Talk:Guantanamo Bay/Archive 1

Rama's Wholesale Reversion of Keetoowah's Changes
Dear Rama: The use of the word "murky" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is NOT NPOV. Also, you need to make reversion one at a time and you need to explain those changes on the Talk Page as the moniker at the top of the page states.-Keetoowah 14:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the word "unclear" is more neutral.Keetoowah 14:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried to suggest another formulation of the paragraph. Its main purpose stands, in the idea that the prisoners in Guantanamo are neither prisoners of war (and the Geneva conventions are not applied to them as they should be were it the case), nor treated as common criminals (due criminal process should happen if it was the case).
 * As for the rest, putting "Unconfirmed by other sources" everywhere might be misunderstood as a deliberate and feeble attempt to discredit Amnesty International; the other edits seemed to me to be of the same kind. If you want to discuss them in detail, you're welcome. Rama 14:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be so critical. I'm not trying to discredit AI, for disclosure purposes I am a member of AI, howere, the conclusions of AI in those reports are disputed.-Keetoowah 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Disputed by whom? The US government. No surprises there. When AI criticizes China, the Chinese government also disputes it. Par for the course. -- Viajero | Talk 18:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * PS nice for "unclear" then Rama 14:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map of Cuba
I made the map larger to make the &ldquo;Guantanamo Bay&rdquo; text readable again. If it is not important for that text to be visible in the article before going to the Image page, then the original Image:Cu-map.png should be used instead of the new Image:Cu-map-Guantanamo.png. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect image
The image on this page of the Soldier with the dog and the prisoner in an orange jumpsuit ([[media:Guantanamo-dog.jpg]]) is a duplicate of [[Media:Abu Ghraib 56.jpg]] which is on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Is this from from Guantanamo or is it from Abu Ghraib? One or other should be deleted. Jooler 12:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Abu Ghraib, and I've removed it from the article. See this Gaurdian article. It was first published by the Washington Post in May. Cool Hand Luke  04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move
I moved the article back to the spelling which seems far more common in English: Guantanamo. This is where the article was originally and the great majority of wikilinks still pointed here. I invite comments if anyone disagrees, however. Jonathunder 03:08, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * In general, Wiki tends to use unaccented letters for its base titles, so I guess it makes sense to me. I'll probably still use Guantánamo Bay personally, just because it will look better, while still pointing straight at the main page; but that's just me. --Ray Radlein 05:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should have &mdash;wwoods 06:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Guantánamo Bay, the, you know, bay.
 * Guantánamo, the city, which is the capital of
 * Guantánamo Province, and
 * Guantanamo Bay, the naval station (and/or base--I'm not clear on the distinction, and the website isn't either.)


 * Don't forget Guantánamo Bay in popular culture. ;). I agree with the page move. Given issues about character sets, typed queries, and the ease of redirects, the unaccented version seems preferable. -Willmcw 12:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unaccented is correct in this case due to anglicization - it's "Guantanamo Bay" in English and "Guantánamo Bay" in Spanish. The vast majority of foreign place names should still keep their accents etc, since they're much less commonly referred in English texts. Stan 14:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please revert this page move from Guantanamo Bay? &mdash;wwoods 10:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Even some new browsers still, I believe (in English wikis) can't handle some diacritic links &mdash; or has this been fixed with the new version of the software? It does seem to be the habit however (e.g. in the list of composers) to use diacritics on a name unless at least one diacritic cannot be rendered with 'typical browsers' for that name (as with many Czech names). This may be a different issue... Schissel : bowl listen 15:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed last month after nearly three years in captivity..."

Is this still 'last month'? Shouldn't a more accurate date be given for his release, or is someone going to keep updating it monthly? - "freed two months ago..." etc. --Phileas

Cuba was not Independent when Guantanamo Bay signed over
Cuba was not independent country when the Guantanamo Bay rights were signed over. Source: http://www.cubaheritage.com/subs.asp?sID=38&cID=3

When were the prisons built?
I just heard on a radio show that the prisons were built in 2000, before 911. Can someone confirm this?

Is it valid to call it a prison?
... or to call the detainees prisonners? Doesn't prison/prisonner refer to the housing of persons convicted in a criminal justice system? I think both sides of the debate about GTMO will agree that the detainees/inmates/terrorists/victems do not meet that definition.

This isn't so much a POV/NPOV question as just factual/terminological accuracy. Jeffr 14:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * ICRC refers to it as "Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp". The Washington Post has referred to it as a prison.  The White House has referred to those kept at Guantanamo Bay variously as "detainees", divided into "Taliban detainees" and "Al Qaeda detainees".  Scott McLellan also seems to use the terms "prison"  and "prisoners" informally in the context of alleged prisoner abuse by US personnel in Iraq and Guantanamo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Prison term refers only to convicted criminals, but prison can mean any detention facility, and is the usual word for accused as well as convicted criminals. Peter Grey 14:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone held by authorities is a prisoner. It boils down to a restriction in freedom of movement--nothing to do with a building.  Prisoners can be in cars and buses and trains.--Keetoowah 19:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy tag
Are there still significant issues re the accuracy of this article? If not, then the tag should be removed. --Lee Hunter 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Seconded. Eric B. and Rakim 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

"... confirmation of his allegations"

 * There has been no confirmation of his allegations.

