Talk:Guantanamo military commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guantanamo military commission article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Apparent bias

This clearly jumps from being an informative article on military commissions to an impassioned attack on their legitimacy once it starts discussing Bush. Can this be rephrased to be less strident, and possibly to include the arguments from the other side for why military commissions might be necessary or useful?

Arctangent asks whether the article could be rephrased to include the arguments as to why the use of military commission might be necessary, or useful. Arctangent, may I suggest that one reason why no one has offered points in favour of trying suspects by military commission is that there really aren't any, beyond the key one -- expediency. -- Geo Swan 00:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Arctangent, who put the tag challenging the neutrality of this article, only contributed to the wikipedia for a couple of days. So they aren't here to defend their tag. If no one else steps up to defend the tag I will remove it shortly. -- Geo Swan 14:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
One obvious example of bias is the use of scare quotes on the word "trial." That's a clear attack on its legitimacy. You'd need to offer some source that this isn't mere opinion. Do you think the etymology of the word "trial" stems from the concept of innocent until proved guilty? This isn't criminal law where the burden of proof lies with the state. You might have a better case after the Supreme Court decides differently, but I don't expect that to happen. -- Randy2063 18:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the burden lies on proponents to justify that these new and largely unprecedented procedures have any legitimacy. You say that I need to offer some source that isn't mere opinion? Even when the Supreme Court rules on the legitimacy, that will merely be another opinion. But rather than engage in a long discussion over this I removed all reference to "trial" or "trials".
Care to suggest other things you believe show bias? -- Geo Swan 23:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Military commissions aren't new. You could argue that some of the procedures are unprecedented but it would be tough to say that with a straight face considering that this goes back to the 18th century.
The article begins with its use by the Bush administration, goes briefly into its history, and then goes back to the Bush administration again. It doesn't even stop to explain the difference between a military commission and a military tribunal. That should have been in the first paragraph.
There was no mention of the post-WWII war crimes trials. Some might get the impression that military commissions are seldom-invoked, and that line about "fairness of those proceedings" fosters an impression of a rare abuse of power.
It's funny that the German saboteurs are merely "accused" even though there were two confessions, a conviction, and subsequent review by the Supreme Court -- not to mention follow ups by historians. No one doubts their intent. That, combined with the item about "misconception" (in the paragraph about the Civil War), adds to the judgemental anti-U.S. tone of the article.
My opinion is that this entire section should be folded into the article on military tribunals. A line or two on military commissions could be added there. Otherwise, we might need to clarify that article and pull things out of there that belong here.
-- Randy2063 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, military commissions aren't new. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are new. But they have been very rarely used. And the Guanatanamo Bay military commissions will be using entirely new rules. Worse, the rules have gone through revisions because the initial versions were recognized to be flawed. I don't find it tough to say that the procedures are unprecedented. They are unprecedented. [1][2][3]
You say the article doesn't explain the difference between a military commission and a military tribunal? Well, what is the difference? Sometimes the Guantanamo proceedings are_ called tribunals. I'd like to know if there is a meaningful difference. If you can explain it then please go ahead and do so.
I believe that if readers get the impression that military commissions are seldom-invoked then they would be getting the correct impression. The Nuremburg tribunals were international tribunals, not US tribunals. And the authorities running those tribunals took measures to make sure they gave the appearance of fairness.
As to whether the proceedings are an "abuse of power"? Surely you are aware that many lawyers, including patriotic American lawyers, are of the opinion that President Bush went beyond his constitutional authority by convening these tribunals? The matter is before the courts. No-one has used the phrase "abuse of power" but you. But it would be completely fair to say credible critics have challenged whether President Bush had the authority to convene the proceedings.
When you looked into the cases of the German saboteurs did you come across that the authorities promised one of the saboteurs amnesty if he ratted out the other guys? He took the deal, and while they didn't execute him, they didn't honour their promise either. Did you come across how many of Supreme Court justices expressed regret over the decision? Both SCOTUS justices who were involved in the decision and later Justices, including Rehnquist.
I agree that the military tribunal article shouldn't duplicate all the material in this article. But I strongly disagree with the idea that the Guantanamo Bay proceedings, whatever we call them only merit one or two sentences. They are very important. They have a far reaching impact on how the USA is viewed by the rest of the World. They have a significant impact on Americans too.
I looked into the passage you objected to about the civil war. The author was untraceable, otherwise I would have tried to contact them. I spent some time with google trying to find a source for their assertion. I couldn't find one, so I removed that passage. -- Geo Swan 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that a military commission is a military tribunal for war crimes. I wasn't sure if there may be more to it than that. I'll look around and see if I can find something definitive.
I'll agree that some of these procedures are unprecedented in modern times. But the war is still going on, and this enemy is unlike WWII Germany. Modern rules were made for dealing within a certain framework. I think it's prudent to see what the law actually says, and not give them more than they are legally entitled to.
I didn't realize that one of the German saboteurs who confessed had been lied to about his deal, but I understand that the surviving two were released about four or so years after the war.
I'm not opposed to elaborating on this subject here. I would just like to see some reasonable balance in the primary articles. Wikipedia's expanion isn't forming a perfect sphere. I wonder if it may eventually reach the point where most of the listed war crimes are American ones.
-- Randy2063 00:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought the POV tag was added before the title change. My primary objections were settled by renaming and redefining this article as specific to Gitmo. (For those who came late, it used to be Military Commissions in general.) That changes its character considerably, and so I wouldn't object to removing the POV tag. -- Randy2063 02:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge recommendation

