Jump to content

Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.199.22.63 (talk) at 22:32, 1 February 2012 (→‎Guantanamo Concentration Camp Entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conversion of Guantanamo Bay detention camp

The plan to open a Free Trade Mall and Education Center on the old camp Xray is only a discussion but it might be notable that plans for normalized relations with Cuba will drastically change the nature of the entire complex with fair trade and education facilities open to the Cuban Population in discussion. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Case Section

Is it worth making an edit to the section about the supreme court case to post Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, which stated legal precedence that aliens captured abroad have never been extended habeas corpus rights? I figured if the majority's argument was stated, it'd also be fair to post the minority opinion (unless it's stated elsewhere in the article, if someone could kindly point it out to me before I make a fool of myself). Thanks.

Matcat1116 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1978 German parallel

c.f. US Judge: Berlin Plane Hijack Trial Had Parallels to Guantanamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.132.251 (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is absolutely ridiculous and there's no parallel what so ever between this plane hijack and the concentration camp on Guantanamo! --89.50.28.18 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see parallels about the rights of the defandants (the hijackers and the Guantanamo detainees). The judge H. J. Stern said in that interview:
"State took the position that they had the right to define what rights the defendants had, because Tiede and Ruske [the hijackers] were neither US citizens [they were East Germans] nor on US territory [they were in West Berlin], but stood before an occupational court [a US court], ... the kind of court they have now instituted at Guantanamo, where the same issues (concerning defendants' rights) have percolated up. ..." Herbert J. Stern
What do you think? WideBlueSky (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

Weren't there pictures of the guards actively torturing the prisoners? Who took them down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.130.18 (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

I'd like it if somebody could write a section about the history of the camp, and how it came to be what it is now. Thank you. 76.120.103.127 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should add a history section...this article is incomplete without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.94.11 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Wouldn't an entry about what President-Elect Obama plans to do fall under WP:CRYSTAL, and really be inappropriate in this article? Yes, he will be president, but he's not yet, and these are only discussions at this point.  Frank  |  talk  21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Saying that Obama said that he will close it wouldn't violate WP:CRYSTAL but saying that he will close it when he hasn't yet closed it might. SteveSims (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered bringing the 'Future' section up to date? It currently includes information from 2009 suggesting that the closing of the detention facility was imminent, yet as of 2010 no action has been taken in that regard. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rent249 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible closing of Guantanamo Bay detention camp?

I realize this is not a forum for general discussion of whether Guantanamo should be closed, whether persons deserve to be there, or whether the U.S. is complying with international law. However, I do find it to be relevant and newsworthy that President-elect Barack Obama plans to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office.[1] According to the cited article, "Obama is planning to ship dozens of terror suspects from the prison to face criminal trial in the US as part of a plan to shut the jail down. It is a controversial move but one that demonstrates how abruptly he plans to change Washington in terms of policy, personnel and tone the moment he enters the Oval Office." I am not sure how to incorporate this information into the article, especially since it appears to be such a sensitive topic. However, again, I do feel this is important to the history of the detention camp, so someone more familiar with Guantanamo Bay may want to find a way to incorportate this. Thanks! Whataworld06 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind. It appears a "Future" section (referencing Obama's plans) was created while I was typing the above, as was another Talk Section. Please disregard. Whataworld06 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be an updated post in the 'future' section? Last post stated Obama will close the detention camp sometime in 2010....umm, it's Feb 14 2011 right now. I would also like to see a post about how this camp is one of the most respected detention centers in the world, clearly the inmates refusing to go to Thompson would be evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.192.186 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current prisoner numbers and demographics?

I was just reading an article published by the Associated Press on Nov. 10 that states there are approximately 250 detainees still at Guantanamo, and that Yemenis make up the largest group with 90 prisoners. However, it looks like the most recent figures we have listed here are from back in 2005, which claim there are 505 prisoners, with Saudis making up the largest demographic (although that statement doesn't have a citation, so someone might want to dig one up for it). Anyone want to take a stab at further verifying and updating this information?
–67.43.92.191 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Someone who is already invested. in this article should check it for grammar. I skipped around the sections for about thirty seconds and already found three errors. Here are a couple of small but important mistakes for which invested editors should be on the look out:

(1) Commas do not separate just any two clauses. They almost always separate two independent clauses and almost never separate the coupling of an independent and a dependent one.
(2) If we are to use American grammar rules, all commas and periods must go inside of single and double quotation marks, even when the quotation marks are not surrounding an actual quotation (i.e. a piece of dialogue or speech).

Don't mean to be a nag, but this is a great article. And the grammar should be as good as the writing. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who does the actual torturing?

