Talk:Camp Iguana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

I'm nominating this for POV because:

1. "If the Americans had abided by the Geneva Conventions the children never would have left Afghanistan." Seems a little argumentative and definitely connotes a bias.

2. "The Pentagon's excuse was that they didn't really know who the detainees were, and they had to estimate their ages, and they merely estimated the ages of those children incorrectly..." Also seems very biased.

Is it me, or does the overall tone come across as anti-American? I'm not personally agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiments, but they do seem out of place for Wikipedia and its policy of neutrality.

Concerning your first point -- as I understand it, the SCOTUS has already ruled on the obligation the USA had to conduct "competent tribunals".
The Geneva Conventions clearly state that all prisoners are to be treated with the rights of POWs until a competent tribunal determines they are not POWs. The Executive Branch's position was that they did not have to afford the protections of the Geneva Conventions in all cases.
But, as I understand it, the Judicial Branch has the final word here. The Judicial Branch forced the Executive Branch to conduct Combatant Status Reviews. Are you disagreeing with me that the US military had an obligation to have conducted those reviews first, before they shipped the detainees to Guantanamo Bay? I think if you read the Geneva Conventions for yourself you may change your mind.
Did you read any other articles about the three kids at Camp Iguana? Those three children were treated so kindly because they were obviously not fighters. If it was that obvious, how did they get there? They ended up there because the USA did not fulfill its Geneve Conventions obligations to determine their status. A determination would have provided a very important, very necessary "sanity check".
There are legal challenges as to whether those Combatant Status Reviews were sufficiently fair to satisfy the United States obligations. See the case of Murat Kurnaz.
Concerning your second point -- [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421689/posts this NYTimes article] is one of the places where I read about the minors held at Gitmo.
The dispute is clouded by two issues: military authorities define a juvenile as someone younger than 16 years of age, not 18, as do most human rights groups. Further, the ages of the detainees brought to Guantánamo as enemy combatants cannot be determined with certainty, leaving officials to make estimates.
"They don't come with birth certificates," said Col. Brad K. Blackner, the chief public affairs officer at the detention camp. Col. David McWilliams, the chief spokesman for the United States Southern Command in Miami, which runs the prison operation, said that the authorities were fairly confident of their estimates. "We used bone scans in some cases and age was determined by medical evidence as best we could," he said.
As I said in the article, the DoD explanation here does not wash. US military authorities could not possibly be in any doubt about the identity of Omar Khadr. Khadr was born in Canada. His birthdate was not in doubt. Khadr was fifteen when he was captured. All this spin the DoD has spun about bone scans, and uncertainty about their ages, was a load of crap in Khadr's case. Possibly a load of crap for some of the other children too.
About what you suspect is the POV of my contribution to the Camp Iguana article -- I want to ask you to perform a thought experiment. I want to ask you to imagine that we lived in a world where nations openly allowed the institution of slavery. Would we allow people to dress up descriptions of it to mask the ugly reality of it, because apologists argued that the candid descriptions were NPOV? Did you see the movie Spartacus? If slavery was still legal in Italy, and a revolt like that portrayed in the movie happened today, would you allow apologists for Roman slavery to soft-pedal it, call it a "minor rural labor dispute"?
If slavery was still openly practiced, remained legal, in the American South, would you allow slavery apologists to give it some smarmy, disingenius spin name?
If I understand the questions you were making here on the talk page, you were not challenging the substance of my contribution to the article. You were merely challengin my description of it. Is that correct?
I think I have backed up that the USA was holding children in Guantanamo, in violation of the USA's own laws, and in violation of the USA's internation agreements.
You've asked other readers whether they think that my contributions were "anti-American". I think I am as aware as any American of the admirable principles -- like respect for the principles of fundamental justice. I admire most of those principles as much as any patriotic American. (Like many foreigners I am not a fan of "the right to bear arms".) So far as I am concerned those in a position of authority in the US military, those in Rumsfeld's office, and those who hold senior positions in the Bush administration, who are putting in place policies that violate the principles Americans are known for and for which they are widely admired are the ones who are truly Anti-American.
I am not unsympathetic to those Americans who really believe in those admirable principles, and who find it shocking and upsetting to read that Americans have been violating those principles. I was a kid during the Watergate scandal. But I was old enough to understand the evidence about Watergate. I decided, pretty early, that the scandal was serious, and that President Nixon was completely involved. My mother's aunt had married an American. She was widowed, lonely, and she used to visit us pretty regularly. She was a sweet generous person. And she had complete confidence in the President. She was one of the last Americans to realize that President Nixon had lied, had conspired to abuse the American electoral system, had conspired to abuse the organs of government to retaliate against those on his "enemies list".