I think the above sentences are superficial and redudant. The missing confirmation is already expressed in that the allegations are "allegations". Eric B. and Rakim 29 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Missing info
This article is supposed to be about Guantanamo Bay but +90% of the content is about the U.S. military base. It would be nice if we could give at least some passing coverage to the geography, history, surrounding communities, etc. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
 * I would suggest merging Camp Delta, Camp X-Ray and the Detention section from here into a separate article. The name could be eg Guantanamo Bay detention, or perhaps follow an earlier suggestion, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. That would make the detention material tidier, and leave more space in this article for Guantanamo Bay itself. Rd232 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Runway
Since GTMO Bay is a detention centre, why is there need of a runway?


 * The same reason anywhere else needs a runway. Rd232 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"Every person in enemy hands ..."
For some reason this Red Cross quote has been deleted and redeleted. There are plenty of sources for the quote which you can view with this search. Also this sentence has been deleted even though a source is supplied:
 * On November 8, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them.

Also the reference to article 49 of GCIV has been deleted. I'm not a lawyer but it seems perfectly relevant to the article. --Lee Hunter 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Lee Hunter: I am a lawyer and I can assure you that Robertson was completely and totally overturned in July 2005.  The law of the land is the July 2005, not the November 2004 decision that you want to continue put in the article.  I'm going to remove it again.  And if it is reversed again then it is clear that the folks that doing the reversing do not want correct information in the article.  It is as if you want to put in the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson as the law of the land instead of Brown v. Board of Education. It is NOT factually correct to be quoting Robertson.  He got overturned.  So please stop reversing the material unless you understand it.-Keetoowah 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But the article makes it clear that this was an earlier ruling that was later overturned. And what's your problem with quoting the Red Cross? --Lee Hunter 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Red Cross is an international organization that does not make the laws of the law. Now if you want to work in the Red Cross quote in a different way that is quite fine, but quoting them in a section entitled "Legal Status" gives the incorrect impression that what they say has bearing on the actual "legal status" is because that organization dles not.  They are just another outside observer commenting and giving their OPINION.  They don't make the laws of the U.S. and they should not be held out as such.  It is the same point as quoting Judge Robertson.  He has been overturned and his ruling is now wrong.-Keetoowah 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The ICRC, again, was created by the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the rights in the Conventions. It's opinion does dictate how the Geneva Convention is to be enterperated. (See the section you created about it.) (DaemonSaber 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Keetoowah, we aren't saying that Robertson's decision is the law of the land. We specifically state that it was overturned. So, in actuallity, what you're doing is like trying to delete the Plessy v. Ferguson page. Laws are overturned, not history. (DaemonSaber 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Keetoowah
Keetowah has edited part of the article which read like this:


 * The U.S. classifies the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as "illegal enemy combatants", but has not held the Article 5 tribunals that would be required by international law for it to do so. The International Committee of the Red Cross maintains that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law." Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.


 * On November 8, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them. However, on 15 July 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that al-Qaeda members could not be classified as prisoners of war and upheld military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base for al-Qaeda members. This ruling does not necessarily authorize all military tribunals as the case only dealt with the POW status of al-Qaeda members.


 * Another legality concern with the U.S. treatment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees is that most of them were captured and transferred to the camp from non-US soil. International laws regarding warfare would allow the US to do so, but only if the persons can be classified as prisoners of war. Unless they are classified as prisoners of war, they fall under the protection of the GCIV and thus would qualify for protection against individual or mass forcible transfer under Article 49 of the GCIV. Because the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, the legality of the U.S.'s actions remains questionable.

so that it read like this:


 * On 15 July 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that al-Qaeda members could not be classified as prisoners of war and upheld military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base for al-Qaeda members.

This was somewhat problematic because it removed discussion of the legal controversy, which goes beyond the national judiciary because it is concerned with the ICRC's view that the United States is in contravention of international treaties to which it is a signatory. The United States appeal court (nor the ICRC for that matter) is not the final word in this matter and it would be inappropriate to represent this international legal controversy solely in terms of local courts. It is still the case that Article 5 tribunals have not been held to determine the status of the bulk of the individual prisoners, now some years after their capture.

The previous version made it plain that the appeal court had overruled James Robertson; the sole effect of Keetowah's deletions is to remove relevant factual background information and to present the Appeal court decision as an isolated determination of fact, without a hint of how it reached the Appeal court in the first place, and without any information about the ICRC's contention.

