Talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal/Archive 2

Biased background
The "background" section asserts as undisputed fact the point of view of Bush opponents that:
 * the Geneva Conventions "require belligerents to continue to grant the rights of POW status to those prisoners suspected of failing to fulfill the conditions that would afford them POW status, until the belligerent had convened a competent tribunal to make a determination as to their status"

Is this the official view of Wikipedia? Nonsense. It's merely the anti-Bush POV. The article should state that there is a dispute over this point. Then it should give the pro-Bush and anti-Bush points of view. --Wing Nut 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not invent any anti-Bush crowd. Clearly people disagree with what this administration advocates, to state that legal scholars explaining there is no legal basis for what Bush is doing are anti-Bush is inherently POV. The fact somebody cites the GC (aricle 5) that every detainee is considered to be POW untill a competent tribunal decides otherwise is not anti-Bush, it is simply pointing out what the GC says. Or, may we infer from your opposition to discussing the legal consequenses that upholding the rules of law is being anti-Bush? Please refrain from inserting these partisan tactics and first read the relevant article. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the term 'anti-Bush' on this discussion page. I meant it only as shorthand for "people who oppose the Bush administration's interpretation" of the treaty or US law. Okay? --Wing Nut 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that on GC3 art. 5. As I read Hamdan, the question of a "competent tribunal" is still up in the air until detainees are actually tried for something.  The ruling was over article 3, not 5.
 * -- Randy2063 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what he is trying to say is the view for and against both need to be represented evenly. The use of anti or pro is just shorthand for both sides, those that agree and those that disagree. Can we all please keep cool heads and just look for the best way for both sides of the arguement to be presented. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And he's right as far as the default treatment goes. Only detainees that could possibly meet detainee status, i.e. where a doubt is arisen are entitled to default POW treatment.  If no doubt has arisen, there is no need to treat them as POWs or convene an Art V hearing.  I vote we edit it and remove the NPOV tag.  --Robp 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wing Nut, I would really appreciate it if you would make a greater effort to assume good faith. Just because something strikes you as incorrect does not mean you should state it is biased, as a certain fact.  Nescio asked you if you have read article 5 yet.  I asked you yesterday if you had read it.  It is only 86 words long.  Would you please read it before you post again on this topic?


 * Randy, the citations I provided from The Jurist seem to state pretty clearly that Hamdam v. Rumsfeld was about article 5. In fact, it has pride of place in those links.     --  Geo Swan 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero Fault, can you explain what the other side would be? The (short) article 5 I asked Wing Nut to read appears to be quite clear.  And Judge Robertson ruling seems quite clear.  The DoJ appealed it.  The appeals court that Roberts was sitting on, a year ago, overturned Robertson's ruling.  And Hamdan's lawyers appealed it to the SCOTUS.  The Scotus upheld Robertson's ruling.  I think it is fair for the article to paraphrase article 5 as if it were undisputed because it is undisputed.


 * Robp, you have accurately repeated the position that the DoJ took in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. As I am sure you know the SCOTUS ruled against the executive branch.


 * Okay, here is article 5 of the third Geneva Convention, verbatim. I am going to suggest you read it too Robp.


 * '"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.


