Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:32, 18 August 2005

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)

Merged Things

I merged in a couple things that were mentioned on a duplicate article called "Guantanamo Base" but not mentioned here. If we want to make a separate article on the base alone, it should rather be called "Guantanamo Bay Naval Station" or "Naval Base Guantanamo Bay". But, I don't think that is necessary. --Mrwojo 05:03 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe not two articles, bur there should be made a distinction between the bay (Spanish name, for sailing, Cuban rule, location A) and the base (English name, for walking, US rule, location B). -DePiep 14:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC), suppressing puns.

Besides this: The city is spelled Guantánamo, and so is the bay. This is OK in Spanish. But the naval base has an US (English) name, which should be withoud accent: Guantanamo Bay. Both texts are correct on the map. I suggest the title (!) takes this change. Now its mixed. -DePiep 14:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The base became a strategic strongpoint in the American fight against Communism during the decades following World War II"

Really? How come? I can't find any activities developed here to fight comunism, for example, the Infamous "school of the americas" to train latin america soldiers in counterinsurgence, and torture was in Panama (a host of latin america dictators was trained there) but in Guantamamo.....Nothing ! Cuye 09:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why no reference to the "Grenada 17"?

'Cuz we don't know about that? (I don't, anyway :-) ). Feel free to elucidate in the article! Stan 14:43, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Stan, for your generosity of spirit. I am not prone to clear and concise commentary myself. The Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects are not the first to enjoy the hospitalities offered in prison at Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you could find something in this: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR32002203?open&of=ENG-GRD . Ted

Exclave comparison

Compare with other foreign establishments: Subic Bay, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macao

I don't quite understand this - why are Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Macao anything like Guatmo? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a vague analogy with foreign territories carved out around bays, but either it needs to explain that, or go away. I'd vote for removal, the analogy is greatly stretched and kind of pointless anyway. Stan 14:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I vote to keep the analogy; it links a number of different territories, keeping out of his home country control, usually with a treaty obtained by the use of force or with the attempted use of force Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep the comparison. It covers temporary and permanent leased areas. Occupied/ceded areas. Leases not renewed and the orderly end of a lease and adjacent occupied/ceded areas. A microcosm of this particular form of colonialism/foreign control. garryq 23:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Wait a minute....is this really NPOV? "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular." Popular with whom? This should be specified that the Cuban government disapproves of the base, and why. It seems to me that a blanket statement of unpopularity isn't appropriate.

I support, it is necesary to specify with whom, I suggest "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with cubans." Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

...the U.S. will pay 2000 gold coins (about $4000 in today's money)... Something doesn't seem right. I would like to know where I can get a $2 gold coin.

Two key points - that's "today's money", with much inflation, and the unit of money is likely not dollars. It would be good to find out which monetary system was intended, presumably whatever Cuba was using. Stan 14:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After 106 years of hostile occupation (since 1898), maybe the United States would consider leaving the base and returning the territory to the Cuban people. Since 1959 Cuba has made it clear that it wants the United States to leave, bearing in mind that the lease agreement was imposed by force on Cuba in 1902 -- either Cuba accepted the platt amendment giving the United States the right of intervention in Cuban internal affairs, and the right to establish military bases on Cuban territory, or the US forces would continue occupying the island. According to applicable international law today, the treaty is invalid as contrary to jus cogens, self-determination, and the doctrine of "unequal treaties". Of course, international law is not identical with its enforcement. And the fact that the US occupation of Guantanamo is illegal does not change the realities of power. The norms are clear. We have a situation of a complex of violations of international law -- with complete impunity, since no-one can force the United States to observe international law. This does not mean that international law does not exist. It only means that there is no enforcement mechanism and that the United States can and does get away with violating international law with impunity. Another reason for invalidity of the lease agreement the use of the base for decades now for purposes not in accordance with the lease -- which allowed for the use of Guantanamo bay as "naval and coaling facilities, and for no other purpose". The use as an internment center for 32 000 Haitians, 20 000 Cuban boat people and 700 Talibans clearly constitutes a material breach of the lease.

Whereas China could persuade the UK to leave Hong Kong and Portugal to leave Macau, Cuba has no such leverage.

So the illegal occupation of Guantanamo bay continues. But we should not give it our recognition as a legitimate lease -- a "perpetual lease" as the United States claims -- because it was imposed by force.

I gave a lecture on this topic at the university of British Columbia, published in 37 U.B.C. law review 277-341 (2004) - -- Professor Alfred de Zayas, Geneva

Who cares what lecture you gave? The U.S. there. ------Keetoowah 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, what is your point? Are you trying to suggest that only Americans are entitled to an opinion as to the legality and justice of the US occupation? Are you trying to insult the other guy? I found his comments interesting. I think providing a link to an expanded discussion of his points is worthwhile. -- Geo Swan 15:12, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Yes, it's not like noone from the University of Geneva has anything interesting to say about International law... Rama 15:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map of Cuba

I made the map larger to make the “Guantanamo Bay” 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. Rafał 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:Iraqis tortured wp-j.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 ] 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

• 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.)

—wwoods 06:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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?
—wwoods 10:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even some new browsers still, I believe (in English wikis) can't handle some diacritic links — 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)

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, 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 Misplaced Pages, and in some serious instances it can be a disciplinary matter. --Tony Sidaway 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.

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))

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

Also, please keep calm and remember Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)