captive answers the allegations against them so fully and completely that the officers reviewing his status have no questions on those allegations. My own personal interpretation is that these were among the innocent men who remain held there, and it was my impression that the officers agreed.

So, what did the ask captives who seem to have established their innocence? (Paraphrasing)

"Okay. We accept you were innocent, and never should have been taken into custody, or sent to Guantanamo. But now we have to decide whether your detention here in Guantanamo has turned you into a threat to the USA. We have to consider that your treatment here, and the company you have been keeping, have radicalized you, and turned you into a threat. Remember, we know you have been tortured, and we know you have been hanging out with dangerous men who hate the USA. So, go ahead -- prove you don't hate us. You have ten minutes."

I think it is confusing to call individuals who entered Guantanamo as innocent bystanders, victims of mistaken identity, or victims of false denunciations, "recidivists", if they became radicalized while at Guantanamo.

Similarly, I suggest it is innately confusing to characterize former captives who are suspected of supporting terrorism, in some fashion, after their repatriation, as "returning to the fight" -- if they were innocent of any association with terrorism when they were first taken into custody. Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does every comment you make on a talk page include some sort of box?

It's annoying.

Can you please make your point without a box? To that end, the box and the rest of your political statement disguised at a comment to the discussion was basically irrelevant. Whether we use the term "recidivism" or "ex-convicts" is a moot-point if this info is removed from the article, which is the issue at hand. Indeed, the removed content, did not use any of terms that you don't like. Can you please offer your opinion about the subject at hand. You put lots of work into Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle, so you obviously feel the topic is notable. Do you feel this topic deserves its own section at this article with a link to the main article or do you think it's really unimportant?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please comply with the wikipedia's policies and conventions, and confine your comments to the issues, and avoid personal criticism?
You seem to have missed the comment where I went on record on how much coverage of this issue this article should have. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It's ironic that you tell me to stick to the issues when you're using this talkpage to spew anti-American propaganda. We're in middle of a discussion about the merits of including a section with the article and your plop down your "comment" smack in middle of the discussion about how the Americans are holding detainees when they realize that the detainees are innocent. This using-a-talkpage-as-a-forum violation is further excaberated by placing half of the comment in an attention-grabbing box. Please don't use talkpages as a forum and please interact with your fellow editors in a civil and normal manner. If you think you have a strong point then just say it. Everyone else manages to state their strong points without attention-grabbing boxes. Please show common courtesy and state your comments the way everyone else does. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And part of the discussion over whether the topic of former captives being accused of "returning" concerned the credibility of the claims in general, and whether captives who had been radicalized after their arrival in the camp could meaningfully be described as "returning to the battlefield". I don't think I owe any apologies for adding to this discussion.
As to whether it was a lapse from Guantanamo policy for the officers who sat on an ARB to recommend continuing to hold captives once they realized that those captives had initially played no role in hostilities -- you are laboring under a misconception. The officers' mandate did not include basing their recommendation on whether the captives established they had initially played no role in hostilities. They were authorized to base their recommendations solely on whether the captive "held intelligence value", and/or whether they posed a threat. So captives who had played no role in hostilities, or in supporting terrorism, could continue to be detained, simply because they held "intelligence value". Credible sources have documented several cases where captives continue to be held, even after being cleared for release, due to their intelligence value. Alternatively the officer's mandate did include recommending continuing to hold captives who may have been apprehended in error, but who were radicalized in the camp. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Geo,
If I may interrupt, which detainee was kept solely because he was radicalized in GTMO even though they had concluded he was innocent?
And for the record, I agree the "battlefield" issue is over the top. My guess is that the people using that term looked at particular instances but not at the numbers.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No problemo. First, let me apologize for using the term "innocent", when I suggested some of the captives had been innocent bystanders. The officers presiding over the CSR Tribunals and Review Boards routinely told the captives that the proceedings were not courts, and they weren't concerned with whether they were innocent.
There are captives who have been reported to have been classified as combatants who were held solely for their intelligence value. If captives were kept after the Review Board officers determined they had been kept in error, that may not have been put into writing -- as it was not part of their mandate. The four hundred Board recommendation memos where about seven pages long, but they were so heavily redacted one can't tell what they based their recommendations on.
At least one captive has been reported to have been held for years after they had been cleared for release or transfer, so they would be available to testify against Salim Hamdan. I count him as one of the captives reportedly held due to his intelligence value.
Intelligence analysts either knew, or should have known that British resident Bisher Al Rawi wasn't a threat. He had been an MI-5 informant. All of his contact with the radical Imam Abu Qatada had been at the direction of his MI-5 handlers. He was in Guantanamo not for anything he did, or even for any ideas he was committed to. So I count him as a captive reportedly held just for intelligence value.
Guantanamo held several Iraqi captives. At least one of them told their Tribunal he thought the only reason he was being held was that, as a former conscript into the Iraqi military US military intelligence thought he could inform them of the details of Iraqi training methods.
What should the USA have done if they realized that captives who had been apprehended in error had been radicalized in custody? I don't know. My understanding of the GC is that if President Obama returns to compliance with the GC, and he holds new Tribunals that comply with the GC, like the AR-190-8 Tribunals, the USA can continue to hold anyone the GC compliant Tribunals determine were combatant prior to capture, and would be under no obligation to lay charges against them. But those radicalized while in US custody? I think if the Obama administration decides upon full compliance with the GC they would have to be let go.
I asked some of the questions we have discussed here recently when Karen J. Greenberg hosted a live discussion on Guantanamo on the Washington Post. [1] Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I also believe we were holding some people more for their intelligence value, but this isn't the same thing as innocence, and it doesn't mean they're not on the other side. I don't have any sympanthy for them. If that proverbial little old lady who funds terror isn't forthcoming with her contacts, her reluctance to be forthcoming shows where she stands.
I have a different take on the detainee who stooled for the British. I'm sure you recall Cheney's famous quote about the "dark side." It's now mischaracterized by his critics, naturally, but back when he said it the discussion was about undoing the "Torricelli principle." That was a law that restricted the CIA's use of informants so that they weren't paying money to killers without authorization from the higher levels. Cheney said we do sometimes need to work on the dark side. That's the kind of world they operate in. That this British detainee was formerly such an asset could be more damning than exonerating.
I don't see much chance Obama would declare these detainees to be POWs. We are in compliance with Common Article 3, and that's all we need. The difference between a CSRT and an AR-190-8 is negligible. They have the same officers, the same rules for evidence, and the same burden of proof. The only substantive difference is that we would have to treat them as POWs afterwards, and there is no way Obama wants to do that. (You may have noticed he allowed himself some wiggle room on interrogations.) It wouldn't stop the detainees' lawyers anyway. They'll just go after him for something else.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, there's a very sensible explanation why they use the term "battlefield". Looking at the Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle, the initial ones were all the types who we would describe as having been captured on a battlefield, and then returned to battle after their release.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the teenage boy who was one of the second set of three captives whose names were made public -- he was determined to be an enemy because he was carrying a "Taliban letter". The McClatchy News Service interviewed 66 former captives last year. At least a dozen of the captives feared repercussion from the Taliban, due to their relatively early release, that they had moved to Kabul, or to other Provinces. I have read reports of former captives being murdered by the Taliban, based on rumors they had been too cooperative with their American captors. My guess is that this letter may only have been a safe conduct pass, and may not have implied the kid had any sympathy for, or involvement in, any Taliban activity. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Messenger boys are combatants (and could be valuable under interrogation). I don't doubt that a lot of these detainees are under duress, and I can feel sorry for them, but that goes for a lot of real soldiers of enemy countries.
Your real point, that their return to "battle" doesn't mean they're all bad guys, is a good one. But in the sense that the list is being used as evidence that they shouldn't have been released, this doesn't invalidate that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a recent article on the recidivism claims.[2] Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of the "returned to the fight" claims