Repeated removal of relevant factual information from articles is taken seriously by Wikipedia, and in some serious instances it can be a disciplinary matter. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't give me a lecture about disciplinary matters. I have NOT done a single thing to deserve seome kind of discipline.  You are just speaking out of turn.Keetoowah 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Next the information is presented in a NON-NPOV manner. Also, you are simply out and out wrong. As far as US> law is concerned the U.S. Court of Appeals DOES decide the matter. Now, the Red Cross and other international organizations can complain all they want but it is still just opinion. The proper way that the "Legal Status" section should be laid out is a definitive statement of the U.S. law. Period. Then a new section that goes into complaint or criticsisms of the U.S. law. But as it presented. We hear from the Red Cross, etc. as if they have the ability to change and make U.S. law. You are just flat out wrong in your OPINION that groups outside the U.S. will have the final say in the matter. They won't ever. That is not how U.S. law works, or the law of the vast majority of the countries in the world, by the way.Keetoowah 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that the US may ignore international law, even where there are international courts that can bring judgements (eg World Court, WTO) does not nullify that international law or mean that it should not be presented in the article. Having said that, the relationship between US and international law in general, and the status of the Geneva Conventions in particular, isn't clear in the current version. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is clearer. Rd232 18:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right that international law needs to be represented in the article, but Hamdan v. Rumsfeld cannot be said to be clearer on international law because it had nothing to do with international law. It should also be noted that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hardly even mentions that the case dealt with the POW status of an al-Qaeda member, not all detainees. The article doesn't even mention that the case can still be taken to a higher court. The article acts as if H v. R undeniably gave the US the right to try all Gitmo detainees in military tribunals, when it does not. The article has even had the fact that Hamdan can still take the case to a higher court was deleted. Guess who deleted that information. Actually, guess who wrote the entire article. Yep, Keetoowah.[] (Anon User:68.12.128.91)
 * Right. But on certain points the Hamdan article was clearer, and those points need bringing into this article. Rd232 20:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean. The Gitmo article probably needs two sections about Legal Status, one for legal status under international law, the other for US, because they really are two different subjects. That would allow us to expand upon the court cases like Hamdan without over crowding the other information. (68.12.128.91 10:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

As a member of the international community, (remember that this is not a US encyclopaedia) I’m surprised by the previous opinion that that "The proper way that the "Legal Status" section should be laid out is a definitive statement of the U.S. law. Period" This is a factual error, the diverse international treaties (mainly Geneva conventions)  still apply. As far as there is no international court to enforce such provisions the opinion from formal sources, like the Red Cross, is information that is relevant in an international community, and I think that is a disservice to remove such opinions.
 * Also, no. You are misusing the Red Cross.  The Red Cross is an international relief agency. They do not want to be a world court or an international system of justice.  The Red Cross attempts, by the terms of it charter, attempt to say out of these types of situations.  They may make comments, but in no way do they claim to be a an arbitor or maker of international law.  That is just silly and they information should not be presented that way.  ICRC mission statement states:  "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles." ICRC Mission Statement.  I did NOT ever advocate that the information should be removed.  But it was being presented in a misleading, non-NPOV manner.  I would rather that it not be in there than to be presented in a misleading manner.  Also, read the actual comments of the ICRC!! They are quoting the Geneva Conventions.  Why not quote the Geneva Conventions instead of the Red Cross--which attempts to maintain neutrality.  Also, the Hamdan case reviews the relevant sections of the Conventions and explains why the military tribunal system in the U.S. meets the terms of the Conventions under U.S. law.  Also, can you site me an example of a court case that trumps Hamdan???? No.-Keetoowah 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is adressed in the section you created for it. Take the debate there. (DaemonSaber 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * It is not relavant whether it is not an US encyclopaedia. If you talking about U.S. law then you talking about U.S. law.  I can tell from your comments that you are NOT an attorney and you mixing politics and law.  I happen to understand your position about international law.  But you are obviously allowing your prejudices to get in the away of writing a correct and factual article.  If you want to write about the legal status of the detainees--which is way beyond the original topic, then fine, but you need to write out the legal aspects factually and then you need to write out the political criticism of the law correctly.  You are mixing the two in a bias and factually incorrect way.  You can criticize America all you want (which is really what you are trying to do--which of course violates all kinds of Wikipedian rules) but you need to get the facts straight.  The fact is that the Geneva Conventions are NOT self-fulfilling treaties.  Now, I'm sure that you don't know what that means, so I don't expect you to write a NPOV,, factually correct article because you have exhibited bias and you don't understand your topic.-Keetoowah 20:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean self-executing treaties? Or is that more like shooting oneself in the foot? :) --Lee Hunter 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I actually do know a few things about law. I may not be an attorney, but I am going to be entering the law buisness. According to your user page, you aren't an attorney either, so lets leave field of occupation out of this, okay? Now, back to the topic. Actually, the Geneva Conventions are self-executing treaties, in that the treaties declare the rights of people during war time. In fact, that is one of the things John Roberston talked about in his decision. The ruling for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld only stated that the treaties are not self-executing in that they could not be upheld by US courts. Regardless of whether the treaties can be upheld by US courts, the legal status of under international law is still relevant. And, by the way, I am an American and I love this country. You have no buisness telling me or anyone else that we are only trying to criticize America. I am trying to accurately inform people about the legal status of detainees under the law. Also, when you say "If you want to write about the legal status of the detainees--which is way beyond the original topic..." I can't help but wonder what you think is in the scope of the "Legal Status" section. (68.12.128.91 10:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Dear 68.12.128.91: The article is about GUANTANAMO BAY--a geographical location. It is as if you write an article about Japan and you dedicate five paragraphs to how the Japanese mistreated Allied prisoners during WWII.  And the whole article is merely seven paragraphs long.  Yes the legal status of detainees at Gitmo is way, way beyond the logical terms of the topic of the geographical location and topography of Guantanamo Bay--A BODY OF WATER!!!-Keetoowah 17:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keetoowah, the article is also about the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, every single section of the article at least in some way mentions the facilities, with the sole exception of "6.2 Maps and Photos". Legal Status is entirely within the scope of the article. By the way, this is 68.12.128.91, just so you know. (DaemonSaber 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Let’s put this way, the opinions of US courts on the matter are not binding to the international community. Of course they are important opinions that need to be in the article, but they are not the only opinions to be included. If we do so, the article will be a one side article about this topic. 193.23.63.130

