Talk:Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda. See also the Uganda WikiPortal.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Neutral Point of View Issues

This is one of a series of articles that contain language such as Kiyemba's lawyer is prominent UK human-rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith. This article seems one-sided. Should the article be rewritten to present more than Mr. Smith's arguments on behalf of his client? Joaquin Murietta 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is disputed

This article is disputed, with or without the tag, with respect to Pretrial detention in Guantanamo Bay. Essentially this article, like may others created by the same user, sources from the press releases of defense counsel. Those press releases end up in the newspapers. This is not a criticism of Clive, he is doing what lawyers do. Thus, these articles lose credibility by becoming a megaphone for one point of view. Joaquin Murietta 19:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You keep using this phrase, "pre-trial detention]". You keep saying the Guantanamo detainees are in pre-trial detention.
None of the prisoners in Guantanamo are ever going to be tried in a US court of law. The FBI intelligence officials withdrew, in protest, from participating in the interrogations in Guantanamo Bay. They argued that the conditions of their interrogation would get the cases thrown out of court. Yes, nine detainees have been charged. But it is deceptive to call what they face trials. Those prosecuting these charges will be allowed to use hearsay evidence, evidence that was the result of coercive interrogation, evidence that was the result of torture. Those judging these charges will be allowed to consider classified evidence that the detainees and their attorneys will not be given access to, and thus will not have an opportunity to refute. These conditions are not consistent with a fair trial.
It has still not even been established whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority by ordering these detentions.
You keep making accusations that my wikipedia contributions present a biased POV. I do my best to maintain an NPOV in my contributions. But I won't presume to think I success 100% of the time. I don't think any of us can claim to to do a 100% job of maintaining an NPOV. It is not an insult for me to suggest you don't manage to maintain an NPOV 100% of the time, and that this phrase is an instance of when you failed.
I am not convinced that there is anything innately wrong with using a press release as a source. Of course they can be misused. If a wikipedia contributor were to mask the involvement of the person issuing the press release, and presented them as some kind of independent commentator, that would be a misuse. But I am not aware of any instances where I have misused press releases. Nor have I used them as widely as your complaints would suggest.
Much of the information from the US DoD is presented through press releases. I don't remember you ever criticizing any contributions that quoted or cited the press releases of US officials.
Could you confine your critical comments to those that you are prepared to substantiate, and those that deserve to be taken seriously? -- Geo Swan 04:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing POV Tag

I have removed the tag as I think the article is now OK. Feel free to reinstate if anyone disagrees, and add your reasoning here. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


  • I have made two changes as described in the edit summary. No objection to your removal of the POV tag. Joaquin Murietta 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have reinstated a POV tag on the section that was rewritten. I thought we have a neutral article on 19 October, but the subsequent edits have changed the neutral status.Joaquin Murietta 12:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, please explain clearly why you feel there are POV issue here. At 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) you declared yourself satisfied with this version. Unless you can satisfactorily explain where the problem is with this version, I will remove the tag. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No response, therefore I am removing the tag. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political Nonsense

JM, stop your political nonsense. The link you added has no relevance to Jamal Kiyemba whatsoever. The two you removed refer directly to him (as Abdullah). Two days ago you declared yourself to be satisfied with the neutrality of the article and now you start this madness. Please stop. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Releases

Someone removed a passage about Kiyemba's transfer from Guantanamo to the UK. That passage cited an article from a Ugandan newspaper. The article stated that he was released from Ugandan custory on April 18th. It said he had spent about two months in Ugandan custody after he had been deported from the UK, following his transfer from Guantanamo. Approximately wo months prior to April 18 2006 would be sometime in the winter of 2006. -- Geo Swan 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)