Talk:Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms

Grace period?

User:Finngall added a {{prod}} to this article less than five minutes after it was started. {{cfd}} and {{csd}} both urge those nominating articles for deletion to give contribuitng wikipedians a grace period before they nominate an article for deletion -- because many wikipedians start articles in fits and starts.

Even if the policies and procedures that surround {{prod}} don't suggest that nominators give those who start articles a grace period I urge them to nevertheless grant a grace period.

I would further urge those making nominations to be responsible about the justification they use. Finngall justification was "Non-encyclopedic original research" This is not a clearcut justification, like "patent nonsense". And, IMO, it is just not responsible to level this kind of accusation against a fist draft, five minutes after it was started.

IMO, because this is not a clearcut justification I think it is regrettable that the nominator chose to level accusations rather than initiate a dialog.

I have had conversations with other impatient wikipedians, who couldn't wait out a reasonable grace period before they nominated an article for deletion, speedy deletion, or {{prod}}. Some of them have offered the lame excuse that complying with the policies recommendation to extend a grace period would make their deletion efforts less efficient. IMO, this is an unimaginative excuse. I expect a technical solution to this would be trivial. (1) Figure out a reasonable grace period; (2) then figure out a way to show those who patrol the recent changes, looking for new articles to nominate for deletion. It should be trivial to figure out a way that can show article that are just old enough to have survived whatever we all agreed should be the reasonable grace period.

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Added information, quotes and context, removed the PROD - I hate PRODs, seriously, as much as I hate AFDs, PRODs are worse. Anyways, some images certainly seem to show scrubs rather than jumpsuits, just curious if that was a change after a certain date, or a misconception/misnomer, or whatever. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Verbage Change

I substituted the accepted legal term of art "detainee" for "captive" in this article. "Detainee" is the term used at law, by the Courts and by the media to describe individuals held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is also the term used in every link provided. Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop asserting this is the "legal term" for the men in Guantanamo. The links you provided earlier do not establish this. They merely establish that this is the term the DoD prefers. Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By changing the term from captive to "detainee" you are, in effect, lining the wikipedia up on one side of a dispute. Note:

...Judge Robertson said, a stay at Guantanamo that becomes indefinite is “unlawful.”

• Lyle Denniston (2008-08-19). "Analysis: Escalating the Parhat case". Scotusblog. Retrieved 2008-09-09. mirror

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

On a final note, Judge Robertson's decision is interesting, because the Judge describes the individual as a "detainee."

Please be advised that on this basis, and in light of the fact that your position that this term is a restricted one utilized by DOD (without support), I will be editing this article back to the use of the term "detainee." Your position is simply not verifiable at this time. Should you have a source to support your position that the term "detainee" is a term that is strictly "preferred by DOD," please post your support for this position, and I will gladly take these sources into account. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We should use a neutral term. There have been previous civil discussion over which term to use. Captive was seen as an acceptable compromise. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Respondent above writes:

The term is also defined by Global Security as a person held by a military force. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-07-22/glossary.htm

Actually the full definition Global security offers were:

detainee – (joint) A term used to refer to any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force. (JP 1-02)

The "JP 1-02" the global security definitions are taken from Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 12 April 2001 (As Amended Through 26 August 2008). All respondent's links show is that this is a DoD term. They do not show that this is a "legal term" or a "legal term of art". And they do not show that holding these men in Guantanamo is "legal", as resondent has, I believe, asserted elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Geo Swan:

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

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

Geo Swan: This will confirm your position that the Supreme Court of the United States is an arm of the Department of Defense, and that the United States Code shares this commonality. Please review these links before commenting further.

In the meantime, I will be placing a tag for Peer Review on this issue. I do not wish to engage in an edit war. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Detainee" is Newspeak, a term used by the DOD etc to disguise what everyone outside the US believes is the true legal situation of the individuals, in order to pretend that they are not entitled to the protection as prisoners of war. . The plain English word is captive or prisoner. DGG (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a non US citizen, (and, therefore, reasonably un-bias) I have to agree, even the BBC (the state owned broadcaster, of a country very friendly with the USA) tends to use the word captive or prisoner very often when referring to guantanamo. Would a compromise of using the word "prisoner" be acceptable to the other editors of this article? Or we could just use all three words in equal amounts if no other resolution can be reached...--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Detainee" is the word defined at law, as passed by Congress and is widely used as a result. It is not a term used by the "DOD" solely to describe these individuals. Your linkage of the term with your opinion that its use is to "disguise ... the true legal situation of the individuals" itself reveals that you have ascribed your own view to the word based on your subjective feelings regarding the issue. Your further arguments, that these individuals have attained the rights of "prisoners of war," is also incorrect. Presently, these individuals fall under the rights and protections of the human rights side of the equation, but are not, and I repeat not, "prisoners of war" as defined by the Geneva Convention. Don't you realize that if they were considered POW's, they would not be allowed to move for habeus corpus, nor would they be released until hostilities had ceased by proclamation? That the worst day for these individuals would be the day their status was changed from "detainee" to "POW?" That they would, basically, never be released? This is another side to the equation that, perhaps, you have failed to fully consider. In short, they were not, nor have they ever been, members of a nation's military organization. Traditionally, they would have been viewed as Guerillas, and subject to summary execution.