Okay, I'm the one who originally corrected Keetoowah's deletion's on August 10th. All of that information I restored was information that Keetoowah originally deleted, either claiming there weren't any citations or without any explaination. Well, I restored the information and added more information so that all of it was backed up. All of that information legitimately relates to the issue. "Legal Status" does not only deal with US law; it deals with international law as well. Additionally, the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the Geneva Convention is our law. The ICRC was established with the 1st Geneva convention and they are the authority on issues regarding interpretation of the Geneva Convention. Additionally, just because you feel that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld overturned James Robertson's decision, that doesn't mean you can delete James Robertson's decision. Robertson's decision still happened. It still needs to be recorded in the article. You can't just delete history. But, it should be noted that as it appears now, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case is incorrectly labeled as the case in which James Roberson made the decision, which is wrong. That part ought to be reversed to how I had written it for clarity. (Anon User:68.12.128.91)
 * You make the comment: "Additionally, the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the Geneva Convention is our law." So, that is NOT the issue. The issue is how is that international treaty enforced???  You don't even know what you are talking about.  This is a perfect example of the weaknesses of Wikipedia.  You are someone that is not a trained attorney, but yet you are spouting off commentaries on the law and you haven't the first clue of what you are talking about.--Keetoowah 20:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keetoowah, a charitable interpretation of your position is that you're only interested in what, as of today, an attorney could advise a Guantanamo client. Fine, but that is no reason to remove the historical context, or the discussion of international law, separately from how it is currently interpreted and applied by US courts. The distinction and relationship should be clear, and then everyone should be happy. Rd232 20:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say that and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I stated and I will state again that we should put down what the actual legal status is of the detainees under U.S. law is.  And the current law is based upon Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  At least until, it is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress steps in and changes the law.  Now what the Red Cross and other international organizations say is interesting and should be in the article but it should not be held out as the U.S.law. -Keetoowah 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that Hamdan wasn't US Law, and even you agree that international law should be in the article. So, why did you delete the last two paragraphs of the legal status? Those paragraphs dealt only in international law and made no attempt to claim that they were US law. Why did you feel the need to delete them in their entirety if you agree that they should be in the article? (DaemonSaber 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Also, please keep calm and remember No personal attacks. Rd232 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not personally attack anyone. And don't tell me to keep calm. You keep calm.  I just simply pointed out that the editors involved do not know what they talking about. This is factually true and I will repeat this each and every time that I feel that it is necessary.  No one else here has legal training but yet they are pretending to know what they are talking about.  It is fine not to have legal training and attempt to edit the document but if they get the basic facts wrong then I will point it out.  As I told the last person who gave me this lecture:  I do not need the lecture, you need the lecture.  You simply do not like the facts of the situation and you are attempting to attack me personally because the facts of the situation are not on your side.  For example, one anon editor incorrectly stated that Judge Robertson said so and so in Hamdan.  Judge Robertson is a Federal District Court Judge, ruling by himself, and he has been overturned by a three judge Federal Court of Appeals. For all intends and purposes, what Robertson stated is irrelevant--unless, as I stated, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Ct of App AND agrees with Robertson's reasoning.  For the most part, there are a few historical exceptions, we do not write Wikipedia articles about overturned--factually incorrect--court cases.  So to sum up, when editors such as Tony Sideway or 68.12.128.91 make changes or comments that are factually incorrect I am going to point out that they do not have legal training and they do not know what they are talking about.Keetoowah 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "You simply do not like the facts of the situation and you are attempting to attack me personally because the facts of the situation are not on your side." Keetoowah, nobody is attacking you. You, on the other hand, continue to make claims that people don't know what they're talking about and that they are trying to attack America, and those sort of claims are uncalled for. Additionally, maybe you'd like to explain how calling Tony Sidaway "Tony Sideabit" in your 11:32, 18 August 2005 post doesn't count as a personal attack. Last I checked, name calling was a pretty personal attack. Remember, we're here to discuss the article, not your opinion of other people.
 * Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Hamdan v. Rumsfeld would have even gone to the court of appeals if it wasn't for Judge Robertson's decision. Also, as far as I know, wikipedia articles tend to include the entire history of court cases, not just their outcome. Including the history of the case, especially something as important as Roberston's decision, is not historically inacurate at all and only adds to the relevant information about the issue. If you think it is Wikipedia's policy to only state the outcome of court cases and not their history, please provide evidence. (DaemonSaber 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * No, Keetoowah, the issue is not about how international treaty is enforced. It's about the legal status of Gitmo detainees. Unless you can prove that, under the Geneva Convention, they don't have the legal rights I stated, than my information is still relevant. If you feel that the information about Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is incorrect(which I now see) then you should have corrected it. You shouldn't just delete whatever parts of the article you disagree with. And I do know what I'm talking about, Keetoowah. If you know what you're talking about, you shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. (68.12.128.91 10:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * How the intl treaty is enforced is the issue because we all agree that intl law applies. Also, since you have not read the actual underlining court case then we need to talk about that.  Hamdam makes it clear that, as far as U.S. law is concerned and as U.S. stands right now, the 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.  Now, Tony Sidaway and all of the other editors may not like that FACT but that does not make it so.  Why don't try actually reading the case, the whole case.  What I have been saying is written right in there.  Also, the court went on and pointed out that even if the Geneva Convention applied, which it pointed does not but they went through the exercise, then the terms of the Geneva Convention are met by the military tribunal system.  The burden is on the non-legally trained editors--68.12.128.91 and Tony Sideabout--to show me why Hamdan is NOT the law of the United States.  And if Hamdan is NOT the law of the U.S. then what is the law of the U.S. in the alternative universe of our anon editor and Tony Sideabit.-Keetoowah 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody says that Hamdan isn't US laws. Rather, the article must note the legal status not only in US law, but under international law as well. Additionally, you don't understand the ruling you keep talking about. I have read through the ruling, and this claim you keep making about Hamdan, that the ruling says anything to the effect of "the 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies" is untrue. What the court did state was the the treaty didn't create rights enforcable by US courts. Here are a few examples of what the ruling actually said:
 * ''"We therefore hold that the 1949 Geneva Convention does
 * ''not confer upon Hamdan a right to enforce its provisions in
 * ''court." (p.13)
 * And the fact that these treaties would still apply in international law is upheld here:
 * ''"As a general matter, a “treaty is primarily a
 * ''compact between independent nations,” and “depends for the
 * ''enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the
 * ''governments which are parties to it.” Head Money Cases, 112
 * ''U.S. 580, 598 (1884). If a treaty is violated, this “becomes the
 * ''subject of international negotiations and reclamation,” not the
 * ''subject of a lawsuit." (p.10)
 * And more about the individual rights
 * ''"...this country has
 * ''traditionally negotiated treaties with the understanding that they
 * ''do not create judicially enforceable individual rights." (p.10)
 * And here, the ruling affirms that the Geneva Convention does infact establish (non-judicially enforcable) individual rights:
 * ''"Hamdan points out that the 1949 Geneva Convention
 * ''protects individual rights. But so did the 1929 Geneva
 * ''Convention, as the Court recognized in Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at
 * ''789-90. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement, at issue in
 * ''Holmes v. Laird, also protected individual rights, but we held
 * ''that the treaty was not judicially enforceable. 459 F.2d at 1222." (p.13)