I don't think it's worth keeping this article. Most of it is covered in the one on military tribunals.

Any objections? -- Randy2063 20:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I object. How closely did you look at military tribunal? You didn't see that contributors are already complaining that the military tribunal article already has too much of a USA-ian emphasis?
I think we should take that objection seriously. The Military Tribunal article should not be a US only article, since other nations have convened them. This article seems to be focussing more specifically on the Guantanamo Bay military commissions.
You backed User:Joaquin Murietta's proposal of a merger of Camp Delta, Camp Echo and Camp X-ray. Since the two of you were the only two people who thought it was a good idea I think you shared the primary responsibility to do that integration. You didn't make a single contribution to the work of integration. And, in my opinion, JM did a cursory inadequate job of integration. -- Geo Swan 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Any complaints about American emphasis should apply to this article as well. The criteria for whether to merge should be how the two topics relate to one another. If only Americans have military commissions then that would be exclusive in name only. Even if you want to say otherwise, it certainly shouldn't be centered on Gitmo.
Not if we rename this article "Guantanamo military commissions". Let me suggest we do that. -- Geo Swan 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If you really want this article to focus on Gitmo then I suggest changing the name of this one, and then having another one that redirects military commission to military tribunal. If not then I'll revise this one in line with my earlier complaints.
As for this: "You backed User:Joaquin Murietta's proposal of a merger of Camp Delta, Camp Echo and Camp X-ray." I don't think that was me. I may have thoughts on those subjects but I don't recall caring whether it was one article or seven.
-- Randy2063 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry. My mistake. My apologies. -- Geo Swan 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay I moved the page and then redirected Military commission to Military tribunal. I think that's what you were saying you'd find agreeable. I also adjusted the Military tribunal's article so that it links here.
-- Randy2063 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Moving the page works for me. But redirection leaves some loose ends that need to be cleaned up. There are about two dozen articles that linked to the military commission. I suspect most of them have to do with the Guantanamo Bay aspect, not the generic military tribunal part. If we left "military commission" redirected to "Guantanamo military commission", until all these articles are checked and changed to link to either "Guantanamo military commission" or "military tribunal" would prevent confusion. Alternatively we could just leave "military commission" redirected to "Guantanamo military commission". If you agree that those loose ends need to be tied up I will check the first half, if you deal with the last half.
Good idea. I'll start at the bottom and work my way up. -- Randy2063 02:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of having "military commission" be a disambiguation page instead of a redirect page? You and I aren't really sure that that "military commission" is a synonym for "military tribunal" are we? Anyhow, I am about to start on that first half. I don't think we need to change user pages or talk pages, just main articles. -- Geo Swan 02:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I had already wondered about that but didn't think it would continue to work in the years to come.
Here's a problem: Office of Military Commissions. I think it requires a genuine merge.
-- Randy2063 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay I see that you're the one who created that other topic. It seems to duplicate this one but I'll leave it up to you whether you want to keep it there. I linked it here, so it'll be okay.
-- Randy2063 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