I always wondered is there a rank you have to be do actually do the torturing, is it just random soldiers? Or is there certain people that do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.114.182 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. For those who oppose the U.S. side in the war, and who claim to oppose torture, they say the lower ranks do the "torturing" but are somehow influenced by the senior leadership in the Bush administration. The actual interrogators do include the enlisted ranks. It is often sergeants, but Damien M. Corsetti (of Bagram, not GTMO) was a PFC.
Keep in mind that, of the authorized techniques, the closest thing to actual torture was waterboarding, and that was a CIA technique. It hasn't used by military interrogators at all.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Randy and others may consider the authorized techniques not to be torture. On the other hand, many of the techniques are officially considered torture by legally sanctioned national and international courts of law. And as John McCain pointed out in 2008, Japanese were hanged by the US for acts of torture which included waterboarding. Twocs (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Twocs you, and the author of the unsigned comment, are saying that there are authorized torture techniques being used. I was under the understanding that waterboarding was used on 3 detainees but this practice has not been used for many years, and is banned in the military. So only the CIA could get away with it. If detainees are still interogated with torture, then Obama is a serious lier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.170.231 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, torture doesn't require prisoners to be interrogated. The documented (or 'alleged' if you want to prosecute the perpetrators) mistreatment of prisoners at GTMO does constitute torture. Whether this was sanctioned by whitehouse or military officials, or was a case of 'bad apples' is up for debate. It is not true that the only measure regarded as torture would be waterboarding, many of the other techniques used fall under torture as well - under national and international law and agreements. 80.57.192.41 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

This article's getting a bit big, so I think that a section may need to be split. Any comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo captive Incidents 2006-01 to 2009-01. Note the huge spike in incidents starting last fall.
OK so in the Navy and I'm an ACTUAL guard at guantanamo bay, and I see things in here about torture. First of all I'm sure that happened years ago when the U.S. entered the war, and maybe even a little while after that. But I have been here since May 2nd 2009 and I can assure you there is no torture going on here, unless of course you mean the guards. First of all I work 12 hour shifts 5 days but every now and then 6 days a week. My job is to make sure detainees dont commit "self harm" basically I make sure they don't commit suicide by standing and watching them for almost the whole 12 hours, it is the most boring job ever. After our guard mounts and after action reviews my days last about 13 to 14 hours. Also these detainees throw feces, yes real human feces, at us and the only thing that happens "Loss of cup" from thier cell. How is that fair? As for the detainees the last time it seemed like we were torturing them was when we only gave them we bottles of pepsi, insted of the four they usually get and they bitched for a few hours. So next time you think about someone getting tortued here think about the American soilders and sailors that actually work here because we but up with more b/s than you can imagine, unless you like being a detainee servant. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.190.10 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2009 June 17
You actually work at Guantanamo, right now? That is interesting. I know that I for one would like to ask you some questions about the base.
I have some bad news for you though. While it might seem obvious that, having personal knowledge of the base, you should feel free to make corrections to articles, based on that personal knowledge, this would lapse from the wikipedia's policies. All contributions to the wikipedia's "article space" are supposed to be verifiable. We can't verify your personal experiences.
FWIW, I download and read The Wire (JTF-GTMO) every week.
A couple of years ago there was a controversy when wikileaks traced the posting history of some IP addresses from JTF-GTMO, and found that someone using IP addresses at the JTF-GTMO public affairs office were anonymously editing articles that concerned Guantanamo and Cuba. This was fairly widely reported, and I suspect the GIs who made those posts either got in trouble, or got the scare of their lifetime. I went and looked at the kinds of edits those IP made, and I did not see any sign of anything like an organized disinformation campaign. I remember several random insertions of material like "Fidel Castro sucks dead bears" -- random and insignificant vandalism like we might get from high school or college kids on a prank.
I received one request, from a Guantanamo Press Officer, to amend something I had written. That Press Officer quoted a DoD policy on the use of the internet by DoD personnel. I tried to look that policy up. And, as near as I could determine, it must have said something like only designated press officers were authorized to answer questions from the public. So, before you answer any questions you might want to check with your boss to make sure you don't get in trouble.
Having said that, I'd like to ask you some questions about your Guantanamo service. I am going to ask them at User:Geo Swan/questions for Guantanamo GIs rather than here because it would be inappropriate to discuss some of this stuff on this article's talk page.
Keep safe Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Comments

Among the flood of criticism received by Gitmo, there's been some people supportive of the camp and the conditions of detention there. I added one such example in the criticism part. I also think that part is long-winded and repetitive, not up to encyclopedic standards, especially as it includes many outdated comments and unnecessary statements, such as that lawyers of the detained object to their treatment there (that's why they were hired in the first place). I believe it would much better to condensate and modify that part, describing issues and concrete objections, instead of long-winded rhetoric. Aussiesta (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guantánamo/Guantanamo

Should this page be moved to Guantánamo Bay with a redirect from Guantanamo Bay? Didn't want to move it without a consensus Veggieburgerfish (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus, several years ago -- geographic locations, that would normally be used by hispanophones, like the city and county of Guantánamo, Cuba, would be spelled in the Spanish manner, while locations that would normally be used by anglophones, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Guantanamo Bay detention camp would be spelled in the English manner. This is consistent with the widespread convention. We have an article on Germany -- not Deutchland, after all. I know consensus can change. But I am not aware it has. And if you think it should change, I think you will have to offer some justifications for that change.
Policy states that the most widely accepted English spelling should be used. It's difficult to tell because accents are often omitted in English simply because it's easier not to use them, but Guantánamo seems to be generally accepted as the "correct" spelling. PhageRules1 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? This is contrary to the consensus arrived at, and it would entail a lot of work, so I suggest we stick with the current wording... Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Hello, i am Malikussaid, First i would to say sorry to all people that feel angry to my words few months ago. I was native Indonesian, i had just learned few "bad" word on my English lesson, after reading a newspaper that said FBI suspected delete few truly bad pictures I'm angry and try to "unleash" all the bad words. In fact i would to say :

Why FBI deletes the truth, how bad are them, they also say suarahidayatullah.com as an extreme islamic resource.