How credible are the claims?

The number of returnees Bush administration and DoD spin doctors, and their apologists, claimed "returned to the battlefield", "returned to terrorism", "returned to the fight", "returned to supporting terrorism", keeps growing.

"Returned to the battlefield" is the original claim, now dropped. Why, because it is not credible? Only a few dozen captives in total, were captured on the battlefield. The original claims that the captives "were all captured on the battlefield" is simply not supported by the OARDEC documents.

In March and May 2007 we have two separate DoD officials giving very different accounts of how many former captives had engaged in bad stuff, following their release or repatriation. In March 2007 we have a non-spin-doctor state: I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight.

Two months later spin-doctors went on record that the number was "over thirty" -- no mention that only twelve of those instances were actually confirmed. The over thirty number was the widely repeated number, until the spin-doctors upped their claim again. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using articles and talkpages to spew your anti-American hatred. Accusing the Americans of keeping detainees in Guantanamo Bay (subsection above, in the box) after they realized that they were innocent is an extreme POV propaganda and has no place here at Wikipedia. Further rants about "spin doctors" are of no relevance to article improvement. Whether the DOD allegations are true or not does not make a difference. The only issue here is whether the allegations have received significant coverage in reliable sources. The allegations are verifiable in multiple independent news sources. The censorship of this information after this article is full of every allegation made by the detainees is a horrible and egregious WP:NPOV violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth. This does not mean we repeat the spokesman's official line, without question, even if it is more widely reported than other official versions. Drawing attention to an alternate official figure is not "spewing anti-American hatred".
I am already on record as agreeing that the reports of former captives being accused or suspected of engaging in terrorism, or engaging in ordinary hostilities, merits neutral coverage on the wikipedia. I am already on record as agreeing that a small section here should provide context, and a link to the main article on this topic. I started a section on this topic in this article, several years ago. And I remain interested in an explanation as to how it came to be removed. I wouldn't call the removal of material on this topic censorship, when it could be a good-faith difference of opinion. This is the same courtesy I have extended to you, following your own large and poorly explained, or entirely unexplained, excisions.
I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to make a greater effort to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies. Please understand that when you lapse from compliance with the wikipedia's civility policies you tempt others to respond in kind. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said that we have to "we repeat the spokesman's official line, without question". The section that I placed into the article clearly emphasized that they were all allegations. If anyone relies too much on the DOD as a source it's the editor that has created hundreds of memorials for Guantanamo Bay detainees based solely on DoD documents.
Ironically, you accuse me of making "large and poorly explained, or entirely unexplained, excisions". I have yet to remove one word from this article. My additions have been deleted, yet you attack me.
In summation, using this talk page as your anti-America pulpit violates the WP:TALK policies. Creating a strawman argument and falsely accusing your fellow editor of removing material violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This back and forth posting has reduced this discussion to something akin to a sub-par politics and current events forum. The bulk of Geo Swan's postings seem to be criticisms and accusations directed towards brewcrewer, which in turn spawns less than encyclopedic (ie accusations of propaganda) counter-criticisms and accusations towards Geo Swan from brewcrewer. Both sides should clean up their act. It states very clearly at the top of the page that this is a discussion page for improvement of a Wikipedia article, not a forum. While I believe that brewcrewer is not reacting to the situation in the most professional manner, I also think that Geo Swan is in fact injecting his own political POV into this discussion. Geo Swan is violating Wikipedia policy by tying to assert some of his points of view (which he is entitled to) as NPOV, while brewcrewer is violating Wikipedia policy by assuming bad faith in asserting that Geo Swan's motivation is to "Spew anti-American hatred". Both sides are creating a problem, and both sides should clean up their acts. Tominator93 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia needs to mention is 4% to 10% of prisoners released had later interactions with terrorism. To stay neutral we cannot say that they "became terrorists" or "were terrorists" even though I personally believe both are true.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FAS Habeas Corpus Report