I changed some links to military tribunal. One of the links was really intended to point to "officer (armed forces)". I had a moment of panic. I changed the rest of them to link to "Guantanamo military commission". But you moved the article to the plural form. So I couldn't find any text there, except for a redirection to "military commission". I think the singular form makes more sense, as you can easily make the singular plural with "[[Guantanamo military commission]]s". But making the plural form singular requires "[[Guantanamo military commissions|Guantanamo military commission]]".
I agree. According to Wikipedia naming conventions, article titles should be singular. I put in a request to have the redirect page deleted so we can move this article there; I will fix the other articles that link here once the move is completed. All that will change is that the "s" will no longer be at the end of "commission" in the title; all the content will remain the same. Kafziel 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Should Office of Military Commissions be merged with Guantanamo military commission? They are two separate bodies. One appoints the other. I don't see a problem leaving the two articles as distinct. Half a dozen articles link there -- articles about some of the lawyers appointed by the office. Disclaimer: I started the OoMC article, and most of the articles that link to it. User:Joaquin Murietta has accused me, half a dozen times, of creating articles "solely" to increase the number of google hits people searching the topics I think are important will find. The accusation is nonsense of course -- and was phrased in a way that seemed to imply malice. I make them based on my model of how the wikipedia should evolve. Are you familiar with the work of Ted Nelson? My ideas on how computers should evolve and the type of hypertexts we should use have been heavily influenced by Nelson's ideas. The kinds of hypertext systems Nelson prefers are much more powerful than what we use today. HTML systems suck because the links are only one way. The wikipedia is much better, because you can see what articles link to an article. That is very powerful And that power increases when information is broken up into multiple small articles, as opposed to making the wikipedia emulate old-fashioned linear documents, and merging related ideas as chapters in a larger, omnibus article.. Wikipedia is not paper. When information is stored in multiple small articles the reader gets to read them in the order that is most useful to them. When information is stored in a linear document readers are pushed to read them in the linear order the author first wrote them in. That sucks. When information is stored in multiple, small linked articles the "what links here" feature is more useful. A big omnibus article can have dozens or hundreds of articles that link there. The reason for some links will be obvious. Others aren't. When all the articles are smaller, they will each addresses a narrower focus. The reason other articles link to an article will be more obvious. And when it isn't obvious why another article links there, you may be in for a treat, because the links you didn't expect, and can't explain, may offer you some wonderful, unexpected connection. -- Geo Swan 04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {verify}

The section of the article I just tagged is pretty terrible. It is basically a soapbox for lashing the procedures that would have been used in these commissions. It needs to be dramatically rewritten to:

  1. Not be a list of bullet points
  2. Contain inline citations for each claim that is made
  3. Get read of the weasel words like "Other elements that may have compromised the fairness of the commissions are"...
  4. Substantiate that those features render it not a court martial by referring somewhere that says that courts martial have each and all of those features.

The lead of the article also needs to be a considerable amount better than an uncited quote from something the ABA released once. -Splash - tk 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reaching verdicts

Is there any info on the burden and standard of proof the commission will use in reaching its verdicts (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?), including presumptions of fact that may be made on the evidence?--Shtove 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference to these matters [4] on the official website - it's under the date 23 Feb 04.--Shtove 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

There are a couple of rewrites needed.

[edit] Military tribunal

I left a note on Talk:Military tribunal.

Military tribunal has, in recent months, become almost entirely about the Guantanamo military commissions, giving short shrift to military tribunals in general.

[edit] personalities

This article needs a rewrite too. Too much of the article is about the people involved. Particularly since there are going to be more detainees charged. This material should be spun off into a separate article. Ditto with the lawyers.

[edit] Guantanamo military commissions versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0

The Bush administration is working on version 3.0.

version 1.0 had 6 commission members, and a chief prosecutor who told the other prosecutors that the commission members had been particularly chosen because they were sure to convict, no matter what. He also told prosecutors not to worry, but all the evidence that might suggest the suspects were innocent would be classified as secret, so the suspect's defense team wouldn't get access to it.

When the memos from the three prosecutors who wanted to quit were leaked, the chief prosecutor was fired, and allowed to quietly retire from the military. The number of commission members was reduced, and the role of the commission president was rewritten, from first among equals, to a non-voting judge. That was version 2.0

Now we are working on version 3.0. The wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo military commissions should, IMO, make this clear.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

Can we please get this verified?

  • The lawyers who have been approved report being unable to see their clients for over six months because the Department of Defense was playing games over providing translators. The lawyers had to provide their own translators. They weren't allowed to use DoD translators. The lawyers had to get their translators approved by the DoD. And they reported that the DoD kept telling them that they couldn't clear any of translators they were proposing.[citation needed]
  • Detainees lawyers have reported that Military Intelligence had been conducting charades where MI officers represented themselves as the detainee's lawyers.[citation needed]
  • Detainees lawyers have reported that the detainee's interrogators and guards had been warning the detainees they couldn't trust their lawyers because they were all Jews.[citation needed]

I'm no fan of the absurd and unjust "trials", but that doesn't mean I particularly like "facts" that just muddy the waters. Provide a source or don't add it to the article. cf WP:NOR and WP:V. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research: Col. R H Kohlmann, USMC -- Chief Judge, Military Commissionsl Guantanamo Naval Base

Where/how can Col. Kohlmann's 2002, Naval War College paper on the Guantanamo Military Tribunal process be accessed? Please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13gitmo.html Thank you for any research assistance you may provide. P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prevenient (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)