Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp

To do
I know the article needs work.

I think, when I look at this article in a couple of days, I will see passages that should be trimmed, or made more neutral. I won't have time to take that second look for a couple of days.

In addition, it needs sections on things like:
 * interrogation;
 * medical care;
 * allegations of abusive guards;
 * allegations of abusive interrogation;
 * hunger strikes and the "restraint chair"
 * the suicides, and the after effects;
 * captives who continued to be detained years after they were determined not to have been "enemy combatants";
 * captives who continued to be detained years after they were cleared for release;
 * captives who the DoD claims "returned to the battlefield";
 * the DoD's claims around the "Manchester manual";
 * ghost prisoners and moles;
 * Camp Iguana; Camp Echo (Guantanamo); Camp four (Guantanamo) -- the camp for compliant (Guantanamo) captives;

Cheers! George Swan 18:59, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

Perhaps a first priority
Looking at the lead, would it not be appropriate to define "war on terror" first? After all, you describe Guantanamo as part of the war on terror, so without defining the motivation (good or bad), how can the specifics of the actions make sense? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:25, 24 June 2008 (CDT)


 * You mean define "war on terror" in the lead to this article? I wouldn't know how to do that.  Does the phrase merit an article of its own?  Sure.  I don't know if I am competent to write a neutral article on it myself however.  Personally I see it as a kind of looking-glass term, that means whatever the proponents want it to mean, at the time.


 * Cheers! George Swan 20:32, 24 June 2008 (CDT)


 * If I understand my role as a Military Workgroup Editor, I can make the observation that as long as a term of reference essential to an article can't be defined, then a coherent article can't be defined. If Guantanamo is a response to a "War on Terror", but a "War on Terror" can't be defined, how can one possibly judge if Guantanamo is an appropriate response in such a war? If you can't write a neutral definition of "War on Terror", how can you expect to write a neutral definition of anything connected to it?


 * Now, if you wanted to argue Guantanamo in terms of well-defined U.S. and international law, that would give a solid base. As long as the article depends on an undefined term, I can't see it developing into anything meaningful.


 * I don't understand CZ to be about looking glasses, but as a reflection of expert opinion on a topic. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:57, 24 June 2008 (CDT)


 * In Lewis Carroll/Charles Dodgson's "Alice through the Looking Glass" Alice challenges a character over their use of terms. And the character tells her "the words I use mean whatever I want them to mean, no more, no less."  When I suggested the phrase "the war on terror" was a looking-glass phrase I didn't mean a literal mirror -- a literal reflection.  The spin-doctors use of terms like "war on terror" is slippery, and inconsistent.  I was referring to their surreal, circular reasoning style of Dodgsonian logic.


 * Cheers! George Swan 02:28, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

Malpractice among spin doctors
There's nothing wrong with regarding "war on terror" as a term of spin doctors -- I do -- but, if it is not substantial, don't use it in your lead. A good neutral opening, within the first couple of paragraphs, might start of with something along the lines of "the George W. Bush administration has said that the continued security of the United States depends on keeping certain individuals imprisoned and under interrogation." There are probably some sources for this on the White House website. Look for the paper "National Security Policy of the United States", if I have the term correct in memory.

Then, go on to cite Court decisions, constitutional attorneys, etc., on why this is not necessarily a good idea.

One interesting, and not irrelevant, point to examine would be "how is this different than the case ex parte Quirin? Alternatively, if the U.S. had declared a competent tribunal in Afghanistan, as allowed by the Geneva Convention, and shot some of these individuals as spies, would there be a problem now? why? why not?

Again, I am not asking you to come up with your own definition of "war on terror". I am asking you not to use it in a lead, or as a justification by the Bush Administration, unless you have an authoritative citation that says the term should be so interpreted.

There is abundant literature that can be cited to show the arguments for and against the Administration policy. You might say that he, or Yoo, or someone, believes it is legal under the doctrine of unitary authority, cite some authorities that do not agree with that doctrine, and move on.

Just don't get caught up in spin doctor terms. Howard C. Berkowitz 09:29, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

I took the easy way out last night
I took the easy way out... I changed "apprehended in the war on terror" to "apprehended in Afghanistan and certain other places around the world".

Ninety plus percent of the captives were apprehended in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But many of the captive who were initially in CIA custody were captured elsewhere.

Bisher al Rawi and Jamil el Banna were apprehended on a business trip to Gambia. Saifullah Paracha and several others were apprehended on business trips to Indonesia.

Dozens or hundreds of captives were apprehended in Somalia, or fleeing from Somalia, in 2007. And a couple of them ended up in Guantanamo. George Swan 13:48, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


 * It would improve this to add the rationale on why they were arrested, and, perhaps, why that was unjustified. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:37, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

Geneva Convention
The statement in the lead seems inadequate. My recollection is that the US government


 * 1) 1st said the Convention didn't apply
 * 2) then said it applied to the Taliban but not al-Qaida, but that the latter would be treated roughly in accordance with it
 * 3) then decided that al-Qaida prisoners would not be treated in accordance with either the Convention or the 5th amendment to the constitution (whether this is technically torture or not is acadmeic; any sort of coercive questioning is illegal)

Peter Jackson 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)