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


 * John D. Altenburg, the appointing authority for the military commissions, former Deputy Judge Advocate General for the US Army asserted that, in his opinion, "doubt existed" anytime any captive said "I am really a civilian".
 * Geo Swan 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Those Jurist links don't work (or not at the moment anyway) but looking at the dates in their URLs, I would guess that they were later superceded by the appeals court. My understanding is that the SC's ruling left the question on an "GCIII Art. 5 hearing" open for the time being.
 * I could be wrong, of course, but that was the only time I can find "Article 5" being mentioned in the ruling.
 * -- Randy2063 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Geo, your sarcasm grows tiresome. Regardless, Hamdan simply did not address the Article 5 determination. SCOTUS reversed the appellate decision on completely different reasoning from Judge Robertson. Randy is correct; SCOTUS expressly reserved the art. 5 isseue (I'm having deja vu here).  Go look here Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, or, better yet, read the opinion yourself keeping track of who joined what.  Check out footnote 61, it's a blast!  Common Article 3 is NOT article 5.  The "doubt" in Article 5 refers to factual doubt about the status between the captives.  It is not that you, John Altenberg, or the ICRC has a doubt.  They're not a High Contracting Party.  In any case, if NO doubt arises, there's no need to give them the protections.  That is still the position of the US government and Hamdan did not change that at all.  Read Hamdi too.  Hamdi touches on that, Hamdan expressly reserves the question.  I appreciate that you are passionate, but try to detach yourself and use some logic. --Robp 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * i think people misinterpret the word doubt. They argue that the US had no doubt and as such no competent tribunal has to be held. Assuming that is correct, could those advocating there is no doubt answer these question?
 * Does doubt refer to Bush having any doubt, or does it refer to the international community having any doubt?
 * If the United Nations, Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Right Watch, and many more countries and organisations say there is doubt, can the US say there is no doubt?
 * If a suspect not captured on the battlefield vehemently denies all charges, can the US say there is no doubt?
 * If we review the numerous "enemy combatants" that turn out to be innocent (not linked to terrorism, not having fought the US, not being present at any battlefield, et cetera) can the US maintain there is never any doubt as they themselves reverse that designation after being presented with facts contradicting the US position?
 * Is "there is no doubt," not another way of saying "they are guilty untill proven innocent?"
 * Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Robp, Randy, I was wrong and you were right. Stevens did decline to address the article 5 aspect of Robertson's ruling.  I was overconfident.  My apologies.


 * Robp, I saw your comment on my "sarcasm growing tiresome". Perplexed, I looked at User Talk:Robp and your contribution history.  I put a {fact} tag when you asserted that Stevens declined to address article 5.  A {fact} tag is not sarcasm, it is a shorthand for a request for a source.  Your new you said?  Well, you patiently quoted the footnote that backed up your assertion.  But you put it on User Talk:Circeus, not on the talk page of the article where our exchange took place.


 * I guess my first comments addressed to you were   when you were contributing as User:68.52.221.238.  I intended my last paragraph of this comment to be helpful, if you were a well intentioned new contributor.


 * Randy is correct. The wikipedia allows anonymous contributions -- which I imagine would be useful for contributors who lived in a totalitarian country.  But many of us are wary of controversial edits by anonymous contributors because the mechanism also allows some irresponsible people to make edits, while anonymous, that they won't stand behind, or to give the appearance that their view is more widely supported than it actually is.


 * Randy, here are the versions of those Jurist links from google's cache:
 * I don't know why they are 404 today.


 * Robp, I looked at the .pdf you cited - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040707factsheet.pdf. I don't think it backs up the Bush administrations' interpretation that competent tribunals are not necessary if the captors don't have any doubts that a captive was a combatant who didn't qualify for POW status.  You seem to be prepared to defend this interpretation as a reasonable one, and I think you meant to cite this document to substantiate the reasonableness of this interpretation.  Well, could you explain yourself a little more fully?


 * I also looked at the page or so in Army Regulation 190-8 that sets out how the USA convenes competent tribunals. This document can be downloaded from this Army web page.  The URL of the document is http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_8.pdf.  And the section on competent tribunals  is from pages 6, 7 of 86.


 * The DoD may claim that the CSRT was essentiall identical, or indeed superior to, a Geneva Convention competent tribunal just isn't true. I don't believe that the neutral point of view policy requires us to serve as volunteer assistants to the Bush administration's spin doctors.
 * Moazzam Begg's CSRT contains a statement from his Tribunal's President, and another similar statement from the Tribunal's legal advisor, stating, very specifically, that the Tribunals were not authorized to consider whether a detainee was entitled to the protections of Geneva Convention POW status.
 * Detainees are specifically advised that the "Personal Representative" is not on their side, is not their legal representative, and will not keep anything they tell him or her confidential. The Personal Representative serves the Tribunal, not the detainee.  So claims that the CSRTs offer superior protections to Geneva Convention competent tribunals is complete nonsense.
 * In practical terms, all the important activities of the CSRT happened in the closed sessions.
 * If you look up "Other Detainee", in the glossary, on page 37 of AR-190-8, you will find it begins:
 * "Persons in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces who have not been classified as an EPW (article 4, GPW), RP (article 33, GPW), or CI (article 78, GC), shall be treated as EPWs until a legal status is ascertained by competent authority."
 * If you look to subchapter 1-5, General protection policy, on page 5 of AR-190-8, you will find:
 * "''U.S. policy, relative to the treatment of EPW, CI and RP in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces, ias as follows:
 * "''All persons captured, detained, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Armed Forces custody during the course of conflict will be given humanitarian case and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of U.S. forces until final release or repatriation.
 * ''All persons taken into custody by U.S. forces will be provided with the protections of the GPW until some other legal status is determined by competent authority.
 * "''The punishment of EPW, CI and RP known to have, or suspected of having, committed serious offenses will be administered IAW due process of law and under legally constituted authority per the GPW, GC, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial.
 * "The inhumane treatment of EPW, CI, RP is prohibited and is not justified by the stress of combat or with deep provocation. Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation under international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)."