Tried to access FAS report today after googling 'guantanamo habeas corpus'. Per front page:

[PDF] Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by JK Elsea - 2010 - Cited by 2 - Related articles U.S.C. § 2241, provided federal courts with jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions by or on behalf of persons detained at Guantanamo. ... www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf - Similar

Kept failing to access the actual report ('server issues') but it would seem that this report is related. I have labelled the reference as 'retrieved' with the info above, not sure if that is correct. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dirty Potest

it should be noted in the article that the prisoners are now using a form of dirty protest against the guards buy smearing and throwing feces at guards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_protest Xylon.doulas (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not new. These fascists have been doing that for years.
There's no punishment for it either. The guards just have to put up with it.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
How did you know?173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The tossing of fecal material isn't new. It was pretty common while I was there in 05. c.elhardt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celhardt (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible closing of Guantanamo Bay detention camp?

I realize this is not a forum for general discussion of whether Guantanamo should be closed, whether persons deserve to be there, or whether the U.S. is complying with international law. However, I do find it to be relevant and newsworthy that President-elect Barack Obama plans to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office.[1] According to the cited article, "Obama is planning to ship dozens of terror suspects from the prison to face criminal trial in the US as part of a plan to shut the jail down. It is a controversial move but one that demonstrates how abruptly he plans to change Washington in terms of policy, personnel and tone the moment he enters the Oval Office." I am not sure how to incorporate this information into the article, especially since it appears to be such a sensitive topic. However, again, I do feel this is important to the history of the detention camp, so someone more familiar with Guantanamo Bay may want to find a way to incorportate this. Thanks! Whataworld06 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an updated post in the 'future' section? Last post stated Obama will close the detention camp sometime in 2010....umm, it's Feb 14 2011 right now. I would also like to see a post about how this camp is one of the most respected detention centers in the world, clearly the inmates refusing to go to Thompson would be evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.192.186 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barack Obama plans quick transfer of Guantanamo Bay suspects to US Retrieved on November 9, 2008

Obantanamo

People named the camp as "Obantanamo." It is being used on the web and in personal communications. It should be noted in the article.

Example here:Göller, Magnus. "His kingdom come" (HTML). Neues aus Hammelburg. News from Hammelburg. Retrieved 01 February 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)--98.199.22.63 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

calling for discussion

A contributor with a short contribution history made this series of edits -- some of which I think may go too far. I made a reversion. Personally, I too think the homicide accusations merit attention. However, the idea that the deaths weren't suicides, as the camp authorities claimed at the time, it is a minority view. Although I personally think it merits attention I don't want to see it get WP:UNDUE weight.

I think the whole series of edits, since they are by a newbie, who may not have had a chance to learn the ropes, should be looked at closely.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some of the sections that point to other articles could and should be reduced. For instance, the sections (and subsections) with regards to Detainees, Suicides and suicide attempts, Reported suicides of June 2006, Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and Guantanamo military commission, all point to other main articles. These sections(subsections) could be easily be reduced by removing duplication and condensing information into a brief summary. Also the introduction is rather long and should probably be condensed/edited some. User:Aneah 14:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

under "detainees" it says "Since January 2002, 779 men have been kidnapped and brought to Guantanamo." "kidnapped" seems like a pretty loaded word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.30.2 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Merger proposal

I propose that Cuban refugees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base be merged into Guantanamo Bay detention camp as a subsection. I think that the content in the Cuban refugees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base article can easily be explained in the context of Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Cuban refugees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. DBigXray 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; that article has little to do with the detention camp. If anything, merge it with the (also much smaller than this) article Guantanamo Bay Naval Base where it'd fit. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that both of these solutions would have political undertones, diminishing the independence of "Guantanamo Bay detention camp" as a single article, easily discovered by search engines. Keep it unchanged and keep Wikipedia free of bias. Universaladdress (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


I have to disagree as well. The base has been in existence long before Castro came into power. When he came into power and ordered the gates closed, that is when Cuban began to come to the base as refugees. Until the building of the temporary facility for holding Haitian Refugees. The only 'detainment' center prior to the temporary facility at Camp Bulkely and then the permanent facility later established at the same place, there exists a small brig that was located in the area known as Hospital Point.
I think that many of us would agree that someone seeking political asylum, which is a voluntary act is significantly different from someone who is being held against their will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneah (talk • contribs)
  • I too agree that the explanation for this merge proposal is weak, and that even a merge to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base would not be a good idea, as (1) refugees are a separate, non-military topic; (2) the existing article is already too large for it to make sense to shoehorn more topics into it.

