Talk:Administrative detention

Comments
I don't have a really good source at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that the 1979 law is only used within the green line. In the OT, the legal basis is the 1945 emergency regulations as modified by a sequence of military orders. --Zerotalk 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When I entered information about terrorists released from Guantanamo who went straight back to Yemen and began helping with terrorist activities again - I wanted to put a link to ABC News there, but I'm not very good at this kind of thing. Sorry. If you Google "Yemen terrorists released from Guantanamo" you will find an article on ABC's website about this.69.149.41.137 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some very odd thinking is going on on this page. My recent small edits likely to send a few knees jerking.
1) It seems quite odd that this broad trans-epoch topic rises to the status of being a project of the two on top. Yes administrative detention is practiced in Israel/Palestine and is a controversy t here but there seems to be a reversal of the genera/species hierarchy in placing them on top. Is Israel the only state in the whole wide world practicing administrative detention? Is it the most reckless one? What about Mubarak's torture cells?

Well, maybe I am just showing my ignorance there. Pardon my newbie-ishness.

The real substance of my remark follows:

2) I made several corrects of over-broad statements and statements which proffered examples as if they were the sole instances of the case which they were offered to exemplify.

I am arguing this here as well as in comment because my recent experience is that the more months and years one has on wikipedia, the more titles and privileges and authorizations, and the more doo dads on one's userpage, the more weight their opinions seem to carry and the more recklessly they get to edit and delete.

My edits are based on fairly extensive background in law and human rights and I will be interested to see if there are the usual flurry of wounded innocents reverting them with a lot of mumbo jumbo designed to skirt the facts, issues and nomenclature of the real world of human rights law and habeas corpus. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As far as I can see, the articles Extrajudicial detention and Administrative detention discuss exactly the same topic and should be merged. - htonl (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support practically the same. gidonb (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , I've explained, elsewhere, my very strong reservations about this merge proposal. I am also disturbed by the edit summary you used here - "Merged content to Administrative detention. See Talk:Administrative detention#Merger proposal."  Am I missing something?  I don't see where you, or anyone else, made any effort to merge anything.


 * Some people hold the opinion that controversial practices like torture, extraordinary rendition, and, of course, extrajudicial detention are normal, routine, legal practices. This is not a neutral opinion.


 * Legal scholars recognize that there is a crucial distinction between administrative detention and extraordinary rendition. Countries that follow the rule of law, that also use some form of administrative detention, have rules as to when and how it can be used.  The UK, for instance, has a rarely used form of administrative detention it uses when a non-citizen who security officials argue represents a serious risk, can't be deported to their country of citizenship, because of a realistic fear they will be tortured or killed there.  These individuals can't be charged, and tried, because there is no evidence they have committed a crime.  Security officials have to follow a procedure for applying to take them into custody.  Their applications might be turned down.  And there are rules for how the captives should be treated, in custody.


 * Extrajudicial detention is different from administrative detention, as there are no checks and balances, no review, no meaningful protections to the individuals being detained. As with the individuals swept up into the CIA's archipelago of black sites, or the individuals shipped to Guantanamo, those taking the individuals captive had the power to do so, and no one was stopping them, so they grabbed them.


 * Since you didn't actually do any merging, there is nothing to unmerge, at Administrative detention. I think your redirection should be reversed.