 * So, when the Supreme Court advised the executive branch that the review of the detainees status should follow the model of AR-190-8, did they mean that the DoD should follow it in extending the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all captives "until their legal status has been ascertained by competent authority"?
 * So, when the Supreme Court advised following the model of AR-190-8 did they intend that the new procedure would be authorized to determine whether the detainees met the criteria to be classed as lawful combatants who qualified for POW status? --  Geo Swan 19:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was more the "you should read it(art 5)to robp" thing that got me fired up, but my response was in anger and inappropriate. I apologize for the tone of the response.  Look, I feel we are going in circles.  We're all citing the same documents and claiming they say different things.  In essence, we are merely showing the two positions.  Both should be represented, and given equal weight.  But, I'll play for a bit...


 * It's clear that the AR 190-8 was the model. I did not mean to claim that a CSRT is somehow superior...but rather that it is adequate according to SCOTUS.  And in  Hamdi, Sandy-baby, while only writing for a plurality (there was no majority opinion), said that due process required a factual determination of status.  She discussed the "enemy combatant" standard here:
 * Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict
 * and here:
 * Here the basis asserted for detention by the military is that Hamdi was carrying a weapon against American troops on a foreign battlefield; that is, that he was an enemy combatant. The legal category of enemy combatant has not been elaborated upon in great detail. The permissible bounds of the category will be defined by the lower courts as subsequent cases are presented to them.
 * and we all know how well that worked out. Anyway the argument can be made that SCOTUS, fully aware of article 5, AR 190's and the like, implicitly approved of both the enemy combatant certification and a quasi-ar 190-8 tribunal to get there.  I'll supply your counterargument:  Hamdi was a US citizen, that issue was not before the Court, and, besides, there was no majority opinion.  Other than that, the Court has been somewhat hesitant to address the issue.  So, honestly, who the heck knows what they meant?  Make your argument.  There will be no reference to the right answer, just to the positions.  In that vein, I doubt I will be able to find a cite that adequately justifes the Bush position. Instead, I can only locate than the usual suspects (i.e. the Yoo memos: http://www.antiwar.com/rep/020109_yoomemo_1-10.pdf) that explain the reasoning.  I just want to make sure both sides are represented.  If you have taken my comments otherwise, then I have failed to explain myself sufficiently.


 * As far as the AR 190-8...again the default protection is EPW when there is some doubt. If no doubt, then no need for a temporary protection. It's logical if you think about it. And, in any case, it is very simply argued that the Executive certainly qualifies as a "competent authority" under this joint document.
 * Nomen Nescio, you eloquently make the argument against the Administration's position. But, again, we're arguing about the meanings of words that do not have a legal definition. We have not even begun to get into enforcement mechanism expressly spelled out in the Conventions.  They indicate what needs to happen when one High Contracting Party is challenging another of breach.  Too bad al Qaeda didn't sign.  Regardless, we can argue what Article 5 means until the cows come home, but, the truth is, we're both right and wrong at the same time.  Chicken or egg.  At this point, there is no answer--just opinions, and we know what they're like.  We're staking out the arguments.  Let's make sure the article faithfully reflects both sides of the argument.  We're not going to win or lose the war on Wikipedia.


 * In any case, I think the sordid history of Gitmo is coming to a close. It's so much more efficient to offer rendition, and let countries like Egypt demonstrate their respect fot human rights. (OK, bad joke). The CSRT is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. At least to those of us not in Gitmo.