I remember how betrayed she felt when she realized the President had betrayed her, had betrayed her adopted nation -- the nation she loved. She was so shocked, she was perseverating. She couldn't stop repeating, "The President lied to us. The President lied to us." I don't think she ever got over this betrayal.
I said that I think patriotic Americans, who honour the high principles America is known for, should not call Anti-American those who point out when the behaviour of individual Americans fall short of those principles. Similarly, questioning the policies of politicians, questioning whether they fall short of the principles America is known for, that too is not Anti-American -- not unless it is based on lies, or careless misunderstandings with malice at its heart.
If you have read this far, and you still think my contribution "Anti-American" I urge you to consider what being a patriotic American means. Let me urge you to honour principles rather than personalities. If an American policy is at odds with the principles America is honoured for, let me encourage you to be loyal to the principle. If a person's utterances, or their behaviour, is at odds with the principles America is honoured for, let me encourage you to be loyal to the principles. -- Geo Swan 12:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks GeoSwan for your swift and thorough response. I must admit that when I wrote my comments, I was torn about using the term "Anti-American". I realize the connotations that it carries in this era of "you're with us or you're against us", and I suspect that I may have used too strong a term, or perhaps plainly the wrong term, to describe my sentiments. I did not ever intend to offend.
All that said:
I still think your article needs some cleaning up in terms of POV, specifically the sentances I listed above. I think the term "excuses" has a very negative connotation, for example.
While I agree, personally, that the US Government in general and the Pentagon and Bush Administration in particular are good at spinning excuses, and have been doing so in mass doses during the last few years; I'm inclined to argue that there is a significant difference between an excuse and a genuine explaination, and that you have not, without a shadow of doubt, proven the Pentagon to be disingenuous in its claims. Take, for example, the reasoning behind the War in Iraq. One who considers Bush a warmonger might say "Well, the so called 'bad intelligence' was just a coverup for Bush to go finish his daddy's war". On a personal level, I would not contest that claim. I would be inclined to agree, actually. But as a self-proclaimed academic, I have to consider that what I 'believe' to be true and what I 'know' to be true may not always be one in the same. There is no conclusive evidence that I have been made aware of that the 'bad intelligence' was anything except for just that, bad intelligence. I believe, but do not know, that conclusive evidence may be forthcoming, and so it is from that position that I assert my opinion.
Regarding this article it might be more accurate to say, perhaps, that "for many, the Pentagon's investigative abilities have been drawn into question by the incident". Or some variation thereon. Perhaps they really didn't know. Whether that was through simple ignorance, as they claim, or, more likely, through a sort of "selective hearing" is really pretty difficult to acsertain for certain and, therefore, neither should be presented as fact. Basically, when it comes to the term "excuse", unless someone from the Pentagon has issued a statement admitting that they intentionally ignorned Khadir's biographical info (ha!) I think you're hardpressed to conclusivly proove poor intentions, regardless of their track record.
Here is a WaPo article from October 29, 2002 that quotes a US intelligence official on Khadr:
One particularly talkative prisoner there is Omar Khadr, who at 16 is one of the youngest prisoners in U.S. custody. U.S. officials allege that on July 27 he killed a U.S. Special Forces medic, Sgt. Christopher Speer, during a four-hour, house-to-house battle in the village of Ayub Kheyl. The wounded youth was captured, taken to Bagram, treated for his wounds and interrogated.
"He's singing like a bird," a U.S. official said. Among other things, the official said, Khadr, who used to live with his family in Ottawa, is providing information about the activities of his father, Ahmad Sa'id Khadr. Last year the U.S. government designated the elder Khadr a terrorist and top al Qaeda financing operative. The Canadian government has asked U.S. officials to take into account the youth's age in deciding the terms of his confinement.
The WaPo article is dateline 94 days after his capture. FWIW, Khadr turned 16 about 50 days after his capture. The final dozen paragraphs of the article entitled "The Good Son" offers a detailed account of Khadr's capture. It says:
"Within seconds of throwing the grenade at Sgt. Speer, Omar took two shots in the chest and dropped his pistol. When Capt. Silver approached him, Omar spoke in what struck the assembled American soldiers as very good English, especially for someone they assumed to be a jihad warrior from somewhere in the Middle East."
I suspect that a captured fighter who spoke perfect English would have attracted enough attention the US intelligence officials would have made particular attempts to identify him. Khadr's older brother Abdurahman, the [ Black Sheep] who did not believe in jihad, and who had run away from every al Qaeda training camp his parents sent him to, had been a CIA source for six months or more. So, I suspect that they had probably identified Khadr within 24 hours of his capture.