    The {{mergefrom}} tag has already been removed from this article, and I removed the {{mergeto}} tag. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Torture claim by David Hicks

Another editor removed this text and references from the article:

David Hicks also made allegations of torture and mistreatment in Guantánamo Bay, including stress positions, extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation and medical experimentation.[3] [4]

This claim is sufficient verified by the given references. I do believe this editor has no clue how WP:V works. I reverted him but he does not follow WP:BRD and keeps deleting without making his case here on the talk page and without consensus. NinaDownstreet (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The affidavit given by Hicks - and republished in the Sydney Morning Herald - is a primary source. Looking at WP:PRIMARY, we find:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

The difficulty here is that the summary quoted above is not supported by the newspaper article supplied as a secondary source, and is a selective interpretation of the primary source. As such, it is counter to wikipolicy and cannot remain.
As a quick check, I invite editors to pull up the article cited and search for the phrases "stress position", "extreme temperature", "sleep deprivation" and "medical experimentation". The words "stress", "temperature" and "sleep" by themselves are also zero hits. "medical" is found in the phrases "medical journal" and "medical records", neither of which could be read as "medical experimentation" by a reasonable person. Doing the same for the affidavit, we also get zero hits on all four phrases. Obviously there is some interpretation going on to make the claims that User:NinaDownstreet is determined to edit-war over. Perhaps they could explain their insistence on going against policy. A WP:BLP violation, I also note.
I also caution the apparently new editor User:NinaDownstreet against making personal attacks. Always best to discuss the content rather than each other, what? --Pete (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry when you feel you have been attacked, that was never my intention. To be honest i feel also a bit stressed by your behavior.
I read that "Policy...". You claim the text is an interpretation of the primary source? I do not think so. I believe it "makes straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"
Hicks claims of stress positions, extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation and medical experimentation are simple facts and can be extracted from his sworn affidavit without interpretation. (The medical stuff is verified in the secondary source)
The text may need some tweaking but to completely deleting it seems to me distracting. A simple Google search easily shows that he made a lot of torture claims and editing the text and adding additional references seems to me the way to go.
How much do you know about the Hicks case? Do you actually doubt he has made these kind of claims? He has repeated them once and once again, including in his Book. Did you search for sources before deleting the text?
Accusing me of BLP violation seems a bit laughable. Please explain what living person has been harmed?
Last question for the start.
Do you believe to say "David Hicks made allegations that he had been beaten." would be an unacceptable interpretation of "I have been beaten before, after, and during interrogations."?
How about we work together and fix this text together by editing and adding additional references?
Cheers NinaDownstreet (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I invite editors to google "David Hicks" in combination with words like "stress position".[5]. "David Hicks" "sleep deprivation" [6]. "David Hicks" "extreme temperature" [7]. "David Hicks" "drug experimentation" [8] To me it seems pretty easy to find sources for his claims. (Just for the start) I almost guess at the end we have to extend the section about his torture claims a bit. NinaDownstreet (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there are sources for the material out there. My point is that the sources you provided did not support the material regarding Hicks. That's a clear BLP violation right there. There are any number of regular editors patrolling this article, and you may find better - more informed - advice and coöperation coming from that direction. My interest in Gitmo is minimal, but if one wants to claim torture there, then the same activities may be found in any military unit, correctional facility or Boy Sprout troop. --Pete (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That is an amazingly wrong and stupid statement. The Boy Scouts may have their problems, but they don't include forced medication with psychoactive drugs, or forcing people to run in leg shackles, or even blindfolding them and smashing their head into the asphalt. As for the use of primary source: We do not allow interpretation, but we also do not require literal replication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a little tongue in cheek there, as I had sleep deprivation in mind, and rousting the weary lads out of their cosy sleeping bags at reveille is the usual method of starting off a camp morning. However, I wouldn't be too sure about any of the other activities so blithely rejected. Drug administration is a common activity, as are "three-legged races" and blindfolding. The occasional smashed juvenile head may be encountered, though generally not as an act of official policy, which I imagine is also the case in GB. Thing is, you set the definition of torture wide enough to include certain activities, you also find the exact same activities in other US institutions such as the military and in prisons. Military prisons the world over are generally extremely uncomfortable places for the inmates.
Returning to David Hicks, I'm happy to go along with reasonable summarisation or paraphrasing. I just object when our article says one thing and the sources another. Find more exact sources or better wording, and I'll be a happy camper. On that note, may I also extend the reminder about WP:NPA to you? Ad-hominen arguments are better suited to other communities, don't you think? --Pete (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The military's position is that the prison is more comfortable for the inmates than for the soldiers serving there; better food, better health care; that the soldiers often act waiters and waitresses. The purposes are to gather information, and to keep the prisoners from the battlefield, not to punish, hurt, or demean them. (Inside Guantanamo by col.Cucullu)( Martin | talk • contribs 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
Let me also add: that the criticisms to the claims of torture seem to be these two: 1) that Hicks does not say he was tortured, and 2) even if he did, we need a secondary source to say it. In either case, here is an article about that[9]. The dangerous side effects of lariam are quite well known. This American Life has a story on it.( Martin | talk • contribs 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
I personally think to repeatedly delete easily verifiable (with one google search} torture claims of a living person (David Hicks) is a gross violation of BLP policy. Please do preserve material that can be easily verified. Rephrasing and additional references easily do the trick and help to preserve content. I tweaked the text a bit and added tons of sources. Please feel free to further improve the text and references. NinaDownstreet (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. You're getting there. Where, precisely, does Hicks say he was "tortured"? If he doesn't say he was tortured, we can hardly claim that he did, now can we? You've got some interesting wikihabits there, by the way. --Pete (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The two references that you have moved from the word torture to the end of the sentence verify this. I guess you did not read them. I directly added the refs to the word torture so that you and other can easily verify it. In case you read it please let us know why you think that these two references would not verify that he alleges torture. NinaDownstreet (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I read them very carefully. I also read Hicks affidavit, to which both articles refer. Where, precisely, does Hicks say he was "tortured"? If he doesn't say he was tortured, we can hardly claim that he did, now can we? --Pete (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Text to verify:
David Hicks made allegations of torture
References::
1) "Australia's Hicks alleges torture"
2) "Allegations by Australian terrorist suspect David Hicks of torture at Guantanamo Bay..."
3) "David Hicks has renewed allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaDownstreet (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
No offense. Are you kidding me? NinaDownstreet (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Where, precisely, does Hicks say he was "tortured"? He doesn't make any such claim in the affidavit which you removed as a source. If he doesn't say he was tortured, we can hardly claim that he did, now can we? --03:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I have given you three secondary sources. I have quoted you the relevant text from each of these three secondary sources.
1) "Australia's Hicks alleges torture"
2) "Allegations by Australian terrorist suspect David Hicks of torture at Guantanamo Bay..."
3) "David Hicks has renewed allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay,..."
No need to discuss primary sources and no need to speculate how secondary sources gather and verify their information, all three secondary sources verify "David Hicks made allegations of torture". NinaDownstreet (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. All the sources refer to Hicks' affidavit. He does not say he was tortured. He says, "This Affidavit provides an outline of the abuse and mistreatment I have received...". If Hicks in his own words does not say he was tortured, then any secondary source saying otherwise is an interpretation. I refer you to WP:BLP and WP:V. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
You are engaging in original research based on your interpretation of one primary source (affidavit). Forget the primary sources and forget your interpretation of the primary source. That is WP:OR at it's best. We have now three secondary sources that do the interpretation. All three say Hicks alleges torture. Please do read WP:V and WP:OR secondary sources do the interpretation and they verify "Hicks alleges torture". NinaDownstreet (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understand wikipolicy, and clearly you have your own rigid ideas. Let's get some more eyes on it. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Guantanamo Concentration Camp Entry