Second i want to ask why a can't edit this page from my user account (when i logged in)? Am i blocked to edit this page..? When i click "Edit this page" my browser downloads "index.php", why...

Finally after i learned that taboo words should be used only to a truly bad people, i would to say sorry to all people that gets angry because of my words.

Future section edits and semi-protection

12/17/09 - Hey, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. Sorry to jump into someone else's post, but I don't know how to make my own. I'm just wondering if anyone besides me noticed that the introduction to this article accuses President Bush of signing an executive order in 1999 ... two years before he was sworn into office. Could someone possibly change that, because I don't know how.

Thanks,

Billiardsteve (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL - Today, I requested semi-protection for this article, based upon the many edits coming in from entities that have several different motivations for changing, vandalising and otherwise disrupting this article. Granted, the subject of this article is a political "hot potato", but we as Wikipedia editors CANNOT and WILL NOT allow that to affect the quality of our work here.

The most recent information in the Future section (Dec 15 2009) is dated slightly less than one year ago. Nothing in the article speaks to the treatment of detainees during 2010. The "quality of work here" is evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.83.44 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent edit about family opposition to the base closure, and the report's source: I feel that the sentence should remain as-is, with the source citation. If we wish to be far more "fair and balanced" than that source (I would hope so!), then let's find an opposing view, and cite that as well in the same sentence, something to the effect of; "While some family members voiced opposition to the closure (citation 1), others reacted favorably (citation 2)." That's the ideal solution here, the best one that I can see at this point. If someone has an equally effective idea, by all means posit it here! Edit Centric (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should balance it first. Fox news is known for sensationalism, and should not be the only source describing reaction to something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the last sentence of the lead is not important enough to warrant placement in the lead. It is repeated later on in the article, and its placement is clearly intended to be critical of Obama's decision. While I'm undecided on this issue, I believe wikipedia should be without such biases. Moreover, the inclusion of phrase "US troops and civilians" is especially misleading. Although it could be read to mean "civilians of other nations and US troops", the clear intent is to instill fear over attacks on US civilians. This is without factual basis; the article does not list a single case of an attack on a US civilian by a former detainee. In fact, it doesn't even really cite any attacks at all on Americans by ex-detainees. Would someone with registered status please remove this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedudes44107 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, I agree it was over-the-top POV, many detainees were also arrested in part because of their choice in wristwatch - in fact a larger number than are known to have returned to the battlefield - but we don't mention that in the lead. I included an extra "See also" link though to the list of detainees believed to have returned to the battlefield, to balance things. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the "Released Prisoners" section is currently: "If all on the "confirmed" list have returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[132]". Could an editor please insert an "18" thus: "If all 18 on the "confirmed" list...." for the sake of clarity. The cite supports the insertion; the change is in fact a closer paraphrase of the cite. Thank you in advance. 75.154.177.10 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Released detainees returning to terrorist activity