 * Here are some scholarly papers that I think make clear that extrajudicial detention is controversial in ways administrative detention is not. Geo Swan (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. You're asking me to recreate why I did something 5 years ago.  Looking at the mergedto article prior to the merge, and comparing it to the mergedfrom article, what I can surmise is there really wasn't anything of substance to merge. The lead in the mergedto material was already covered by the lead in the mergedfrom article, the two Habeas Corpus sentences were uncited, but the concept was covered in the US portion of the mergedfrom article, as was the material in the Detention section.  While the section header states it is about several democratic countries both citations only dealt with the U.S.  However, you are correct that I should have at the very least copied the two sources from the merged article into the U.S. article, and created a new See also section.  They don't add anything to the text of the article, but they do provide researchers with more places to look. Onel 5969  TT me 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're asking me to recreate why I did something 5 years ago.  Looking at the mergedto article prior to the merge, and comparing it to the mergedfrom article, what I can surmise is there really wasn't anything of substance to merge. The lead in the mergedto material was already covered by the lead in the mergedfrom article, the two Habeas Corpus sentences were uncited, but the concept was covered in the US portion of the mergedfrom article, as was the material in the Detention section.  While the section header states it is about several democratic countries both citations only dealt with the U.S.  However, you are correct that I should have at the very least copied the two sources from the merged article into the U.S. article, and created a new See also section.  They don't add anything to the text of the article, but they do provide researchers with more places to look. Onel 5969  TT me 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're asking me to recreate why I did something 5 years ago.  Looking at the mergedto article prior to the merge, and comparing it to the mergedfrom article, what I can surmise is there really wasn't anything of substance to merge. The lead in the mergedto material was already covered by the lead in the mergedfrom article, the two Habeas Corpus sentences were uncited, but the concept was covered in the US portion of the mergedfrom article, as was the material in the Detention section.  While the section header states it is about several democratic countries both citations only dealt with the U.S.  However, you are correct that I should have at the very least copied the two sources from the merged article into the U.S. article, and created a new See also section.  They don't add anything to the text of the article, but they do provide researchers with more places to look. Onel 5969  TT me 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're asking me to recreate why I did something 5 years ago.  Looking at the mergedto article prior to the merge, and comparing it to the mergedfrom article, what I can surmise is there really wasn't anything of substance to merge. The lead in the mergedto material was already covered by the lead in the mergedfrom article, the two Habeas Corpus sentences were uncited, but the concept was covered in the US portion of the mergedfrom article, as was the material in the Detention section.  While the section header states it is about several democratic countries both citations only dealt with the U.S.  However, you are correct that I should have at the very least copied the two sources from the merged article into the U.S. article, and created a new See also section.  They don't add anything to the text of the article, but they do provide researchers with more places to look. Onel 5969  TT me 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're asking me to recreate why I did something 5 years ago.  Looking at the mergedto article prior to the merge, and comparing it to the mergedfrom article, what I can surmise is there really wasn't anything of substance to merge. The lead in the mergedto material was already covered by the lead in the mergedfrom article, the two Habeas Corpus sentences were uncited, but the concept was covered in the US portion of the mergedfrom article, as was the material in the Detention section.  While the section header states it is about several democratic countries both citations only dealt with the U.S.  However, you are correct that I should have at the very least copied the two sources from the merged article into the U.S. article, and created a new See also section.  They don't add anything to the text of the article, but they do provide researchers with more places to look. Onel 5969  TT me 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * (Indenting is weird but this is in response to Geo Swan, not Onel5969.) This article defines administrative detention as, 'arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial, usually for security reasons." The last version of the extrajudicial detention article before it was redirected defined it as, "the detention of individuals by a state, without ever laying formal charges against them. " Those seem identical to me, which is why I proposed the merger.
 * The sources which you provide certainly go towards showing that extrajudicial detention is controversial, but I don't think they show that it is distinct from or more controversial than administrative detention. Indeed the contents of this article, especially the "Protection of the ruling regime" and "Criticism by human rights groups" sections, speak to the controversy over administrative detention.
 * On another note, the extrajudicial detention article before the merger was barely more than a stub. This article has always contained far more information about, for example, Guantanamo Bay than that one did. If you want to talk about moving this article to the title extrajudicial detention I would see no issue with that. - htonl (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Administrative detention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/statistics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914160753/http://topics.nytimes.com:80/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_detention_us/incustody_deaths/index.html to http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_detention_us/incustody_deaths/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Administrative detention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617221231/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org:80/media/usls/2008/alert/115 to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/usls/2008/alert/115
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923154528/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE12/035/2002/en/dom-MDE120352002en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE12/035/2002/en/dom-MDE120352002en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122020525/http://www.eipr.org/en/press/05/opinion%205%7B1%7D.htm to http://www.eipr.org/en/press/05/opinion%205%7B1%7D.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Administrative detention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616123121/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/0724_detention_waxman/0724_detention_waxman.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/0724_detention_waxman/0724_detention_waxman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616123121/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/0724_detention_waxman/0724_detention_waxman.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/0724_detention_waxman/0724_detention_waxman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116191803/http://www.detention-in-europe.org/images/stories/detention%20ireland.pdf to http://www.detention-in-europe.org/images/stories/detention%20ireland.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019163115/http://www.addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=496 to http://www.addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=496

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)