 * All that being said, I'm having fun here at jihadapedia, or, if you like, Bu$hpigapedia. Sorry for the overly long and repetitive bloviation.  -- Robp 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See also section and below Missing in Action
I was trying to add the war on terrorism template then i noticed that the whole bottom section of the article is missing. Also the war on terrorism template had been added to it a total of 3 times, i reduced this number to one.Hypnosadist 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

revert -- see talk
I reverted this edit.

I am sure it is well intentioned. But it based on a misconception.

The official policy is that each captive got just one CSRT (except for the ones who had secret 2nd and 3rd Tribunals arbitrarily convened to reverse NLEC) determinations. The 558 captives who were in Guantanamo on August 1st 2004 got theirs between August 2004 to January 2005. The captives who arrived on September six got their last winter. The one guy who arrived a couple of months ago hasn't had his yet. But the ones held this year aren't the second round. They are the first and only round for the new arrivals.

In addition to their one and only CSRT, which is the only procedure authorized to confirm or fail to confirm the secret determination that they were "enemy combatations, the captives get an annual Administrative Review Board hearing. It determines whether the remaining captives are considered to represent enought of a threat to the USA for them to be held in Guantanamo.

The CSRTs eventually determined 38 guys were NLEC. So you migh thingk that 520 captive had their first ARB hearings. But it was less than that, because something like fifty or sixty guys where sent home without going through their ARB. So, something like 460 guys went throught their first ARB. And 121 of them were determined to be safe to send home. But they weren't all sent home. Some can't be sent home, because their own governments might very likely kill them, and torture them even more severly than the most sevever torture the most voiciferous critics of Guantanamo think happened in Guantanamo. Uzbekistan is said to torture guys throuh sticking them in boiling oil.

Those who were determined safe to send home don't get a 2nd ARB.

So, something like 375 guys went throught their second ARB. Some dozens of them were determined safe to send home. So something like 300 of the remaining 385 will have a third ARB.

I hope this is clear.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CRST 1st-2nd.


 * Thank you, the edit was well intentioned.


 * There may be a difference between the first and second set of CRST's. The DoD website, however, does not make that distinction in its application of the CRST terminology. Further, the CSRT process and guidelines have not changed and it seems misleading to leave the earlier dates when the fact is that the DoD admits the CRST are ongoing to this day. The newer documentation on the DoD website, of which I am sure you are aware, seems to point in this direction.


 * The entire article probably needs to be revised with better citations. It's a difficult thing to do in terms of citation, especially since the DoD website has so many broken links and information is so frequently removed. Haesae 02:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: In September the DoD published a bunch of new documents.  They published 464 Summary of Evidence (ARB) memos, prepared for the 2005 annual reviews, and 330 memos prepared for the 2006 reviews.  About two thirds of the captives attended their 2004 Tribunals.  Less than half attended their 2005 reviews.  By 2006 attendance dropped to below twenty percent.  The 2005 Boards recommended the repatration of 133 of those 464 captives following their reviews.  The 2006 Boards recommended the repatriation of 55 of the 330 captive following their review.  The record shows that many captives remain in detention, and no longer get reviewed, in spite of being cleared for repatriation.  And the record shows many captives have been repatriated, in spite of their Boards recommending continued detention.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

correction -- see talk
I made this correction.

The earlier wording said the AR-190-8 Tribunals and CSRT were "nearly identical", and implied the differences were trivial. I believe that "nearly identical" is an uncited judgement. So, I changed it to say their mandates differed, without adding my own judgement as to this difference's significance.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

fix reckless editing -- see talk
Someone removed a paragraph about the Bush Presidency original policy on the captive's rights, or lack thereof. But this reckless editor didn't read the section carefully enough to see that SEVERAL paragraphs in that section depended on the reference provided in the paragraph they excised.

If you are going to excise a paragraph, and it contains a reference it is very reckless to fail to check the references section of the article first, and then again afterwards, to see if your excision broke something. Geo Swan 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion please
A single contributor made a series of edits that ended up removing about half the material in this article, with essentially zero explanation. I'd like them to return here explain themselves. I believe some of these excisions are quite controversial, and really require more discussion. Geo Swan 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Murat Kurnaz Section
I took out the section on Murat Kurnaz. It was not directly relevant or useful in understanding the CSRT trails. In addition, it seems that Murat Kurnaz has his own page that better explains his situation and that the all relevant information should be (properly) available in that location. Haesae (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the removal of this section. The information from the accidental release of Kurnaz's dossier is important for understanding the CSR Tribunals.