Recently there has been lots of news coverage in the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, etc. about how a large number of former detainees are returning to their terrorist activities. As this issue has apparently received lots of coverage in reliable sources this should be atleast mentioned in a section in this article. I do agree that it might be best for a whole article about this issue, but a section in this article should suffice for now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not necessarily true that they are all "returning to their terrorist activities." Surely many of these men were not terrorists and were locked up unjustly. However, when they were sent to a place that was not their home after years of arbitrary detention among some self-avowed terrorists, they felt anger and wished for retribution. Furthermore, it is libel to claim that they were all engaged in terrorist activities as they were not all, and no court found them all guilty of such. Twocs (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an entire article on the subject. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not an article. In any case, as this issue has received significant coverage it requires atleast a small section in this main article. This issue is obviously an integral element in all the controversy surrounding GB.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Peter Bergen points out, big deal. Hardly a large number as is being claimed. A 4% recidivism rate compared to 65% for the U.S domestic prison system and that ignores that the government definition of terrorism is rather wide, quote: "some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements". Mention is ok but there is no justification for a section. Wayne (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the International Herald Tribune source which I placed in the article (now removed), the recidivism rate is as high as high as 10 percent. A 65% general recidivism rate is incomparable. Returning to murdering people is not the same as returning to public urination and cocaine possession. In addition, recidivism in this situation is more notable where there has been accusations that the US just picked up random foreigners in Afghanistan who had no intentions of fighting. But mine and your opinions are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether this issue has received coverage in reliable sources. To that end, a front-page long article in the New York Times clearly satisfies the notability requirements for the inclusion of atleast a section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recidivism issue is a very notable aspect surrounding the whole Guantanamo Bay controversy. If it deserves its own article it surely deserves a small section with a link to the main article (in the {{main article}} format. It is important that we not censor and hide facts that do not comport with our world views. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The {{main}} mechanism should point to the article on this topic, in a section that provides a neutral paragraph or so of context. This article did contain a good section on these claims a couple of years ago. I haven't been following this article closely enough to have noticed its removal. If the person who removed it is still around perhaps they could explain why they did so? Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Herald Tribune does not claim 10%. It says that Pete Hoekstra claims that there are indications that as many as 10 percent of the men released from Guantanamo are "back on the battlefield". What is sourced are Hoekstra's claims, and even those are extremely weak ("indication", "up to"). So if you include this or not: Make sure that you reflect the sources fairly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course. All the claims must be described as claims and must state who is making these claims. The section that I added (now deleted) did just that.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 4% recidivism rate is not my opinion but Peter Bergen's based on the number of released prisoners the Pentagon claimed returned to terrorism (if that number is true). He points out that the Pentagon refuses to name them for "security reasons" so experts believe it is doubtful if more than a handfull really did. Wayne (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne: I was not clear enough. The "opinions" I was referring to was not the difference in numbers. You think the return to terrorism allegations are unimportant and I think the allegations are important. It's these opinions that are irrelevant if these allegations have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we can report on this, but we need to avoid framing this in a POV manner, i.e. by accepting the "return" part for people who may never have been terrorists in the first place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! So I take it that we have you on record as supporting the section's inclusion as long as it's clearly shown that all "returns" are allegations. By the way, the deleted section did state explicitly that they were allegations. Also, some of the information about new terrorist activities comes from the former detainees themselves. See this Associated Press article. The terrorist group themselves announced that former detainee Said Ali al-Shihri is now second of command of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have not stated my opinion on the issue yet, because I am on the fence - a) because it seems to be slightly off-topic for the camp article, and b) because I've not seen more external source on this so far. And since when has Al-Qaida been a reliable source? Your reverted edit plainly stated "A number of detainees have returned to attacking US troops and civilians after their release" - no "allegations", no qualifiers - in the lede. The paragraph later on is better, but still accepts the framing of the issue by the Pentagon (one of the directly involved actors) by repeating "return" in a way that makes it unclear if this is the Pentagon's or the editorial voice, and makes a stronger statement than Hoekstra actually did. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the sentence in the lede was wrongly stated; it should have manifested the "allegations" as in the section. But with all respect, I don't see how this is off-topic. The article is not about the geographic area known as Guantanamo Bay, buy about the process, the controversy, and all its surrounding issues.
There's no history of Al-Qaida lying about its members and leaders (murderers have a tendency to be truthful) so I don't think there's a need to qualify the claims, especially since it has been confirmed by the Pentagon. We have to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a legal brief. Over-qualifying can get kinda silly at times. I don't know if it's the best prose to have a sentence that goes: "According to the Associated Press, the Pentagon and Al-Qaida have confirmed that.........." We're 13 words into the sentence and we haven't begun the point yet. But prose can be discussed at a later time. At this time, we can't claim that the article is WP:NPOV if we are to censor the DOD's POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism claims

I suggest that the use of the term recidivism is highly confusing in this discussion. The usual use of this term is to refer to individuals who were first convicted in a court of law, served out the sentence imposed in a court of law, only to be convicted of a similar crime, after their release.

Only three Guantanamo captives have been sentenced David Hicks, Ahmed Salim Hamdan and Ali al-Bahlul. Hicks and Hamdan have served the very light sentences that were given. Neither one has been charged with a crime following their release. So, by one interpretation of recidivism, the current rate is 0.0 percent.

If you read the transcripts of the Administrative Review Board hearings you will come across repeated instances where a captive answers the allegations against them so fully and completely that the officers reviewing his status have no questions on those allegations. My own personal interpretation is that these were among the innocent men who remain held there, and it was my impression that the officers agreed.

So, what did the ask captives who seem to have established their innocence? (Paraphrasing)

"Okay. We accept you were innocent, and never should have been taken into custody, or sent to Guantanamo. But now we have to decide whether your detention here in Guantanamo has turned you into a threat to the USA. We have to consider that your treatment here, and the company you have been keeping, have radicalized you, and turned you into a threat. Remember, we know you have been tortured, and we know you have been hanging out with dangerous men who hate the USA. So, go ahead -- prove you don't hate us. You have ten minutes."

I think it is confusing to call individuals who entered Guantanamo as innocent bystanders, victims of mistaken identity, or victims of false denunciations, "recidivists", if they became radicalized while at Guantanamo.

Similarly, I suggest it is innately confusing to characterize former captives who are suspected of supporting terrorism, in some fashion, after their repatriation, as "returning to the fight" -- if they were innocent of any association with terrorism when they were first taken into custody. Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does every comment you make on a talk page include some sort of box?

It's annoying.