You now see why I view this matter the way I do. The terms used impart a different status at law, and the use of one word totally misses that status. The term "captive" is a general term, one that has, basically, no meaning, but is the choice for opponents of GITMO, and has multiple, nuanced meanings. The term "prisoner" imparts a meaning under the Geneva Convention that does not exist in this situation. The term "detainee" is the term that best describes those held in GITMO, is defined in the United States Code to them, is used in all the acts that describe them, is used by the Courts to describe them, causes the least confusion with legal concepts, and is the most widely used term. Thus, in the interest of consistency and from a legal term of art standpoint, it is the choice term to apply to these individuals.Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Detainee is the proper technical term for their legal situation, no matter your opinion on the matter. "Captive" just means someone who is captured and is way too general for this context. --Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen any evidence the United States is willing to call their own "arrested" parties "Detainees", I have to agree that it is a partisan, political newspeak term meant to arouse emotive responses in the listener. We did not refer to "German detainees" during Nuremberg, so 'prisoner' sounds perfectly fit, or "captive" acceptable. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to read the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005? I had no idea that the United States Congress was using "political newspeak" when they passed it and applied its provisions to a class of people referred to as "Detainees". The United States did not refer to "German detainees" during Nuremburg for the simple reason that they were legally "Prisoners" of War. "Captive", an expression used by those who oppose the extraterritorial detention of those held by the United States at present, is simply unacceptable jargon, and "prisoner" only marginally so as garbled verbage that does not meet the people to whom it is applied legally.Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you had no idea that the United States Congress used political newspeak, you're either charmingly naive or woefully inept. The very fact you're pointing to a 2005 document to support your claim should help you see that "detainee" is not a word like "prisoner", it is (in its current context) a modern invention concoted to allow the United States to avoid the Geneva Convention obligations. Political partisans can use it all they want, just like they can refer to al-Qaeda "brutally massacring" while referring to American soldiers being "forced to eliminate". But this is an international, non-partisan and neutral encyclopaedia, and we do not use such terms ourselves as we are not advancing a political agenda; we use the actual English language, not words invented by politicians to sway voters emotionally. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, a personal attack. Your attempt to tie a legal term of art to "newspeak" in the face of the inescapable fact that is contained within statute is noted, and rejected. Your other points are no better, transparent in their attempt to divert the discussion into a general speech about why you think Detainees are due POW status. Your speech does show, however, why you insist in using terms like "captive", because you have admitted that in your own mind using the term "detainee" aligns the user with the current administration. However, ironically, even though you admit your own bias in this way, you insist that the term "detainee" is used "by politicians to sway voters emotionally", you fail to correspondingly realize that your own stance is itself the product of political bias. I would suggest you distance yourself from such rhetoric, and try to look at this issue in a neutral fashion. I am merely suggesting the use of a term recognized at law, by the Courts, by the government, and by the population at large. The spin you have provided for this term comes primarily from your own bias, Sherurcij. You should at least understand that fact before commenting further, and cease your attempt to smeer those who choose its use with the brush of "political partisan[ship]" in a manner so as to marginalize their opinions to provide a trump for your own. WP is not a battlefield, yet it is you has turned this into a battle. To quote an old addage - Doctor, heal thyself. Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentenced to Death?

The recent PBS documentary Torturing Democracy (http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/) states that in Arab countries, orange jumpsuits are reserved for prisoners condemned to death. If this fact can be independently confirmed it should be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.19.218 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

previously undiscussed renaming

This article was renamed, without any prior discussion, from Guantanamo captives' uniforms to Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms.

Even if, for the sake of argument, "detainee" was a more neutral term than "captive", the new title uses bad grammar. If detainee was the better term the new title should have been "Guantanamo Bay detainees' uniforms".

I think the preceding extensive discussion established that many contributors to this article had thought about this issue and decided "captive" was, in fact, the more neutral term. That makes this, at the very least, a controversial edit, one that should have been discussed first. Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Detainee per previous discussions. Please accept community consensus - see also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Ad nauseam IQinn (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdetainees.mcclatchydc.com%2Fdetainees%2F6&date=2008-06-16 with http://www.webcitation.org/5YcB8bn1K?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdetainees.mcclatchydc.com%2Fdetainees%2F6 on http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/6

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923032514/http://germany.usembassy.gov/germany/bellinger_dvc.html to http://germany.usembassy.gov/germany/bellinger_dvc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/6

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)