Talk:Mohammed Ahmad Said Al Edah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

I have a problem with the last editted paragraph in this set of edits. I think it is a mistake to improve the spelling, grammar, or use of punctuation in quoted material.

The phrase "had previously been correctly determined to match" was replaced by the word "fit". This might seem like a shorter, clearer statement. But it is also incorrect. And, in my opinion, it incorrectly states a very important aspect of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals..

The Geneva Conventions, to which the USA is a signatory, states that all captives have to be given the protections of POW status -- until a competent tribunal determines they don't qualify for POW status. AR 190-8 specifies, in detail, how the US Armed Services should conduct Tribunals that fulfilled its treaty obligations. The Bush administration wanted to skip this step. The Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush, that the Bush administration couldn't skip this step.

The CSRT's task was not to make the determination whether the captives qualified for POW status. Bush asserted this by administrative fiat. The CSRT's task was not to make the determination whether the captives "fit" the definition of "enemy combatant" -- the DoD implied that this determination had already been made -- the role of the CSRT was to review those previously made, secret, informal determinations -- not to make the first determinations themselves.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think default sort is a mistake for Arabic names

I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names.

People with Arabic names don't inherit a surname, like people with an European do. Traditionally the closest thing they have to a "last name" is their father's first name.

And it is absolutely clear to me that it is a mistake to use default sort for the Guantanamo captives -- because the US Department of Defense can't consistently figure out what their names are.

Therefore I just reverted an edit where a well-meaning contributor imposed default sort on this individual.

Please don't impose default sort on these guys without discussing it first.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)