Can you please make your point without a box? To that end, the box and the rest of your political statement disguised at a comment to the discussion was basically irrelevant. Whether we use the term "recidivism" or "ex-convicts" is a moot-point if this info is removed from the article, which is the issue at hand. Indeed, the removed content, did not use any of terms that you don't like. Can you please offer your opinion about the subject at hand. You put lots of work into Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle, so you obviously feel the topic is notable. Do you feel this topic deserves its own section at this article with a link to the main article or do you think it's really unimportant?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please comply with the wikipedia's policies and conventions, and confine your comments to the issues, and avoid personal criticism?
You seem to have missed the comment where I went on record on how much coverage of this issue this article should have. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic that you tell me to stick to the issues when you're using this talkpage to spew anti-American propaganda. We're in middle of a discussion about the merits of including a section with the article and your plop down your "comment" smack in middle of the discussion about how the Americans are holding detainees when they realize that the detainees are innocent. This using-a-talkpage-as-a-forum violation is further excaberated by placing half of the comment in an attention-grabbing box. Please don't use talkpages as a forum and please interact with your fellow editors in a civil and normal manner. If you think you have a strong point then just say it. Everyone else manages to state their strong points without attention-grabbing boxes. Please show common courtesy and state your comments the way everyone else does. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And part of the discussion over whether the topic of former captives being accused of "returning" concerned the credibility of the claims in general, and whether captives who had been radicalized after their arrival in the camp could meaningfully be described as "returning to the battlefield". I don't think I owe any apologies for adding to this discussion.
As to whether it was a lapse from Guantanamo policy for the officers who sat on an ARB to recommend continuing to hold captives once they realized that those captives had initially played no role in hostilities -- you are laboring under a misconception. The officers' mandate did not include basing their recommendation on whether the captives established they had initially played no role in hostilities. They were authorized to base their recommendations solely on whether the captive "held intelligence value", and/or whether they posed a threat. So captives who had played no role in hostilities, or in supporting terrorism, could continue to be detained, simply because they held "intelligence value". Credible sources have documented several cases where captives continue to be held, even after being cleared for release, due to their intelligence value. Alternatively the officer's mandate did include recommending continuing to hold captives who may have been apprehended in error, but who were radicalized in the camp. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geo,
If I may interrupt, which detainee was kept solely because he was radicalized in GTMO even though they had concluded he was innocent?
And for the record, I agree the "battlefield" issue is over the top. My guess is that the people using that term looked at particular instances but not at the numbers.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. First, let me apologize for using the term "innocent", when I suggested some of the captives had been innocent bystanders. The officers presiding over the CSR Tribunals and Review Boards routinely told the captives that the proceedings were not courts, and they weren't concerned with whether they were innocent.
There are captives who have been reported to have been classified as combatants who were held solely for their intelligence value. If captives were kept after the Review Board officers determined they had been kept in error, that may not have been put into writing -- as it was not part of their mandate. The four hundred Board recommendation memos where about seven pages long, but they were so heavily redacted one can't tell what they based their recommendations on.
At least one captive has been reported to have been held for years after they had been cleared for release or transfer, so they would be available to testify against Salim Hamdan. I count him as one of the captives reportedly held due to his intelligence value.
Intelligence analysts either knew, or should have known that British resident Bisher Al Rawi wasn't a threat. He had been an MI-5 informant. All of his contact with the radical Imam Abu Qatada had been at the direction of his MI-5 handlers. He was in Guantanamo not for anything he did, or even for any ideas he was committed to. So I count him as a captive reportedly held just for intelligence value.
Guantanamo held several Iraqi captives. At least one of them told their Tribunal he thought the only reason he was being held was that, as a former conscript into the Iraqi military US military intelligence thought he could inform them of the details of Iraqi training methods.
What should the USA have done if they realized that captives who had been apprehended in error had been radicalized in custody? I don't know. My understanding of the GC is that if President Obama returns to compliance with the GC, and he holds new Tribunals that comply with the GC, like the AR-190-8 Tribunals, the USA can continue to hold anyone the GC compliant Tribunals determine were combatant prior to capture, and would be under no obligation to lay charges against them. But those radicalized while in US custody? I think if the Obama administration decides upon full compliance with the GC they would have to be let go.
I asked some of the questions we have discussed here recently when Karen J. Greenberg hosted a live discussion on Guantanamo on the Washington Post. [1] Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also believe we were holding some people more for their intelligence value, but this isn't the same thing as innocence, and it doesn't mean they're not on the other side. I don't have any sympanthy for them. If that proverbial little old lady who funds terror isn't forthcoming with her contacts, her reluctance to be forthcoming shows where she stands.
I have a different take on the detainee who stooled for the British. I'm sure you recall Cheney's famous quote about the "dark side." It's now mischaracterized by his critics, naturally, but back when he said it the discussion was about undoing the "Torricelli principle." That was a law that restricted the CIA's use of informants so that they weren't paying money to killers without authorization from the higher levels. Cheney said we do sometimes need to work on the dark side. That's the kind of world they operate in. That this British detainee was formerly such an asset could be more damning than exonerating.
I don't see much chance Obama would declare these detainees to be POWs. We are in compliance with Common Article 3, and that's all we need. The difference between a CSRT and an AR-190-8 is negligible. They have the same officers, the same rules for evidence, and the same burden of proof. The only substantive difference is that we would have to treat them as POWs afterwards, and there is no way Obama wants to do that. (You may have noticed he allowed himself some wiggle room on interrogations.) It wouldn't stop the detainees' lawyers anyway. They'll just go after him for something else.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, there's a very sensible explanation why they use the term "battlefield". Looking at the Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle, the initial ones were all the types who we would describe as having been captured on a battlefield, and then returned to battle after their release.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the teenage boy who was one of the second set of three captives whose names were made public -- he was determined to be an enemy because he was carrying a "Taliban letter". The McClatchy News Service interviewed 66 former captives last year. At least a dozen of the captives feared repercussion from the Taliban, due to their relatively early release, that they had moved to Kabul, or to other Provinces. I have read reports of former captives being murdered by the Taliban, based on rumors they had been too cooperative with their American captors. My guess is that this letter may only have been a safe conduct pass, and may not have implied the kid had any sympathy for, or involvement in, any Taliban activity. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Messenger boys are combatants (and could be valuable under interrogation). I don't doubt that a lot of these detainees are under duress, and I can feel sorry for them, but that goes for a lot of real soldiers of enemy countries.
Your real point, that their return to "battle" doesn't mean they're all bad guys, is a good one. But in the sense that the list is being used as evidence that they shouldn't have been released, this doesn't invalidate that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a recent article on the recidivism claims.[2] Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility of the "returned to the fight" claims

