Talk:Camp X-Ray: Difference between revisions

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

Sources sub page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction and Detention Facilities Start‑class (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Does anyone know how many people were interred in Gitmo since the creation of camp X-ray, how many have been released, how many are still detained, and how many were actually charged with crimminal activity (either by the US or their home countries, very curious about this last one). This would be interesting information to add to the article. Thanks!

Removed the statement that "unlawful combatant" has no meaning in international law. It does.

Has anyone else noticed that there is another article with the same title yet different content? Perhaps these should be merged.

merging done.

Here is a news item of note: [1] ... if someone here is working on this article. Kingturtle 00:15 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Here is a news item of note: [2] ...please add it to this article. Kingturtle 22:01, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Kingturtle, but how reliable/neutral is this source? News articles on the site don't seem to be properly credited, and the site is run as a special interest of just one individual. I for one would prefer to hear the reassuring information it gives from something more like Reuters, or such like. No disrespect intended to the person who runs the site.... TonyClarke 01:15, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• That first story is from the AP. The second one is from Dawn in Pakistan. Take them for what they are worth. Here is another interesting AP story...[3] Kingturtle 21:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK Halliburton (or a subsidiary) constructed Camp X-Ray. pir 11:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This news item will be of use to anyone working on this article. Kingturtle 18:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the above statement. The camp is not referred to as a concentration camp in any credible news organization or by academics with an understanding of the definition of a concentration camp. The wikipedia entry for concentration camp itself indicates that camp x-ray could not be accurately described as a concentration camp. Michael A.

Hey, you forgot to sign. I do not quite see why you think the term does not apply or that the article indicates so. The article had a judgement that was not neutral and explained that some people but neither governments nor amnesty international use the term. The definition given kind of fits: A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political opponents, specific ethnic or religious groups, or other groups of people. ... The term refers to situations where the internees are civilians, especially those selected for their conformance to broad criteria without judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. However, unless we have references I do not see why we should mention that the camps were often referred to as concentration camps.Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi - sorry about forgetting to sign. Is there a way to setup some form of autosignature? All I can find is the 3/4 tilde idiom, are you typing yours out each time or am I missing some setting in preferences? I agree with your assertion that the statement shouldn't be included without some references. If people seek references and wish to reintroduce it I will make the case for why the term is inappropriate. Michael A. 02:28, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3 or 4 tildes (generally 4 for talk page comments). It becomes a habit pretty quickly. You can set in your prefs exactly what that's expanded to - David Gerard 07:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought this section would be better served by another article... it seems a little out-of-place here. Comments? Andrewferrier 18:08, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Most of the inmates in Guantanamo Bay are Saudis according to Saudi Arabia.[4]

I think that's important considering 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and since they seem to be the primary breeding ground for the world's terrorists.

Should it be added? If so, where?

might this be helpful to anyone writing here? [5] Kingturtle 18:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am a little bit surprised that the discussion about prisoners of war does not mention the fact that a person under arrest without the protection of the Geneva Conventions faces indictement under the criminal laws of the appropriate State. However, the detainees of Gantanamo have not been treated according US criminal laws. Could this be mentionned somewhere ? Rama 22:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It'd be interesting and useful to see a list of the nationalities of detainees at the camp if anyone can find this infomation. Grunners 17:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While, strictly speaking, kidnapping people and torturing them for years on end may be "detaining" I don't think that it is a neutral term. Note the dictionary.com definition of detain.

de·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tn) tr.v. de·tained, de·tain·ing, de·tains

• 1. To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.
• 2. To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.

Hence, the human beings held by force at gitmo cannot accurately be described as detainees. The term is not neutral and to be charitable it represents orwellian military doublespeak. I vote that the term be removed from the article all together. user:TitaniumDreads 03:32am Apr 25, 2005

To be replaced by what ? Rama 09:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think prisoner is more neutral, it indicates that they are being held indefinitely but avoids the ridiculous "are they prisoners of war?" debate. TitaniumDreads 19:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of a prisoner being called a detainee prior to 9-11. Now they are doing it all over.

I have a google news alert on detainee. It reports prisoners being called detainees in Israel and Australia. -- Geo Swan 21:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been wondering for the last three years why it is that the US has a naval base in an ostensibly hostile neighbor (at least dangerous enough that we think they deserve sanctions). When the US stole cuba by force from spain those pesky cubans eventually demanded their own freedom. The US Gov "gave" it to them but with the caveat that it could keep a permanent military base, intervene in treaties, etc. Formally this was called the Platt Amendment. I added it to the see also section but I think it deserves a more prominent role in the article, perhaps a history section?