Lol. Actually, I had already changed the wording so I didn't use the word "excuse" before you posted your reply. I replaced that sentence with direct quotations from a couple of US military spokesmen quoted in the NYTimes. I imagine some people wouldn't find the new wording making them any happier. But, as a direct quote, the new wording is harder to criticize as biased. -- Geo Swan 11:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I am more than happy to discuss this until a resolution can be reached. I only wish to help you improve your article, and though I fear I may have given you the opposite impression, I have no desire to engage in a petty flamewar over it. Please, take no offense to any of my suggestions, none is intended. :-) Lekoman 07:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Wonderful, I'd say the article has definitely been improved, and I'm almost to the point of feeling comfortable pulling the NPOV tag. Can we address one more line, though, before that?
"The Americans were well aware of Khadr's identity, and must have known his birth date. Rather than humane treatment Khadr, who killed a GI in a skirmish, seems to have been picked out for the harshest treatment."
  1. 1-You have presented the articles and citations for Khadr's case in the talk page, could you incorporate them into the article in some condensed way? It reads as assertive, but baseless.
  1. 2-Could the line be rephrased somehow so as not to minimalize the death of the GI? It reads as if Khadr should simply be given a slap on the wrist for killing an American soldier. I understand that he's fighting for a cause he believes in, and I do not wish to downplay the casualties the soldier may or may not have inflicted, but the casualties of war on both sides should never be minimalized. I think we can both agree on this, no?
Thanks for the compliment. I try my best.
I am not sure what you mean by minimizing Sergeant Speer's death.
What I mean is that it seems as though you're asserting killing a soldier does not warrant harsh treatment.
It is a tragedy, of course, particularly since he leaves a young family. But those combatant status reviews were nothing more than a cruel charade, as the accidental declassification of the "evidence" against Murat Kurnaz makes clear. If Khadr was improperly classified as an "illegal combatant" then he doesn't deserve any punishment at all. What punishment do you think he would deserve if his classification as an "illegal combatant" was a legitimate one? -- Geo Swan 09:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
You say in your article that he was guilty of killing an American soldier. Now, I do not claim to have all the details on Khadr's case, nor do I purport to be an expert on the proceedures in place at Guantanamo... but if Khadr killed an American GI, as you assert he did, certainly his capture and detainment by American forces is warranted. I'm not advocating for exceeding the limits of the Geneva Convention, and I'm certainly not advocating torture, or inhumane treatment, but I do think that if he killed a GI, and we got our hands on him, he certainly should be held accountable regardless of the semantics of his "classification".
I think the best way to edit the line would simply be to remove reference to the GI at all. If readers are interested in Khadr's story, let them read it on his article. The impression I get reading the line is "Instead of being treated humanely Khadr, who only killed a GI during a skirmish, seems to have been singled out for the harshest treatment." It's as if the comma'd out section is intended to show why he should've been treated more humanely. I gather from our conversation here that that is not your intent at all... so perhaps an edit is in order to clarify? Lekoman 21:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You've beaten me to it. I'm satisfied with the article at this point, and am happy to remove the NPOV tag. Lekoman 21:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I know you didn't come here for a long discussion of the Geneva Conventions. So, briefly, the GC say that real soldiers, who themselves acted within the bounds of the GC, cannot be punished, once captured, for any legitimate act of war. So, Khadr should only be "held to account" if it is fairly determined that he really was an unlawful combatant.
One of the other Guantanamo detainee's lawyers said, "I must be one of the first lawyers who is trying to get a Grand Jury to indict his client."
Why can't the detainees be charged and tried under the US justice system, or the US military justice system? The Bush administration says it is because ordinary trials would reveal secrets that would compromise National Security. I suspect that the real need for secrecy is merely to hide the flimsiness of the evidence against them. -- Geo Swan 22:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the excuses of the Bush Administration. Personally? I'm very dissatisfied with the way they've handled themselves over the last 5 years, and I think it's a crying shame the world sees the country I call home as such a damaging influence on international events, but I understand why. All that said, it is still my homeland, and I am still proud of my country, even if the people running things have managed to fail the values and aspirations we were founded on.
I'm glad to have given input. I liken the Wikipedia concept to the American Experiment (final results pending, in both cases) in that both were founded with the idea that everyone should have a say. I only wish the US Government were as willing as you have been to correct errors, instead of simply glossing over them. :-) Lekoman 20:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think, if these points are addressed, I'm content with the article. I appreciate your willingness to communicate civilly. Sometimes this is a trait wikipedians lack. :-) Lekoman 06:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush administration claim that detainees are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions

Rich, perhaps we can discuss this on the talk page, rather than engage in a bunch of edits and re-edits? You added:

...however the American government claimed that the Genvea Conventions were not applicable..

Was it the American government who claimed the Geneva Conventions didn't apply? Or would it be more correct to say the Bush administration made the claim? The judges who ruled that the suspects were entitled to a review by a competent tribunal were also part of the American government weren't they -- the judicial branch of the American government.

While this claim was made, it was over-ruled by the judicial branch. The DoD cobbled together a tardy Combatant Status Review Tribunal procedure. Justice Joyce Hens Green, who reviewed the decisions of these tribunals, together with the classified dossiers those decisions were based on ruled those tribunals unconstitutional.

So, if you feel it is necessary to state that the claim was made, may I suggest it should be a separate sentence? And it should be followed by a sentence saying the judicial branch over-ruled that claim, and forced the executive branch to conduct reviews. -- Geo Swan 01:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Done, and done. Have a look. Rich Farmbrough 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Merger

How do you feel about merging Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, NPOV article, without all the mispellings and typos. Joaquin Murietta 22:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I strongly oppose the idea of any of these mergers. I see that Camp Delta, Camp X-ray and Camp Echo have already been merged. In my opinion, that merge didn't go well, and has resulted in a significant decrease in the value of the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • While i dont think that they have caused "a significant decrease in the value of the wikipedia" I too disagree with the merger. It seems to be motivated by POV rather than NPOV -- No offense Joaquin. -St|eve 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calling 24.161.149.229

Please sign in and create a userid. As a courtesy to the rest of us, please sign in before you make edits.

Your assertion that the minors not detained in Camp Iguana were all over 16 is not only untrue, but it is disproved, with references, in the article itself.

Elements of the Bush administration may assert that they are not obliged to protect minors who are aged 16-18. But the United States is obliged to abide by International agreements that classify minors as all those aged 1-18. Note: in official documents, the detainees who were under 18 were referred to solely by their initials -- acknowledgement that, as minors, they merited special protection. -- Geo Swan 16:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It looks like an error, but it isn't

Someone changed the age at which the camp authorities stopped considering a teenager a minor, from 16 to 18. It is a controversial decision, contrary to International law, which the Bush administration hasn't really explained or defended. But, in Guantanamo, they only consider a teenager a minor if they are under 16. So I changed it back. -- Geo Swan 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Alphabetical Naming

This should be done in any of the Delta, Echo, Iguana articles with system described if possible. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that is necessary? Delta and Echo are from the NATO phonetic alphabet. Camp Iguana and Camp Justice aren't. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)