How credible are the claims?

The number of returnees Bush administration and DoD spin doctors, and their apologists, claimed "returned to the battlefield", "returned to terrorism", "returned to the fight", "returned to supporting terrorism", keeps growing.

"Returned to the battlefield" is the original claim, now dropped. Why, because it is not credible? Only a few dozen captives in total, were captured on the battlefield. The original claims that the captives "were all captured on the battlefield" is simply not supported by the OARDEC documents.

In March and May 2007 we have two separate DoD officials giving very different accounts of how many former captives had engaged in bad stuff, following their release or repatriation. In March 2007 we have a non-spin-doctor state: I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight.

Two months later spin-doctors went on record that the number was "over thirty" -- no mention that only twelve of those instances were actually confirmed. The over thirty number was the widely repeated number, until the spin-doctors upped their claim again. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using articles and talkpages to spew your anti-American hatred. Accusing the Americans of keeping detainees in Guantanamo Bay (subsection above, in the box) after they realized that they were innocent is an extreme POV propaganda and has no place here at Wikipedia. Further rants about "spin doctors" are of no relevance to article improvement. Whether the DOD allegations are true or not does not make a difference. The only issue here is whether the allegations have received significant coverage in reliable sources. The allegations are verifiable in multiple independent news sources. The censorship of this information after this article is full of every allegation made by the detainees is a horrible and egregious WP:NPOV violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth. This does not mean we repeat the spokesman's official line, without question, even if it is more widely reported than other official versions. Drawing attention to an alternate official figure is not "spewing anti-American hatred".
I am already on record as agreeing that the reports of former captives being accused or suspected of engaging in terrorism, or engaging in ordinary hostilities, merits neutral coverage on the wikipedia. I am already on record as agreeing that a small section here should provide context, and a link to the main article on this topic. I started a section on this topic in this article, several years ago. And I remain interested in an explanation as to how it came to be removed. I wouldn't call the removal of material on this topic censorship, when it could be a good-faith difference of opinion. This is the same courtesy I have extended to you, following your own large and poorly explained, or entirely unexplained, excisions.
I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to make a greater effort to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies. Please understand that when you lapse from compliance with the wikipedia's civility policies you tempt others to respond in kind. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that we have to "we repeat the spokesman's official line, without question". The section that I placed into the article clearly emphasized that they were all allegations. If anyone relies too much on the DOD as a source it's the editor that has created hundreds of memorials for Guantanamo Bay detainees based solely on DoD documents.
Ironically, you accuse me of making "large and poorly explained, or entirely unexplained, excisions". I have yet to remove one word from this article. My additions have been deleted, yet you attack me.
In summation, using this talk page as your anti-America pulpit violates the WP:TALK policies. Creating a strawman argument and falsely accusing your fellow editor of removing material violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This back and forth posting has reduced this discussion to something akin to a sub-par politics and current events forum. The bulk of Geo Swan's postings seem to be criticisms and accusations directed towards brewcrewer, which in turn spawns less than encyclopedic (ie accusations of propaganda) counter-criticisms and accusations towards Geo Swan from brewcrewer. Both sides should clean up their act. It states very clearly at the top of the page that this is a discussion page for improvement of a Wikipedia article, not a forum. While I believe that brewcrewer is not reacting to the situation in the most professional manner, I also think that Geo Swan is in fact injecting his own political POV into this discussion. Geo Swan is violating Wikipedia policy by tying to assert some of his points of view (which he is entitled to) as NPOV, while brewcrewer is violating Wikipedia policy by assuming bad faith in asserting that Geo Swan's motivation is to "Spew anti-American hatred". Both sides are creating a problem, and both sides should clean up their acts. Tominator93 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia needs to mention is 4% to 10% of prisoners released had later interactions with terrorism. To stay neutral we cannot say that they "became terrorists" or "were terrorists" even though I personally believe both are true.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gates Argued for Closing

It is well known and should be mentioned that Robert Gates, President George Bush's Defense Secretary, argued to close it. 98.25.239.215 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gitmo

I think it is within the scope of improving this article to include a note on the moral ethics and implications of the detaining of the 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo, because it is clear the the actual camp (physical) has become much more than that in terms of its meaning and that perhaps this page should reflect that. Lack of information is a form of misinformation and therefore negates the articles validity. Surely on the discussion page at least we could mention some implications etc.