Guantanamo is a concentration camp and as such should be labelled and get a search word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.23.22 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV. Not really a common alternate name. The only people who might be calling it that are those who support the jihad.
Admittedly, there are a lot of those, but most of them call it "Guantánamo."
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Both "concentration camp" and "detention camp" are fairly similar. Detention camp - "a compound where prisoners are detained temporarily, as pending determination of their legal status under immigration laws." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detention+camp. Concentration camp - "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration+camp. One definition is fairly neutral while the other, is also neutral, draws the connotation of being similar to camps set up during World War 2 by the Nazis. To keep NPOV, I think the more generic definition of "detention camp" would be apropos. User:Aneah 03:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the entire entry for Concentration Camp now redirects to Nazi Concentration Camps, although there is still an entry for the British Concentration Camp used in the Boer War. Obviously Guantanamo is a Concentration Camp, and obviously there should be an entry for the generic term Concentration Camp. I suspect that neither amendment will be made while the direction of Wikipedia's English language version is determined largely by Americans. It illustrates the shortcomings of the original Wiki ideal. Glachlan (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
PS, I am neither a Muslim nor a supporter of Jihad; simply an historian. Glachlan (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What really violates NPOV is your pathetic little argument, Randy. [[User:|BilalSaleh]] (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support name change to "internment camp" or "concentration camp"; see Wikipedia article on Internment. "Detention" is a euphemistic term used by the U.S. government. "Guantanamo Bay detention camp" is not a proper name and not widely used enough to justify a misnomer on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. groupuscule (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Human Experimentation

Camp 7 is being used for human experimentation. Human subjects are being "hacked" by means of complex radio driven by a supercomputer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.125.210 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Footnote overkill

Does the (presumably) direct quote

"The order also requires compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the international treaty that bans torture and inhumane treatment"

(in the "President Obama's failure to close the camps" section) really require six references? - dcljr (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that whole paragraph (beginning "On 7 March 2011") is pretty badly worded and punctuated, so someone needs to go through it, verify that the quoted material consists of actual quotes, and give the whole thing a good copyedit. Unfortunately, I really don't want to do this myself... - dcljr (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It's also misleading. There was already an order to comply with the Geneva Conventions following the Hamdan decision in 2006. As for "torture," the rough treatment had stopped in 2003.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad edits from March

I found a weird string of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp&diff=556503110&oldid=556429562

I repaired some mistakes from it (most have been cleared up already organically), but someone may want to take a closer look. Could be good faith, or could be someone trying to camouflage bad changes in a huge edit. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

guantanomo bay camp lead being to long

Is it to long if so ill change it up and get more facts for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmp8 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay as earthquake refuge

Look, I have seriously messed up here, but so has the caretaker of this article, by not detailing the base and camp being used a refuge for 2010 Haitian earthquake survivors anywhere in this article. A serious overlook that I think should be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Positive Comments

Among the flood of criticism received by Gitmo, there's been some people supportive of the camp and the conditions of detention there. I added one such example in the criticism part. I also think that part is long-winded and repetitive, not up to encyclopedic standards, especially as it includes many outdated comments and unnecessary statements, such as that lawyers of the detained object to their treatment there (that's why they were hired in the first place). I believe it would much better to condensate and modify that part, describing issues and concrete objections, instead of long-winded rhetoric. Aussiesta (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

'Condensate' is a noun; it is the product of the process of condensation. The verb intended here is: to condense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.121.41 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Section 13 does not have a neutral point of view

"President Obama's failure to close the camps"

This is not a neutral point of view.

It is not exactly verifiable, either, since the references toward the end of the section clearly imply that congress actively prevented President Obama from closing the camps. Furthermore, Obama is not done being President yet, so he hasn't failed for sure, yet.

will it be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:3280:8A:5419:57B0:D614:DAC2 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

In the lead it says "After Obama political appointees at the US Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice advised the Obama administration that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, military guards took the first twenty captives to Guantanamo on January 11, 2009." In the history section, however, the article clearly states that the camp predates the Obama Administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.130.25 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

- I see this entry has been updated to indicate it happened during the Bush administration. However, I think the inclusion of the term "political appointees" is not proper encyclopedia style. It only matters that the office offered the opinion; there is no neutral reason to ask the reader to infer something from the fact that they are political appointees. If no one objects any time soon, I'm going to delete it. Thanks. EECEE (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

>> Michael Lehnert: 'Close Guantanamo'(Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)).

