Talk:United States Court of Military Commission Review

Untitled
Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)A recent contributor has started to change every instance of "Guantanamo captive" to "Guantanamo detainee"... has insisted this is the "legal" term, even though the judicial branch has the final say on the legality of holding men, for years, without laying charges, and without giving them a meaningful opportunity to learn why they are being held.

Untitled
The DoD and senior Bush administration officials have insisted that the CSR Tribunals, instituted in mid 2004, provided an adequate venue for captives to hear the allegations against them. But in Boumediene v. Bush the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

Most of the remaining captives have requested new habeas corpus hearings, to determine if the Executive Branch is holding them legally. 150 of the captives also have separate judicial reviews under way under the Detainee Treatment Act. I have pointed out to the recent contributor that aspects of their detention have already been ruled unlawful.

So the legality of their detention remains an open question. The policy of neutrality prohibits us from taking sides. The term "detainee" implies a legality to these extraordinary detentions that is inappropriate in an project aiming at neutrality -- just as much as calling them "kidnap victims" would.

We should use a neutral term. There have been previous civil discussion over which term to use. Captive was seen as an acceptable compromise.

So I restored it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Geo Swan: The links I have provided reflect that the term "detainee" is the legal term of art used to describe individuals held at Guantanamo. Thus, it is the "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005," not the "Captive Treatment Act of 2005." http://www.cfr.org/publication/9865/. The Supreme Court also describes these individuals as "detainees" See p. 4.  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf. The term is also defined by Global Security as a person held by a military force. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-07-22/glossary.htm

The term "captive" is therefore a misnomer, it does not apply to the person and/or persons you describe as a class. It is a widely used term, with a strict definition at law as stated in the U.S. Code cited supra, used by multiple sources both within and outside of the government (and not simply by DOD as you assert). Your use of this term is, therefore, flawed. This is not a matter of "lining" this site up with one side of an issue, instead it is an issue of the use of a legal term of art. And in this case, that legal term of art is "detainee."

The "legality" issue you have placed forth, while interesting, is also irrelevant to this issue. It does not change the legal definition and/or legal term of art of detainees for what they are. Your argument goes to the legal "conclusion" of a Court, it does not, however, go to the legal term of art that describes detainees as a class at law.

Please be advised that on this basis, I will be editing this article back to the use of the term "detainee." Your position is simply not verifiable, nor is it tremendously meritorious. Should you have a source to support your position that the term "detainee" is a term that has been changed by Court opinion to "captive," please post your support for this position, and I will gladly take these sources into account. Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid an editing war on this issue, please express your agreement to moderation and/or peer review. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite independently of this discussion, I reverted to plain english. Before changing it back, it would be well to get agreement. The burden of this is on the challenger who would change the language, because there was in fact prior consensus for these articles. DGG (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't plain English be "prisoner?" Anyway, if there was some sort of prior consensus, there it is.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States Court of Military Commission Review. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5c27uHqhK to http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/Winter_Navy%20Judges%20Lend%20Expertise%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Military%20Commission%20Review.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Court of Military Commission Review. 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.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/Winter_Navy%20Judges%20Lend%20Expertise%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Military%20Commission%20Review.pdf
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Fnews%2Fnewsarticle.aspx%3Fid%3D25238&date=2008-11-02 with https://web.archive.org/web/20081023120601/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25238 on http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25238

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) 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Court of Military Commission Review. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jag.navy.mil%2FJAGMAG%2FWinter_Navy%2520Judges%2520Lend%2520Expertise%2520to%2520the%2520Court%2520of%2520Military%2520Commission%2520Review.pdf&date=2008-11-02 with https://www.webcitation.org/5c27uHqhK?url=http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/Winter_Navy%20Judges%20Lend%20Expertise%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Military%20Commission%20Review.pdf on http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/Winter_Navy%20Judges%20Lend%20Expertise%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Military%20Commission%20Review.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.courtartist.com/2007/08/a-new-court-for.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet:-military-commissions
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cmcr-stay-order-2-4-09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130015955/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/closureofguantanamodetentionfacilities/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1214739.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/09/02/14/United_States_v._al_Bahlul_-_Brief_for_Appellant__1_September_2009_.source.prod_affiliate.56.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) 05:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)