FOR EXAMPLE detaining these combatants and not giving them any legal status under Bush denied them due process and could be seen as having been a way of circumnavigating international law and treaties. Therefore could this signify that if the end justifies the means then international law only applies selectively when needed and that basic rights and legal processes now mean nothing? If all the rules have been thrown out the window then does that help or hinder the world we live in? Have we become as bad as the terrorists themselves and sacrificed our own integrity? Therefore losing the main point of the war, to protect our rights and freedoms and those of others? Have we entered into a world where democracy and law mean nothing? But of course now Obama is in this discussion will never take place. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, these articles already go quite far playing to the odd sensibilities that America's critics claim to feel about these issues.
The fact is that the Bush administration has paid great attention to these very details. People who wish to claim to care about the Geneva Conventions should understand that "due process" has its limits within the laws of war. That's the way it's always been. The Bush administration didn't make that up. The only people "as bad as the terrorists themselves" are the people who defend the terrorists.
After all the legal arguments over the years, you may have noticed that the Supreme Court has not closed down GTMO. The Bush administration lost a few cases, but GTMO is still open, and it's perfectly legal.
The Obama administration may close it down, but his AG did agree with the Bush administration that the U.S. has the right to hold these detainees until the end of the war. That's probably what they'll do for many of them.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strikes - clarification needed

In Hunger strike#Force-feeding it states that "An officer said the number of strikers peaked at 131 around September 11. " This seems unlikely - didn't most of the prisoners arrive after that? Can anyone clear this up?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked dowwn the original source and added the ref. It appears from the article that it's just referring to September 11, 2005 (although I could be wrong as it's a little ambiguous). I've edited the section to reflect that. -- Irn (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After also looking at the source I agree, it must be sept 11 2005. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The longest and most widespread hunger strike started in May or June of 2005. It has been reported that it was ended through negotiation on July 31, 2005, after camp authorities made some concessions, and recommenced a week or so later when the captives felt the camp authorities were not honoring their promises. The DoD published height and weight records in early 2007. But, for most captives, the records camp authorities published do not include weigh-ins during the hunger strike. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JTF-GTMO (2007-03-16). "Measurements of Heights and Weights of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba". Department of Defense. Archived from the original on 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2008-12-22.
  • JTF-GTMO (2006-03-16). "Heights, weights, and in-processing dates". Department of Defense. Archived from the original on 2008-12-25. Retrieved 2008-12-25.
Recently repatriated ISN 669 had been on that hunger strike since June 2005. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detainees section

This section says 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain. I know that three committed suicide and one was released after conviction. Is there any information what happened to the other 106 (775-420-245-3-1) prisoners? I followed the citation but the source does not say. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list of former captive's transfer dates, dated October 9, 2009, was published in late November 2009.
Since this list was published the Bush administration repatriated a half dozen or so captives, and the Obama administration has repatriated just under a dozen captives. The most recent figure I have seen was 229 captives.
FWIW, the 775 figure is not correct. 759 captives were transferred to the camp in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The group of fourteen "high value detainees" was transferred from CIA to military custody on September 6, 2006. A further six captives were transferred in 2007 and 2008: ISN 10025, ISN 10026, ISN 10027, ISN 10028, ISN 10029 and ISN 10030. That is 779 captives, by my arithmetic. Two of the last six are also classed as "high value detainees". None of the last six have had a CSR Tribunal. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Potest

it should be noted in the article that the prisoners are now using a form of dirty protest against the guards buy smearing and throwing feces at guards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_protest Xylon.doulas (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new. These fascists have been doing that for years.
There's no punishment for it either. The guards just have to put up with it.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know?173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tossing of fecal material isn't new. It was pretty common while I was there in 05. c.elhardt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celhardt (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon report on released prisoners

If it's not already included, the information reported in this story seems worth noting [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm /us_yemen_guantanamo_usa]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment moved here from main article

Per title, - TB (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a description of "Camp No" as it's been described in the Horton article? The US government has repeatedly said that it doesn't exist, but lately there seem to be a lot of high-ranking people who want to talk about that previously unidentified building on the satellite photo. Just asking. Up for discussion. Important? Not important? Mardiste (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources have reported on the allegation that the camp exists. Any mention of the allegation should be brief, per WP:UNDUE, and needs to be worded carefully. Assuming that more sources might become available in the future, I personally have decided not to add info about the allegation at the moment, because (a) adding appropriate content would be probably easier later on (b) coverage in the sources might change rapidly, so there would be a need to check this continuouly for accuracy and compliance with WP policies. If you want to do this work, I wouldn't object to it, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shutting down the prison or the whole base

Just to be clear, does Obama want to shutdown the military prison or the whole Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? --Melab±1 ☎ 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congress just said "no". Read this 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Correct second sentence of article

The second sentence of this article is inaccurate: "The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees from the Iraq war."

