Jump to content

Talk:Guantanamo Bay attorneys

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

Removed paralegals

[edit]

I removed Abigail Gustafson, who's paralegal with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll. So far I've removed a few who've crept into the "Guantanamo bar association" list, and had hoped I got them all.

It may not matter so much now while these people are still lauded in some circles. Many people may think these lawyers are doing a good thing, but I see it as having the potential to become a heavy ball-and-chain. If you've been looking at their profiles you may have noticed how hard it is to find which detainees they are/were defending. Their profiles often don't even admit they were Gitmo-lawyers at all.

Lawyers are "officers of the court." As such, they have greater responsibility for what they do, and so it's important and proper that their participation never be forgotten. They put their reputations on the line in a way that a paralegal doesn't, and so that's why I've been removing the paralegals.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion notice

[edit]

FWIW, the Category:Law firms of Guantanamo Bay attorneys category looks like it's about to be deleted.

That's just their law firms, not the one with the lawyers.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unexplained edits

[edit]

Sorry, but I have several problems with the inclusion of this passage:

However, evidence exists that complaints of torture, whether real or not, are standard protocol for members of Al Quaida.http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Al_Qaeda_Handbook .

  1. If "there is evidence" that complaints are "standard protocol", then references that support the existence of this evidence should be cited in the passage.
  2. We don't use wikipedia articles, or articles from other online encyclopedia's as references. They are not considered "reliable sources".
  3. Even if Al Qaeda Handbook was considered a WP:RS, I do not believe it supports the contributor's assertion.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit a contributor changed every instance of "captive" to "detainee" asserting that:

The term "captive" is inaccurate. The legal term of art for these individuals is "detainee."

I am very sorry to report that this contributor has not offered anything beyond their unsupported personal opinion that "detainee" is the accurate term.
Further I suggest the appropriate way to respond to concerns raised on a talk page is a civil, specific, meaningful reply on that same talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
I am sorry to report that the term "captive" is inaccurate when viewed in light of the links offered by the author which clearly states the term "detainee." Captive is simply an inaccurate term, one that is too general for serious use in this context.
For link: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/detainees.html
The Manchester Manual states quite clearly that a member of Al Qaida is expected to state he or she was tortured when the matter for which the individual is charged comes to trial, whether true or not. The document, linked within the attachment, should be available for viewing by the reader in coming up with his or her own determinations. Additional cites have been provided from the Department of Defense for the DOD's official position to be clearly conveyed.
I can only hope that my statements have been civil, specific, and meaningful given the topics raised by the originator of this discussion.
Sincerely,
Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They really should be called detainees. The Supreme Court uses "detainees".
Common Article 3 doesn't have a word for it, but the Fourth Geneva Convention uses "detention" in dealing with suspected spies, and then again later in regard to criminals where it actually uses the word "detainee."
Army regulation 190-8 is titled "Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees." That was published in 1997 before this became a political issue. It doesn't use the word "captive" at all.
On the "Manchester Manual," I agree it has a place wrt this issue, but I don't believe it fits anywhere in this article. These lawyers don't care whether their clients are terrorists or not.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy: Thank you. I agree, obviously, that the term "detainee" is the proper, and accepted, term of art to describe those held at GITMO. In term of the Manchester Manual, the answer may be a link under the DOD statement with the information regarding context to why DOD maintains this position. My link, with the quote regarding claims of abuse being false may do the trick. Any thoughts?

Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, the article is really about the lawyers. The first line mentions physical abuse but only in the sense that the lawyers are publicizing those claims.
I should say that I personally don't think the Manchester Manual is the main reason we've heard all these torture claims. Some of the detainees are citizens of western countries, and at least a few of them would be smart enough to spin this, and they'd spread it around to fellow detainees.
Claims of torture were made by Islamists detained in Canada, too, as well as Red Army Faction faction members sitting in West German prison in the 1970s. Both groups also used hunger strikes to play on public sympathies.
In fact, those Red Army Faction members also got calls for support from CCR lawyers -- the same group defending these detainees. The playbook is a lot older than the Manchester Manual.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy: That is quite true. However, the problem I have is the DOD statement w/out context. I made the change, and it seems to flow better, with the DOD position stated clearly, and reference to the Man. Manual removed.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does work better, and it'll go along with something I intend to add later. You do need to learn to use the ref tags, though.
You're mistaken about the citizenship requirement. It's much more difficult to hold a foreign attorney accountable if they go public with classified information. I don't think the British attorneys were ever allowed into Guantanamo. I can find a reference for that. I'll have it tomorrow.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detainee may be the term used by the government, but that hardly makes it a neutral term. "People being held" while more cumbersome at least avoids the government's wording. "Prisoner" would be the natural word, as would "prison". Detainee may be a "term of art" but does it paint the clearest picture? ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Complaints from Attorney

[edit]

Randy: Do we have any cites to support this?Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy: I made a minor change. The link did not deny abuse claims, it denied interference with counsel claims from DOD spokesmen.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the NYT article was probably the source for the entire section, although perhaps more factoids could have been added later from elsewhere. I know that the "Jews or homosexuals" claim is in that article.
I'll look it over tomorrow, and see if anything can't be attributed to it. If so, I'm sure we can find a separate source.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Randy - I spotted one on the Boston Globe earlier, but I did not want to mess up references. Check that on your search. It may be the same, however, but worth a look.
Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs a separate reference: "Lawyers reported that the DoD had interfered with their ability to meet with their clients, telling them that they weren't spelling their names correctly."
That claim was made by Jeffrey J. Davis about one of the detainees who committed suicide. We can find the ref from his article.
Here's one I've seen before but haven't got the reference yet: "Lawyers reported that the DoD interfered with their ability to meet with their clients by both refusing to provide a government translator, and raising bogus national security concerns about the translators they proposed."
I know I've seen it before, and I'll try to dig it up later. It needs to be adjusted, though, as it's only the lawyers' claim that the national security concerns were bogus. And considering the kinds of lawyers we're talking about, it's rather surprising that there aren't more who've been booted out for national security concerns.
This one is easy to find: "The body that reviewed their notes, before they were able to consult them, was arbitrarily classifying their notes, so they couldn't consult them. Omar Khadr's lawyer Muneer Ahmad found, on his first visit to the secure centre which is the only place where the lawyers can review their notes, that almost the entire twenty pages of notes he took when he first met Khadr had been classified above his level of security clearance."
If no one gets to it, I'll straighten them out when I adjust the article later.
The rest of the items can all be marked with the NYT reference.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question...

[edit]

This edit inserts the assertion:

"However, an Army investigation found these charges unfounded."

The previous paragraph doesn't assert that the attorneys claims are true -- merely that they made them. So, is it worthwhile to repeat the official US disavowal? If we are going to include the disavowal does it make sense to make clear it too is also merely a claim? Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to where the other responses were. The source is actually more interesting than the statement.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Raashid Williams

[edit]

Major Raashid Williams represents someone. Mr Ammar al-Baluchi. here is is talking video: facebook com witnesstorture videos 1298948663464240 ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)) ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

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) 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

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) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

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) 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

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) 21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guantanamo Bay attorneys. 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:

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) 05:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantanamo_Bay_attorneys&oldid=1202488316"