Talk:Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Rename page?
I would suggest that this page be renamed to "Habeas Corpus issues related to Guantanamo Bay captives". Nizamarain 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Either that, or something like "Guantanamo Bay prisoner rights controversy" Harksaw 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate names offered so far

 * 1) Guantanamo Bay captives habeas corpus -- the original name.
 * 2) Habeas Corpus issues related to Guantanamo Bay captives
 * 3) Guantanamo Bay prisoner rights controversy

Discussion
If my choices are limited to choices 2 and 3 I would strongly prefer 2. Choice 3 is overly broad. There is already a discussion over at Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp about spinning off a new article to disucc the captives' rights to give and withhold their consent for medical procedures. The third choice of alternate name overlaps with the article about the captive's medical rights. It overlaps with their rights to practice their religion, and not have their Korans stomped on, or flushed down the toilet. It overlaps with the captive's rights to actually be treated consistently with the Geneva Conventions.

If my choices include the original name, then, of the three choices so far, I would choose the first -- it is the least ambitious title -- the easisest to flesh out with a minimum of controversy, and the edit-warring that can bring. With the original name the article is a success if it merely lists the timeline, and references to the individual articles about each habeas case -- with a very brief note distinguishing that habeas from the others.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "captive" is susceptable to a POV charge. It should be "detainee" since the legal documents all use that.  None of the wikisource links use "captive."
 * The Fourth Geneva Convention also uses the word "detain" for this sort of thing.
 * -- Randy2063 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A rhetorical question in search of a rhetorical answer
If the laws of the USA supposedly don't apply in Guantanamo bay due to it not being in US territory, then why was the US government able to make more laws that did apply there?

I know the answer to the question, I am just wondering if the Bush administration ever gave any reasoning for it.


 * Because the lack of applicability of US law was merely an assertion of the Bush Presidency -- specifically its legal experts like Alberto Gonzales -- that US law didn't apply. This Executive branch interpretation was overruled by the SCOTUS in Rasul v. Bush.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bush administration may have lost a few cases, but the detainees are still in GTMO, and the SC did not give detainees the right to a full trial with the possibility of release if their cases weren't proved.
 * -- Randy2063 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe what the Supreme Court granted was that they should be able to have Military justice, not a trial of the courts. The premise that they were being held to start with was that they were involved in some way with the War on Terrorism and that they should be considered combatants and so fall under military jurisdiction, which is why they were at Gitmo to start with and not at a Federal pen. The problem originated in that the war we are fighting is not against an "army" or a "nation" so the rules were not really applying as prisoners of wars, as that specifically mentions military or political prisoners. They had to find a different way to do things and they werent really able to find a way to do it.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny part of this is that it is by definition US territory as it is a US military base. All US military bases are considered US territory; if they weren't John McCain could not run for president.  Yet another bit of cognitive dissonance ignored by the media on the right. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. 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/20070701200208/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/supreme-court-to-hear-guantanamo-bay.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/supreme-court-to-hear-guantanamo-bay.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624232719/http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577?nclick_check=1 to http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577?nclick_check=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
 * Added tag to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/Habeas-Works-final-web.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. 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/20080614225408/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/International/home to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/International/home

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)