Actually, "The Iraq War, the Second Gulf War[45] and Operation Iraqi Freedom[46]) was a military campaign that began on March 20, 2003" per Wikipedia entry OIF.

Begin opinion: The camp at Gitmo was actually opened in response to the murder of CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann (USATODAY.com - CIA officer killed in Afghanistanwhile interogating) while interrogating illegal combatants in an Afghan prison camp and the death of an unknown number of other illegal combatants detained by US Afghan allies who were warehoused in sealed shipping containers.

Cheers,

Redclimateneck (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner complaints

The following was deleted from the article. "However, prisoners released from the camp have alleged that abuse of religion including flushing the Qur'an down the toilet, defacing the Qur'an, writing comments and remarks on the Qur'an, tearing pages out of the Qur'an and denying detainees a copy of the Qur'an." The reference to flushing the qur'an down the toilet which was reported widely including in Newsweek was later determined to be a false accusation. Newsweek even apologized for printing it. The prisoners are well versed in making false accusations in order to create media reports which then can be used as recruiting tools for others to join the terrorist cause. By placing it in this article in the way it was presented there is a suggestion that such false accusations have credibility. While accurate in terms of the accusations being made its misleading without this additional information concerning the fact that many false accusations were made against our military. I'm not posting but deleting so no reference is necessary. However, since I served as a military chaplain to the detention camp for eleven months I have the expertise to speak about these issues. It was part of my job description to help coordinate the handling of Qur'ans. Standard Operating Policy dictated that the Qur'an not be touched by the guards. In each cell there was a surgical mask suspended from the ceiling into which the detainees stored their Qur'an. This was designed so that a guard would not even accidently touch it if needing to go into the cell. Every detainee was issued a Qur'an at the camp. There was a system of rewards and punishments in which religious items were denied the detainees for periods of time when they acted out violently against the quards but the Qur'an was never part of that program. Things included in that program were prayer rug, prayer oil, and prayer beads but never the Qur'an. The detainees always had the direction to Mecca painted on the floor of their cell. Call to prayer was played over the loud speaker system at each time of prayer. The detainees were allowed to participate in Ramadan religious practices. It was also repeatedly impressed upon the guards that one did not touch or mishandle the Muslim holy book because of the violent reaction it would cause and the world reaction that such a thing would cause. We will never know just how many were attacked and lives lost because of information sources falsely stating as fact that a Qur'an was flushed down the toilet. ChaplainSvendsen (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above text was mistakenly added to the article so I moved it here.
You're right that the Koran flushing story was bogus, and that people were killed because of it. It is ironic that the military's SOP had shown such deference but that's been the way things go. I don't doubt that the people who gleefully spread the story didn't care whether it killed anyone or not.
The part you removed was unreferenced. And as you said, it was incomplete and misleading. I do think the story needs to be mentioned, although it doesn't have to be in this article. The incident is part of the history of the camp, and many people contributed to its propagation. People who spread the Islamists' side of the story are, in effect, defending fascism. Such people should never be forgotten.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are well sourced 2005 Qur'an desecration controversy. Notable story. True or not. IQinn (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAS Habeas Corpus Report

Tried to access FAS report today after googling 'guantanamo habeas corpus'. Per front page:

[PDF] Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by JK Elsea - 2010 - Cited by 2 - Related articles U.S.C. § 2241, provided federal courts with jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions by or on behalf of persons detained at Guantanamo. ... www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf - Similar

Kept failing to access the actual report ('server issues') but it would seem that this report is related. I have labelled the reference as 'retrieved' with the info above, not sure if that is correct. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Concentration Camp Entry

Guantanamo is a concentration camp and as such should be labelled and get a search word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.23.22 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV. Not really a common alternate name. The only people who might be calling it that are those who support the jihad.
Admittedly, there are a lot of those, but most of them call it "Guantánamo."
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both "concentration camp" and "detention camp" are fairly similar. Detention camp - "a compound where prisoners are detained temporarily, as pending determination of their legal status under immigration laws." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detention+camp. Concentration camp - "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration+camp. One definition is fairly neutral while the other, is also neutral, draws the connotation of being similar to camps set up during World War 2 by the Nazis. To keep NPOV, I think the more generic definition of "detention camp" would be apropos. User:Aneah 03:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obantanamo

People named the camp as "Obantanamo." It is being used on the web and in personal communications. It should be noted in the article.

Example here:Göller, Magnus. "His kingdom come" (HTML). Neues aus Hammelburg. News from Hammelburg. Retrieved 01 February 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

  1. ^ Barack Obama plans quick transfer of Guantanamo Bay suspects to US Retrieved on November 9, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp&oldid=474477244"