 * I disagree with Haesae that that CSR Tribunal section of the Murat Kurnaz article better explains the accidental release of his dossier. It does not even mention, this and the subsequent highly significant comments of Green and Fidell.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Geoswan:
 * Murat Kurnaz's information should be on his page. He does not need his own section within this article. Perhaps it would be best to begin a paragraph by saying "When Murat Kurnaz's file was accidentally released it provided additional information that during CSRT hearings. . [etc]" At this point, the Washington Post article cited section on Kurnaz contributes no additional information about the CSRT PROCEDURE.


 * Geoswan: Also, please notice that I said that the information does not directly contribute and that Murat Kurnaz's information should be on his page (not that it was or is on his page.)Haesae (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please follow the indentation convention, so other readers don't have to struggle to figure out who is responding to whom. Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor. Please go re-read the Wapo article.


 * Please explain why you don't consider Fidell's comment important. Please explain why you don't consider Green's comment important.


 * Perhaps some aspect of that section needs updating. I continue to disagree with wholesale excision.  Note: at the time the accidental release of that material very little was known.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, if this section need to be. IMHO its POV to say: "Through a bureaucratic slip-up Kurnaz's file was declassifed." without any source. Who said this? The US government? The German intelligence service? Mr. Kurnaz? The author? A newspaper? ... Please review it. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

explanation
In this edit a contributor made what was no doubt a well-intention but misinformed edit to the purpose of the Tribunals.

I changed it. The Tribunals did not determine whether the captives were "enemy combatants". The DoD spokesmens talking points always emphasized that the CSR Tribunals were merely one of a series of adminstrative procedures; that all the captives had long since been determined to have been enemy combatants, and that the Tribunals merely confirmed their enemy combatant status.

Eliza Grizwold wrote about the early procedures at Bagram. The commandant at Bagram could order officer to convene a "Combatant Status Review Board" -- a less formal administrative procedure than a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. That captives weren't informed of these, let alone being allowed to attend. And they were optional. Some captives had their "enemy combatant" status depend on the opinion of a single officer. Geo Swan (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

All CSRT and ARB pdf links on dod.mil are now dead
All CSRT and ARB pdf links on dod.mil are now dead

I don't know when this happened, but the URL directory tree was changed from www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees to www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee. As an example, Mohamed Jawad's CSRT testimony used to be at: foi/detainees/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33

Now the URL is: foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33

I would think that a bot could be constructed to fix this. Anybody know how? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know how to do that. It's a very good idea with one reservation:
 * The old links can at least be found on the WayBack machine. The new one isn't archived yet. If it disappears, too, we'll need to remember to look at the old one again.
 * BTW: I hate when they move things. It's even worse when they just delete them as though they're short on megabytes in this day and age.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

CSRT and ARB articles, templates, and use of templates in detainee articles
My second discussion topic is more technical in nature. First, the CSRT and ARB articles haven't got much attention lately. They could use a review. Second, the templates for CSRT and ARB's are in the same state. Third, how should these templates be used in detainee articles?

Years ago for most detainees, the CSRT and ARB was the only information available. At that time, it made sense to develop a long template to be used in articles that explained what they were and provided a form to fill in the basics from the hearings. Now, it doesn't make much sense to do so, in my opinion. Sometimes, just a Main article template to CSRT or ARB would suffice and information contained in those documents can come from news reports. The two different approaches are exemplified in Mohamed Jawad (which I'm currently working on) and Omar Khadr or Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As you may have seen, some people considered these documents to be primary sources, and began stripping them from the articles. I think it's a lousy idea but that's just the way it is. As you said, this was once the only data we had.
 * It could still be the only time we get to see the government's side of the story. What remains is often filtered through their lawyers. While Worthington is interesting, he comes across as (from my perspective) little more than Moazzam Begg's toady. He's an activist more than a reporter.
 * I personally think the CSRTs and ARBs are worth keeping. And if they're removed, we should at least have external links to them. These articles shouldn't only be about the detainees today, but about what we knew back then.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of the BLP and PS/OR "debates". The main debater is now banned. My position is that CSRT / ARB / wikileaked intelligence reports should be used carefully, and always with attribution: "the summary of evidence memo said". What really got me was objecting to habeas opinions. The factual findings contained in them are simply the best source there is with regard to Guantanamo detainees. Unimpeachable in my opinion.