 * I've already addressed your claim that the article concludes that the military tribunals meet Geneva Convention standards. Once again, if I have somehow skipped over the part that supports what you claim (and somehow disproves all of the other quotes I just gave...), please, correct me. Otherwise, it would appear that the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld actually supports the assertation that the Geneva Convention could infact be applied in the international setting. I agree that the some of the statements I interjected while editing the article before having fully understood Hamdan were incorrect and should be corrected, but so was your blanket assumption that the case declared the tribunals legal under the Geneva convention, when, in actuallity the ruling only concluded that Geneva convention rights could not be judicially inforced, leaving untouched Robertson's point that the Geneva Convention, as an accepted US treaty, was the law of the land, and thus it's rights are legal rights. The case then comes down to simply being a matter of self-execution.


 * Additionally, calling Tony Sidaway "Tony Sideabit" is an unfair personal attack and entirely uncalled for. You shouldn't have to resort to name calling in a rational discussion. Like Rd232 said, just try to calm down. It's not that big of an issue. (DaemonSaber 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Misuse of the IRCR Comments in the Article
You are misusing the Red Cross. The Red Cross is an international relief agency. They do not want to be a world court or an international system of justice. The Red Cross attempts, by the terms of it charter, attempt to say out of these types of situations. They may make comments, but in no way do they claim to be a an arbitor or maker of international law. That is just silly and they information should not be presented that way. ICRC mission statement states: "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles." ICRC Mission Statement. I did NOT ever advocate that the information should be removed. But it was being presented in a misleading, non-NPOV manner. I would rather that it not be in there than to be presented in a misleading manner. Also, read the actual comments of the ICRC!! They are quoting the Geneva Conventions. Why not quote the Geneva Conventions instead of the Red Cross--which attempts to maintain neutrality. Also, the Hamdan case reviews the relevant sections of the Conventions and explains why the military tribunal system in the U.S. meets the terms of the Conventions under U.S. law. Also, can you site me an example of a court case that trumps Hamdan???? No.-Keetoowah 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "The ICRC acts as the guardian of international humanitarian law, a complex role that is closely connected with its own foundation and was later formally entrusted to it by the international community." And please stop suggesting that people are trying to claim that Hamdan is not current US law. Furthermore, if a topic as dull as this gets you so excited, maybe you need a good vacation. Chill, man! Rd232 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake, you are misusing information from the ICRC's Web site to back one of your factually incorrect claims. The ICRC makes COMMENTARIES about internation law, etc.  They do not ENFORCE international law.  Where have you ever seen the ICRC sending police forces or combat troops into a situation to enforce an international law.  That claim is completely ludicrous.  They sit at desks and write articles they do not enforce international law.  They do not have a court system where they sit in robes and listen to cases and hand down decisions.  If they have commented on Hamdan then that would be a worthwhile addition to the article.  But if we are going to discuss the Geneva Conventions then let's quote the Geneva Conventions NOT the ICRC.  That is ludicrous.  Go the source, not the commentary.-Keetoowah 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You were the one who was misusing information from the ICRC's Web site to back one of your factually incorrect claims. Read the p.15 of the ruling in Hamdan. They reference the ICRC on the GC as well, using their commentary on Common Article 3. Page 12 also talks about the Red Cross as the main Protecting Power to settle (not enforce) disputes about international law. That's what their commentaries are for. Your quote about their impartial, neutral and independent status has nothing to do with their job. Again, this has nothing to do with enforcement of law. The quote I used specified that every single person either falls under the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd GC. There is no quote within any of the conventions that could indisputably state this same thing and there is no need to look for one because the current one is perfectly acceptable. (DaemonSaber 04:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