Pictures?

Weren't there pictures of the guards actively torturing the prisoners? Who took them down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.130.18 (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead there are now pictures showing rooms with nice furniture. There must be made some edits by some people with some interest. --00:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.154.249 (talk)
You two seem to be talking about the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article. If there were pictures of actual torture at Guantanamo then the people who claim to oppose torture would certainly display them here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

SERE

In the section discussing SERE and it's origins in the work of Biderman, the article makes an unsourced claim that "almost all" US military personnel receive SERE training. That isn't true. To my knowledge, as a veteran of the US military, only certain personnel with a need for SERE receive it. Examples are pilots, special forces operative, air/naval gunfire liaisons, and others at elevated risk of capture. What would be the best way to correct the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.198.206 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Female guards

"The military now has female soldiers escorting former CIA captives around Guantánamo's high-value prison, an apparent personnel change that defense lawyers say is causing an uproar over religious insensitivity."
86.161.111.126 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

History of Guantanamo

This page is severely lacking in history of the base, and how the local Cuban population exists around the base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:834E:2C90:A123:4DFB:7243:E91C (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That would belong in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

Lede is too loooooong

This should be a summary of the article, engaging readers and directing them via the ToC immediately below to the relevant sections. It should not be an article in itself. Anybody mind if I trim it down to the recommended length? --Pete (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you are right, it does need some trimming. Gandydancer (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean? I have came across references to Guantanamo as the legal black hole, I assume it was intended to mean that. Google didn't help. - Xbspiro (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A black hole is something from which, in a literary sense, nothing can escape — just like light cannot escape from a black hole in the cosmos. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

correction

I removed a sentence from the second paragraph that contained multiple serious errors.

  1. It asserted that Guantanamo contained 220 individuals captured in Afghanistan. This is wildly incorrect. Guantanamo's official roster does list 220 individuals who were citizens of Afghanistan. But to take this figure and assert that 220 individuals were captured in Afghanistan! Yipes!

    Some of the Afghans were captured in Afghanistan, but others were captured in Pakistan.

    Guantanamo also contained a large number of individuals who were citizens of other nations, who were apprehended in Afghanistan. US intelligence officials offered a bounty of $5000 for every foreigner in Afghanistan, without regard to what they were actually doing there.

    After its Taliban guards fled, all the Afghan prisoners in one of the main prisons in Kandahar all walked away and went home. When western journalists visited what they expected to find a deserted prison they found half a dozen foreigners -- desperate individuals who the Taliban had been torturing because they suspected they were western spies. These foreigners gave interviews, where they thanked to USA for invading Afghanistan, and voiced their relief over the promises that the USA was going to send them home. In fact, even though you would think spending years in a Taliban prison because they suspected you were a Mossad or CIA spy would confirm these individuals weren't terrorists, and even though they had been promised repatriation, and the BBC had broadcast their heart-felt thanks, they were foreigners, in Afghanistan, so they qualified for the $5000 bounty, and they too were imprisoned, and sent to Guantanamo.

  2. It asserted that individuals from the Iraq war were transferred to Guantanamo. This couldn't be more wrong.
    1. George W. Bush thought he could strip individuals apprehended in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and those secretly kidnapped by the CIA and Special Forces in neutral countries, were not entitled to the protections of POW status. Individual apprehended in Iraq, on the other hand, were supposed to be accorded the protections of POW status.

      Guantanamo did hold nine Iraqis, but they were Iraqis apprehended in Afghanistan, or neutral countries other than Iraq.

    2. A small number of individuals captured in Iraq were secretly, and according to some legal scholars, illegally, removed from Iraq and held in secret in Afghanistan. But none of them were transferred to Guantanamo.
  3. The sentence I removed failed to address the dozens of individuals kidnapped by the CIA in neutral countries.

This sentence was completely unreferenced. I can only guess that the individual who drafted it was relying on "common knowledge".

I encourage everyone to consider this a serious topic, one that requires a greater effort than shown in this passage. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Who does the actual torturing?

I always wondered is there a rank you have to be do actually do the torturing, is it just random soldiers? Or is there certain people that do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.114.182 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends. For those who oppose the U.S. side in the war, and who claim to oppose torture, they say the lower ranks do the "torturing" but are somehow influenced by the senior leadership in the Bush administration. The actual interrogators do include the enlisted ranks. It is often sergeants, but Damien M. Corsetti (of Bagram, not GTMO) was a PFC.
Keep in mind that, of the authorized techniques, the closest thing to actual torture was waterboarding, and that was a CIA technique. It hasn't used by military interrogators at all.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Randy and others may consider the authorized techniques not to be torture. On the other hand, many of the techniques are officially considered torture by legally sanctioned national and international courts of law. And as John McCain pointed out in 2008, Japanese were hanged by the US for acts of torture which included waterboarding. Twocs (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So Twocs you, and the author of the unsigned comment, are saying that there are authorized torture techniques being used. I was under the understanding that waterboarding was used on 3 detainees but this practice has not been used for many years, and is banned in the military. So only the CIA could get away with it. If detainees are still interogated with torture, then Obama is a serious lier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.170.231 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, torture doesn't require prisoners to be interrogated. The documented (or 'alleged' if you want to prosecute the perpetrators) mistreatment of prisoners at GTMO does constitute torture. Whether this was sanctioned by whitehouse or military officials, or was a case of 'bad apples' is up for debate. It is not true that the only measure regarded as torture would be waterboarding, many of the other techniques used fall under torture as well - under national and international law and agreements. 80.57.192.41 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OP asks what ranks did the torturers hold? Richard Zuley, who tortured Mohammedou Slahi, was a Lieutenant in the USNR, but as part of his attempts to deceive Slahi he dressed up as a USN Captain, claiming to be carrying Slahi a letter direct from the White House.
Sleep deprivation, through waking up captives as soon as they fell asleep, and making them switch cells, a dozen times a day or more, which GIs called the Frequent flyer program continued to be used, unofficially, long after the limited permission to use sleep deprivation had been withdrawn. Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

more problems with the lede

The lede sentence currently says:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, also referred to as Guantánamo, G-bay or GTMO (pronounced 'gitmo'), which fronts on Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

The DoD's official position is that the camp is NOT a "prison" and that the individuals held there are NOT "prisoners". Further, this sentence is unnecessarily long.