I removed a reference to the camp as a "concentration camp" without changing the content or context of the original sentence. Although it might be argued that Gitmo technically represents a "concentration camp," I think that the historical and cultural significance of that term with regards to the Holocaust render that term inappropriate. Clearly Guantanamo, although certainly not a pleasant place, does not have the same conditions or goals of the deservedly more infamous Nazi concentration (and extermination) camps.

Removed for POV langauge.

The Guantanamo prison facility is a "black hole" where, as of June 2005, more than 500 detainees are being held without recourse to due process of law. None of them has been charged with a crime and many if not most of them have been tortured. Both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution have been abrogated, and as a result prominent figures such as former President Jimmy Carter and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden have called for the closure of the Guanantamo prison.

As of June 2005, more than 500 detainees are being held in the Guantanamo prison facility without recourse to due process of law. None of them has been charged with a crime a number of them have been tortured. Both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws have not been applied there, and as a result prominent figures such as former President Jimmy Carter and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden have called for the closure of the Guanantamo prison.

? Rama 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

+1. If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that prisoners have been tortured. Eric B. and Rakim 20:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, given the fact that you are currently in mediation on a page related to this topic, it might be a gesture of good faith to avoid edits here for a while

What do you think?

Collegially, BrandonYusufToropov 21:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll stay off any page which you agree to not to edit yourself. Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

More than fair. BrandonYusufToropov 21:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the consenus on merging this article into Camp Delta. ant_ie 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge 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, article, without all the mispellings and typos. Oh yeah, the NPOV. That too. Joaquin Murietta 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ant_ie 21:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is now seriously out of date (e.g. it describes how 29 inmates had attempted suicide as of August 2003, without mentioning the June 2006 suicides of three detainees). Due to the difficulty involved in maintaining so many closely-related pages and apparent past agreement on the point, I'm going to add the appropriate tags proposing a merger. Betdud 10:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Calling it Camp X-ray is itself sidelining it to be unnoticed, like its inhabitants! Its referred to as Guanatanamo bay everywhere else, lets do that.TonyClarke 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it even admits that the "Camp X-ray" pretty much refers to the entire Guantánamo camp, which makes it very misleading if someone skips that part —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.90.138.129 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In editorial fairness every derogatory reference should be counter-balanced so that the reader may arrive at their own conclusions. As I find time, I will make an attempt at this. Tscrum 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the obligation to comply with NPOV does not require counting the number of references one thinks are on either side of an argument. Some issues don't have an equal number of strong points, on either side, so counting up the number of references, is artificial, and will not lead to the best possible articles.

Instead, perhaps we should judge whether references should be cited, quoted, paraphrased, or summarized, based on whether they add something worthwhile to the article?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Guantanamo was not being leased to the US government, and that the Cuban government views it as illegal. Cuba has yet to cash any of the checks it receives. Guantanamo BayTaboo Tongue (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the U.S. pays $50+ million a year. I'll try to find a source later today. Kingturtle (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation and improvement of articles regarding specific prisons, internment camps, and detention centers here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted most of the sections in this article, as they were no longer about Camp X-Ray. It looked as though this used to be the main article for GTMO, and so it went on and on and on about everything known about GTMO during the years that followed X-Ray's closure.

Now, it's a bit more like the Camp Delta article, which is how it should be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An edit was made here by a DoD IP address, User:130.22.190.5: [6]. An adjacent IP address, User:130.22.190.10 just said he was a current Guantanamo guard, so I believe these edits were also made by someone at Guantanamo.

I'd like to ask, generally, for good faith editors from the DoD to identify themselves as such.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is DoD? A guard at this camp is by definition a USA soldier I think. I'm trying to figure out how DoD is an abbreviation form GI-Joe etc. --Fremte (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoD == "Department of Defense". Some of the DoD posters may be civilian employees of the DoD.

In addition to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, Port Security at Guantanamo is provided by the US Coast Guard, officially under the DHS now. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really hip on this Geo Swan, and to be frank I think such a request is outrageous. It stinks of attempted censorship in my opinion. Can you explain why a DOD employee should identify himself in this context, while other anonymous editors should be cloaked in anonymity? How about a military dependent? Isn't this disparate treatment? Why is one "class" of indidivuals treated differently than another? Why should an opponent of GITMO who is employed by a human rights group be provided special protections and anonymity in this case as opposed to an agent of the DOD? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]