 * I also favor DoD docs at least as External Links. I try to use Worthington's articles at most as External Links, although there are cases where I make an exception. However, I strongly disagree with your characterization of his work. Yes, he's an activist, he has a "point of view" as the NYT put it. But that doesn't reduce the quality of his reporting. Only in America is the "view from nowhere" (Jay Rosen) a sign of good journalism. His factual reporting is second to none. The problem for us is that he is the only one digging into many detainees' stories. That, more than his point of view and much more than the quality of reporting, is what makes using him problematic.


 * I've removed Mohamed Jawad's DoD doc templates, so he no longer is emblematic of that approach. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy compliant templates
Way back in 2006 or early 2007 I created a four different, more limited templates. I wasn`t aware of the policies on templates, but, in my defense, practically no one else was either. WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 10 was one of the deletion discussions these templates triggered. I discussed the closure of one the two tfd with the closing administrator, as I was concerned that the justification for their closure was new -- not mentioned in the discussion. I initially thought they should have voiced that concern as a regular participant. But, they were informed about the policy, which the nominator, and none of the people who voiced `delete` hadn`t been. They convinced me.

The most widely used template was used on 125-150 of the Guantanamo articles, transcluding an image of the CSRT hearing room on articles of captives who attended the hearing -- together with a standard caption.

I now believe that closing administrator was correct -- given the way the wikimedia software is written today, using templates to transclude text or images is too confusing for editors. Contributors who wanted to edit that caption couldn`t figure out how to do so.

Joshua Sherurcij liked the idea of using templates to transclude the paragraphs that are now out of date. Even thought I understood how they worked I found them frustrating. Section headings, and their edit buttons, didn`t work as expected. After a year or so Sherurcij figured out some special purpose code to add an additional button to edit the templates.

In some future version of the wikimedia software I would like to see better support for editing transcluded text. Currently we have to hit an edit button, and that lets us edit an entire article, or a section of an article. What I would like is that, in addition to legacy support for that edit button, contributors should be able to sweep their mouse and hihtlight part of an article, and then click a button from a drop down menu would let them edit just what they selected. And, if what they selected contained transcluded text or images a separate editor would open for that transcluded material.

I regard the templates that Joshua Sherurcij created as very interesting experiments -- ones the developers of the wikimedia software could learn from. But I think they should be retired, not updated. Geo Swan (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Still ongoing?
I've removed a line from the article saying the CSRTs are still ongoing. I'm fairly sure they aren't, but I'm not an expert on what exactly the US military and authorities are up to in Guantanamo. If we've got better sources to say that they are still going on, it'd be great if we could have them. But it seems like if they've been invalidated by SCOTUS, they aren't going on anymore. (Although the fact that something is illegal is no reason the US government won't do it.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SCOTUS didn't say they're illegal. They only said that the detainees would need a habeas review later.
 * I'm not sure whether or not CSRTs would technically be ending. The judicial reviews that they get later seem to depend on the CSRTs.  The main reason they don't have them anymore is because we're sending a few new detainees to the U.S. for civilian trials and holding the others at Bagram, where they're not entitled to the same rights.
 * I realize that the article ends with a quote from a CCR director saying that they're ending, but that's a bit deceptive. CCR is an extremist organization.  (There isn't a single member who really supports human rights.)
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Combatant Status Review Tribunal. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577?nclick_check=1

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Combatant Status Review Tribunal. 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/20070712195007/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org:80/us_law/detainees/status_review_080204.htm to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/status_review_080204.htm
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA3868-2005Mar26%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&date=2008-06-10 with http://www.webcitation.org/5YU31W9OT?url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3868-2005Mar26?language=printer on http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3868-2005Mar26?language=printer
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577?nclick_check=1
 * Added tag to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/HRF-Undue-Process-Afghanistan-web.pdf

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) 11:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)