Should it be called a prison, when officials assert it is not a prison? Some might argue it should still be called prison anyhow, due to common sense. Alternately, this could be argued is misleading, because it implies to them some connection with a criminal justice facility.

Yes POW camps aren't run by a criminal justice system -- but the USA's official position was that individuals held at Guantanamo could never qualify for POW status.

I ask for comments on this suggested rewording:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a military facility for holding individuals the United States intelligence officials deemed a threat to the USA, or deemed to have "intelligence value". The camp is a separate client facility located within the bounds of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba.

Individuals have been held in Guantanamo merely because they crossed paths with individuals who were suspected terrorists, even when they themselves weren't terrorist sympathizers, and had no idea their acquaintances were suspects. US intelligence officials referred to this as the mosaic theory. Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Guantanamo Bay detention camp which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-close-detention-facility-at-guantanamo-bay-3
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
  • https://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-close-detention-facility-at-guantanamo-bay
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Detention camp?

Wikipedia should not be the mouthpiece of political parties or national interests. Calling Guantanamo a detention camp is newspeak on the level you saw in Pravda in the former Soviet Union. Disgusting. Concentration or internment camp, or simply prison, is much more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It can be misleading as it's indefinite detention, but alternatives are hardly any better. "Prison" implies they are all convicted criminals, which is false. "Concentration camp" usually has little to do with the individual and is simply for large groups of certain people. "Internment" is closer to the truth, but again is used mainly for prisoners. The detainees were never legally imprisoned. "Detainment" remains the most accurate in that aspect. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries as your sole explanation for controversial or complicated edits...

In a recent series of edits Lord Monboddo made some bold revisions to the article. Near as I can tell their only explanation for these bold rewrites was in their edit summaries.

Explaining your edits in an edit summary is fine for non-controversial edits, or simple edits, but it can be a potential trigger for edit warring, when those edits are complicated, or controversial. When your sole explanation is in an edit summary there can be a strong temptation for those who disagree with your controversial edit, or don't understand your complicated edit, to write their reply in their edit summary -- when they revert you. Result? Instant edit war.

I'd appreciate Lord Monboddo returning here, and offering a fuller explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A widely repeated misconception

Lord Monboddo's seems to have introduced new text that contains repeats a very serious common misconception:

"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responded by creating "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs) to determine if detainees were 'unlawful combatants'."

The CSRT, and the later Administrative Review Board hearings, convened by the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants were not set up to determine whether the individuals held at Guantanamo were 'unlawful combatants'. 'unlawful combatants' is a well understood term, in International Law. But OARDEC panels, like the CSRT, were instead set up to confirm that the individuals measured up to a term, the 'enemy combatants'.

All the OARDEC boards had done was confirm that previous even less formal, less well documented determinations that the individuals were "enemy combatants".

When preparing for his 2004 CSRT Moazzam Begg requested that the Geneva Convention official POW card he had been issued be produced. His request was denied. There are multiple memos from James Crisfield, who was then OARDEC's legal advisor, which very clearly state that the CSRT's mandate was only to determine if he met the Bush administration definition of an "enemy combatant".

Crisfield was very clear, status questions related to the Geneva Conventions -- like whether the individual's conduct was "lawful", or "unlawful", were not part of the OARDEC mandate.

In 2008, Navy Captain Allred, and Army Colonel Brownback, the Presiding Officers in the cases of Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan, ruled they lacked the jurisdiction to Preside over their cases, under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Why? Because the 2006 Act only authorized trying individuals who had been determined to have been "illegal enemy combatants". Up until that point none of the indivduals held at Guantanamo had been determined to be either "illegal combatants" or "illegal enemy combatants".

So, Lord Monboddo, this is a very serious error. Yes, I know other people routinely make this mistake, even the members of the US Congress, who passed the MCA. Nevertheless, let's not incorporate misconceptions, as truths, simply because they are widely repeated, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, why the PC term of detention camp?

How have been tortured during detention? Concentration camp in line with torture. I know this is the American Wikipedia, but the bias is disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump Statements

Removing this statement from the section 'President Trump's statements on the camp':

"including American ISIS supporters. Critics fear this will lead to American Muslims being deprived of their constitutional rights."

The New Yorker article that is used as a reference says this: 'According to a leaked memo obtained by CNN, those prisoners will include American isis supporters—which, critics say, will likely mean American Muslims, deprived of their constitutional rights.'

As it stands, the statement is hearsay. The memo is not referenced, it's author is unknown, it's validity is unknown. Attributing it as a definite 'statement' by a specific person is entirely invalid.

Feel free to produce more definite proof (A link to the memo this article is referencing).

Jonathan12456 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why no Omar Khar?

