User talk:Shawisland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Shawisland! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! mattbr 11:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Renton

You're right about Renton, 20 miles just came off the top of my head. I had changed it to 15 based on a Yahoo city-to-city search but somehow must have neglected to save that change. But about 10 is fine (the Renton article says "immediately southeast", which would also work). I still plan to add more to the article but feel free if you have any pertinent info. Gr8white (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Spink

Please see the associated talk page for an answer to your edit summary comment. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Thanks.

It wasn't your comment that disturbed me. It was this one -- a response to yours.

Yes, your original observation is correct. Three years into their detention the Supreme Court forced the Bush Presidency to provide the remaining 558 captives to learn (some) of the allegations that justified their detention.

38 captives were (finally) determined to have never been enemy combatants after all. 530 of the captives had their "enemy combatant" status confirmed. In March 2006 the DoD was forced to publish documents from those Tribunals were the captives attended. In September 2007 the DoD published further documents from those CSR Tribunals, and further documents from the later annual Review Boards. That is a total of about 2500 documents, a total of something like 10,000-20,000 pages of documents.

Almost every one of these 558 captives have an article that relies on the documents the DoD was forced to publish. Then there are articles about KSM, Abu Zubaydah, Al-Nashiri, the three captives tranferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006, who the CIA now acknowledged they subjected to waterboarding, and eleven other captives transferred from CIA custody.

201 captives were repatriated prior to the CSR Tribunals in late 2004. We know about some of them from press reports. About two-thirds of them have disappeared without a trace.

The other sixty captives are men (or boys) repatriated to their home country prior to the convening of the CSR Tribunals, who we know through press reports.

There are press reports about some of the captives who had a CSRT convened on their behalf. And two thirds, or three quarters of the captives chose to testify on their own behalf.

The Respondent who followed up on your comment has a bad habit of misquoting the policy documents he or she claims as authority to argue for deletion. They had earlier joined with another returning challenger to claim or imply that all previous {{afd}}s of articles about Guantanamo have closed as "delete".

So I thought it was necessary to set the record straight, and prevent anyone from interpreting their comment as if 140 articles had been deleted.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You might find this reply I made interesting: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

[edit] St. Joseph College Cavite City