 * As Rd232 already stated, the ICRC was created by the First Geneva Convention as the chief guardian of the international humanitarian law established by the Geneva Convention. The Red Cross you are thinking of, the relief agency, is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The ICRC's impartial, neutral and independent status means that they do not represent and specific country, race, political agenda, etc. I originally began searching for information about Gitmo detainee legal status under international law because I heard people like Bill O'Reilly continually tell people that Gitmo detainees had no protections under the Geneva convention because they aren't POW's. The thing is, while people like Bill O'Reilly try to debate what the Geneva Convetion says, his opinion doesn't mean anything, because it's the ICRC that determines what the Geneva Convention says. If I were to quote the Geneva Convention, as you say, it would be left up to debate by people like Bill O'Reilly, whereas quoting the actual authority on interperating the Geneva Conventions creates a far more factual basis for the statements.
 * This comment is just complete bull: "it's the ICRC that determines what the Geneva Convention says"  That is simply NOT true.  The ICRC does not enforce laws of countries.  Each country enforces the laws of their particular country.  That is the basis of sovereignty.  And the Bill O'Reilly comments are way of the topic. It is a Straw man argument. I never commented on O'Reilly and you are wasting time attacking the views of O'Reilly which is not relevant to this discussion. I didn't quote O'Reilly and O'Reilly's comments are not really important.  Don't try to change the subject.Keetoowah 23:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is completely wrong: "Each country enforces the laws of their particular country." In fact, that's what the ruling of Hamdan negated. The ruling stated that the law would be dealt with in the international spectrum, not on a country by country basis. And in the international setting, the ICRC is the lead authority on interpreting the Conventions, considering that the Conventions created them to serve just that purpose. Also, I was not bringing up O'Reilly as a strawman, I was bring him up to illustrate the point that you completely ignored, "If I were to quote the Geneva Convention, as you say, it would be left up to debate by people like Bill O'Reilly, whereas quoting the actual authority on interperating the Geneva Conventions creates a far more factual basis for the statements." (DaemonSaber 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Please stop it. You are completely wrong.  The Bill O'Reilly thing was a waste of time.  And your comments on Hamdan just flat out wrong.  Where in Hamdan does it state what you just stated???? Where?  Quote the court case directly.  Where does it say that?  Show me.  Stop giving me your personal opinion and show me the wording the court case.-Keetoowah 00:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ''"As a general matter, a “treaty is primarily a
 * ''compact between independent nations,” and “depends for the
 * ''enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the
 * ''governments which are parties to it.” Head Money Cases, 112
 * ''U.S. 580, 598 (1884). If a treaty is violated, this “becomes the
 * ''subject of international negotiations and reclamation,” not the
 * ''subject of a lawsuit." (p.10)
 * There, that's twice I've quoted it for you. (DaemonSaber 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Also, check the rest of the quotes from the case I gave in the above section. Additionally, If you still need convincing that the ICRC quote is more than just the opinion of some random charity organization, here it is . They've basically written or contributed very large portions of every one of the conventions. The original Committee was pretty much created to write the first one. (DaemonSaber 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC))


 * Also, you claim that Hamdan states that the military tribunals meet the terms of the Conventions. Could you provide quotes for this? Because, as much as you continue to assert that I haven't, I have read over most of the ruling and find no such statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you might be refering to this part of the ruling (p.19):
 * ''"Hamdan claims that AR 190-8 entitles him to have a
 * ''“competent tribunal” determine his status. But we believe the
 * ''military commission is such a tribunal. ... We therefore see no reason
 * ''why Hamdan could not assert his claim to prisoner of war status
 * ''before the military commission at the time of his trial and
 * ''thereby receive the judgment of a “competent tribunal” within
 * the meaning of Army Regulation 190-8."


 * But that part of the rulling says the tribunals meet Army Regulation, not the Conventions. This was the only mention I could find stating anything similar to what you said. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (DaemonSaber 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * What are you talking about???? The whole court case talked about the Conventions. Please READ the court case.   I cannot quote the whole case here because that would take up too much space, but here is a tiny bit of the huge court reasoning Notice the huge number of refences to the Convention:


 * 1. "III. This brings us to Hamdan's argument, accepted by the district court, that the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316 ("1949 Geneva Convention"), ratified in 1955, may be enforced in federal court."