Just reading this article looking for information on Omar Khadr, and was surprised to see he is not mentioned. As a high profile and contentious ex child-detainee, I would think information on him should be included in the article. There is mention of other Western nationals and their legal cases. His case as a child is unique, to my un-comprehensively researched knowledge, adding relevance and interest through his addition. Furthermore, I do not know of any other ex-detainee who has had wrongs against them suffered at Guantanamo Bay redressed, further making his case interesting and unique. If these last two points do not make his case unique, then there is a trend to the post-happenings of ex-detainees, and perhaps those trends then are deserving of inclusion in the article. Christophane (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Terribly over-complicated article now

Article is way too verbose and convoluted, obviously obfuscated by apologists. If Trump is so against Obama, why has he not shut the place down as promised? 31.127.242.135 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Gitmo

The claims of human rights violations at Gitmo are unsubstantiated and yet are stated here as "facts". Once again, Wikipedia shows itself to be a socialist propaganda tool. Soundemperor (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The perpetrators have just not been prosecuted. That was a decision by Obama. A horrible decision, but nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox concentration camp should be replaced with Infobox prison

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
Map
LocationGuantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba
Coordinates19°54′03″N 75°05′59″W / 19.90083°N 75.09972°W / 19.90083; -75.09972
Opened2002
CountryUnited States of America

The only source cited in the article affirming that Gitmo is a "concentration camp" is a 2008 citing Fidel Castro [10]. Surely, this cannot be sufficient to label it as such in Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, I propose to replace the current {{Infobox concentration camp}} with an {{Infobox prison}}. JBchrch (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikiblame informs me that this is a recent edit [11] by a special purpose account and not a longstanding, consensual decision. So I am going to treat it as a bold change and revert it back to {{Infobox prison}}. --JBchrch (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protect this

This subject is real controcomplicaded (controversial and complicaded) and vandals may come, so I think we should semi-protect it. 188.151.55.33 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, pages are generally not protected "pre-emptively". They only get protected in case of actual, persistent vandalism. JBchrch (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Guantánamo or Guantanamo in text?

A Google search of *.gov shows a mix of both. JTF Gitmo shows no accent. Whichever is chosen, it should be consistent within the article unless referring to external documents or other articles. Facts707 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Biderman's chart

I stumbled upon this statement in the article:

"(Biderman did not have a PhD in Sociology [usually the minimum qualification required to carry out such work] and the underlying research was not subjected to peer-review)"

I don't know the purpose of this statement (it's not obvious from context), nor about the truthfulness of it. But having a PhD is certainly no requirement to do research.

Chicag(M)oe (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Operating procedures" section removal

The "Operating procedures" section is about 1,000 words long. More than 900 words are devoted to a single, 1,000-word article in the New York Times from 2008. As far as I can determine, no other significant news sources ever even covered this "story", such as it is. I don't believe that the information within is WP:DUE.

The only other part of the section—the first paragraph—is equally troublesome: it makes sweeping claims is based solely on a primary source, to which there are no active links, claiming that a manual "is the main document for the operation of Guantánamo Bay" despite the fact that said manual dates back to 2003 and has been known to be out of date for 15 years.

Given that the section has exactly zero reliably sourced information about the actual "operating procedures" of the article's subject, I propose removing it entirely—and welcome any input or discussion. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Senate Report on CIA Torture

“Rectal rehydration,” also referred to as “rectal feeding,” involved inserting a tube into detainees’ anal passage and “feeding” them. Sometimes this was done in response to a hunger strike and at other times was used as a means of “behavior control.” “At least five CIA detainees were subjected to ‘rectal rehydration’ or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity.” These detainees were: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), Majid Khan, Abu Zubaydah, and Marwan al-Jabbur.

Descriptions of “rectal rehydration” are provided for two detainees, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Majid Kahn. For al-Nashiri, the nutrient supplement Ensure “was infused into al-Nashiri ‘in a forward-facing position with head lower than torso.'” Majid Kahn was rectally fed two bottles of Ensure and “[l]ater that same day, Majid Kahn’s ‘lunch tray’ of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.”

The CIA “defends the use of rectal rehydration as a ‘well acknowledged medical technique.’” However, “detainees were subjected to rectal rehydration, without evidence of medical necessity,” and medical experts say that it is never medically necessary, “since the rectum is an inefficient way to absorb nutrients.” The risks from rectal rehydration “include damage to the rectum and colon, triggering bowels to empty, food rotting inside the recipient’s digestive tract, and an inflamed or prolapsed rectum from carless insertion of the feeding tube. Detainees “Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash and Adnan al-Libi were threatened with rectal rehydration,” further undermining the CIA’s claim that its use was purely medical.

The report notes that “CIA medical officers discussed rectal rehydration as a means of behavior control.” In KSM’s case, the CIA “Chief of Interrogations…ordered the rectal rehydration of KSM without a determination of medical need, a procedure that the chief of interrogations would later characterize as illustrative of the interrogator’s ‘total control over the detainee.’” In some cases rectal rehydration was used before it was authorized by CIA Headquarters, but “Headquarters failed to respond, inquire, or investigate.” https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/senate-report-cia-torture/rectal-rehydration

This article doesn't accurately reflect the level of depravity at Gitmo. Unlike the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse page. Granted, the latter has undeniable photos, making it impossible to minimize what went on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of detainees at the end of the Bush Administration

The Bush Administration classified the exact number of detainees at Guantanamo, so official figures are not available. The prior text said there were "about 245" detainees at the end of the Bush Administration and had a "citation needed" flag. On December 16, 2008, the Administration said officially that there were "about 250" detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Brookings concluded that there were 248 detainees at Guantanamo on that date, so I edited "about 245" to "about 250" and added the Brookings citation. Checkpoint42 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Second courtroom

The article relies on a December 2021 New York Times article from Carol Rosenberg about the second courtroom building at GTMO which says observers will not have access. Rosenberg later updated this statement on Twitter to say that a new design will include a gallery like the main courtroom. Rather than explain this minor point, I am updating the paragraph to leave out the discussion of an observer gallery. Checkpoint42 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp/Archive_3&oldid=1253945873"