 * 2. "IV. Even if the 1949 Geneva Convention could be enforced in court, this would not assist Hamdan. He contends that a military commission trial would violate his rights under Article 102, which provides that a "prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power." One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the Article 4 definition of a "prisoner of war" entitled to the protection of the Convention. He does not purport to be a member of a group who displayed "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" and who conducted "their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." See 1949 Convention, arts. 4A(2)(b), (c) & (d). If Hamdan were to claim [*21] prisoner of war status under Article 4A(4) as a person who accompanied "the armed forces without actually being [a] member[] thereof," he might raise that claim before the military commission under Army Regulation 190-8. See Section VII of this opinion, infra. (We note that Hamdan has not specifically made such a claim before this court.)"


 * 3. "Another problem for Hamdan is that the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members. The Convention appears to contemplate only two types of armed conflicts. The first is an international conflict. Under Common Article 2, the provisions of the Convention apply to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." Needless to say, al Qaeda is not a state and it was not a "High Contracting Party." There is an exception, set forth in the last paragraph of Common Article 2, when one of the "Powers" in a conflict is not a signatory but the other is. Then the signatory nation is bound to adhere to the Convention so long as the opposing Power "accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Even if [*22] al Qaeda could be considered a Power, which we doubt, no one claims that al Qaeda has accepted and applied the provisions of the Convention."
 * The ruling reviews the Conventions. Please read the whole court case.-Keetoowah 00:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that the ruling reviews the Conventions. I already know that al-Qaeda members are not classified as POWs and did not sign the Geneva Convention, which is all that big block of text you copied and pasted said. I also know that nowhere within it does it say that "the military tribunal system in the U.S. meets the terms of the Conventions" as you claimed it did. The only thing vaguely similar is the section that I posted, which isn't even about the Geneva convention. It certainly doesn't state what you claim in that big chunk of it you just posted. Show me where is says that "the military tribunal system in the U.S. meets the terms of the Conventions" or anything to that effect. (DaemonSaber 00:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Unprotect
Can we agree that there isn't a fundamental disagreement that requires protecting the page? We just need to clarify in the article the distinctions discussed above. Also, re comments by both myself and Keetoowah, I suggest creating a separate page addressing the detention centre specifically, leaving the bay/naval base for this article. Camp X-ray and Delta articles could then be merged into that separate article, which would be neater. Rd232 09:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't have time to write a court brief outlining an answer to each every misreading of the Hamdan case that is presented on this talk page. I agree with Rd232, the section needs to be re-written.  And this is some basic parameters that must be followed for it to be NPOV and factually correct:
 * 1. For the purposes of U.S. Law the Court of Appeals case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is the the controlling law that currently controls the actions of the U.S. govt in relation to all detainees, no matter where they come from.
 * 2. The Ct of Appl Hamdan decision is controlling law for now.  Congress or the Supreme may or may not change the U.S. law in the future, but for right now, during the time period that we working on this article, the Ct of Appl Hamdan decision rules.
 * 3. Judge Robertson opinion in the District Court version of Hamdan has been completely and totally overturned.
 * 4. The ICRC is NOT an international tribunal, court system or international arbitrator in anyway.
 * 5. The ICRC was created by the Geneva Conventions.  It was NOT the other way around.  The ICRC did NOT create the Geneva Conventions.
 * 6. The ICRC should not be referred to as having the ability to overturn U.S. law because it does not.
 * 7. The ICRC does not have the ability to overturn the laws of any country in the world because it does not.
 * 8. Yes, the Geneva Conventions apply and the Hamdan court (ct of appeals) reviewed all of the various Articles of the Conventions and ruled that the U.S. govt is meeting the terms and requirements of the Geneva Convention.
 * 9. If there is an alternative court case that controls the "Legal Status" of the detainees at Gitmo then someone needs to show it to me and stop yelling about the Hamdan court case decision.  You may not like the decision, but for now that is the decision.  Wikipedia should express the law as it is, not as we hope it would be.Keetoowah 15:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well we all agree with that, so all well good. Let's skip the point that nobody actually supported those positions Keetoowah vigorously disagrees with above, and get on with the article. Rd232 18:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * With the exceptions of 5 and 8, all of those things you said are correct and have not been disputed. 5 is incorrect because the ICRC was first established in Geneva in 1863 in order to draft the first Geneva Convention, presented and signed in 1864. I think I incorrectly stated before that the GC created the ICRC, but I was incorrect. I had meant that "The ICRC is at the origin of ... international humanitarian law, notably the Geneva Conventions."  This considered, their opinion is extremely relevant in the interpretation of the GC. The Hamdan ruling even references another ICRC commentary on page 15. Additionally, Page 12 also talks about the Red Cross as the main Protecting Power to settle (not enforce) disputes about international law. The quote I used in the article remains relevant in that it clarifies that everyone must either be protected by the 1st, 3rd, or 4th Geneva Conventions. There is nothing I could quote from the conventions themselves that would be nearly as clear in stating something to the same effect. If we reorganize the article about the detention facilities to create a seperate legal status section dealing exclusively with internatinoal law and make it clear that the ICRC's commentary is only relevant to international law, not specific US law, the quote could and should remain in the article.
 * 8 is inaccurate because I have read the ruling and, to my knowledge, it says no such thing. The court case maintains that the Geneva convention is not judicially enforcable and that if it were, Hamdan would not be classified as a POW. Nowhere in the ruling does it goes as far as to state that "U.S. govt is meeting the terms and requirements of the Geneva Convention." If I'm wrong and it does state this, please quote the area/areas in which the article does state this. Also, it should be noted that, if the ruling did state this, it would not have bearing on international law as the responsibility of determining whether the US is in compliance with the Geneva Convention would not belong to the US, instead ultimately falling upon the international court and whoever brings the matter to the court, should it ever be brought to court (this also leads to the idea that the article needs to clarify that whether or not the US is in compliance with the GC is unconfirmed and merely a legal concern, though the article does not declare it to be, either).
 * Finally, I want to point out again that, while Robertson's ruling was ultimately and entirely overturned, it should be noted that his ruling is what sent the case to the court of appeals in the first place. Like I stated before, deleting the mention of Robertson's ruling is like deleting the page on Plessy v. Ferguson because it was overturned.
 * If you dissagree with any of this, please respond with all of your arguements. Otherwise I would assume that you agree with what I said and, when the page is unprotected, I would correct the article as such. I would not want for you to begin another edit war. (DaemonSaber 04:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I agree about merging the articles. Under the merged article, I think there needs to be seperate sections for US and international Legal Status. This should clarify things better. The problem is that I don't think Keetoowah has changed his views at all about the legal status section, the ICRC, his interpretation of Hamdan, etc. and I fear that unprotecting the page now would only cause another edit war. I just don't see this discussion as having come to a reasonable conclusion, or any conclusion.(DaemonSaber 04:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
 * My bad - I didn't know about 5 and I read 8 too quickly. Nonetheless, I think it's time try editing again. In particular, splitting into separate US and international sections may be helpful, as may taking a more explicitly chronological structure in each (i.e. "Development of legal status"). Rd232 08:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As long nobody tries to correct facts by completely erasing everything, I guess we should be able to start editing again. Personally, though, I feel that the chronological structure is fine how it is now. Right now, the only part is dispute (the Robertson thing) takes up only one sentence and I don't think that expanding upon that would be necessary. The international section wouldn't have a developement because no specific legal action has been taken in regards to Gitmo, we just kind of have the Geneva Convention. Also, I think that the formating of the abuse section was better as it was around June 24-ish, when all of the specific abuse allegations, responses, etc were seperate. The way it is now makes the entire section into some sort of allegation soup. The Exceptional Treatment section also seems misleading and packed full of random information. Can't believe I mispelled "Ferguson"... (DaemonSaber 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC))
 * For the "development" of international aspects I suppose I was thinking of international comment/pressure/reports rather than changes in international law itself. Rd232 08:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But the only comment we have is the ICRC one, unless you count the Human Rights watch, but I don't think that that's enough to create an entire section for them. (DaemonSaber 21:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Well if there aren't more strictly legal comments, there was a lot of media/government/NGO controversy at times specifically over the legal status. Maybe that's better separate, but it should be there somewhere. Rd232 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't really seen much controversy brought up about the legal status. Instead, it seems that most of the controversy was about the treatment, rather than the legal status. I'm just saying that I think that, as the article is now, it looks like having only a US and International section would cover legal status adequately, until enough information is found to warrant it's own section. (DaemonSaber 03:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Oh, of course most of the controversy has been about treatment. But early on (2002?), before much was known about the treatment, there was quite a substantial debate about the superpower undermining international law by deliberately creating a legal limbo. Rd232 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't really know that there was that much to said about the legal limbo. If you could find more sources about that, that'd be awesome. I wouldn't know where to start looking. It would be great if we could expand on that part of the article because that's definately an important issue that hasn't received nearly enough coverage. I think we're pretty much ready to unprotect, since we aren't really disagreeing with eachother and it looks like Keetoowah is letting this alone. As long as we have no disputes that are going to cause another edit war, I think we can handle revising and sectioning and whatnot. (DaemonSaber 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Unprotection: Would this be a good time to unprotect the page? -Willmcw 23:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it would be safe to open the article now. We'll probably be able to edit the article now without an edit war, since the main problem causing this edit war seems to have subsided. DaemonSaber 01:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Date of Pat Robertson visit
In the paragraph "'Exceptional treatment' of prisoners" it is stated that Senator Pat Roberts "...challenged the allegations, on July 11, 2001, after taking a tour...". Is this date correct? This predates the 9/11 attacks by 2 months, presumably before any allegations could have been made as to the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 66.238.9.47 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)MikeM

Addition of hearsay to Prisoner Compliants
I don't think that the random addition of what U.S. proponents say is useful unless it is quoted and backed up by some sort of expertise or journalistic inquiry, though it is an interesting fact, if true. So, the U.S. cannot just claim something to be true without showing it to indeed be connected to who they say it is. At least make them create the sources, if that is necessary, and they are indeed making this connection up. We know from the "weapons of mass destruction" situation that it is not above the current administration to create such sources and interpretations. If they want to do that in this case, at least make them put it in writing so they can be shown for what they are later on, as they were in the case of WMDs. Please quote from scholarly sources or news sources willing to put themselves out there on this one, and not just some random editor.

Holon67 05:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusion over Navy
This article states that the English fought the War of Jenkins' Ear. However, that entry in Wikipedia refers to British involvement as does the link to the globalization institute's piece. I know it's often misreported in the press, nevertheless British and English aren't interchangable terms.

Dduck 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)