Talk:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:32, 18 August 2005

Revision as of 11:40, 18 August 2005

Line 185:

:::You make the comment: "Additionally, the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the Geneva Convention is our law." So, that is NOT the issue. The issue is how is that international treaty enforced??? You don't even know what you are talking about. This is a perfect example of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. You are someone that is not a trained attorney, but yet you are spouting off commentaries on the law and you haven't the first clue of what you are talking about.------[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 20:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Keetoowah, a charitable interpretation of your position is that you're only interested in what, as of today, an attorney could advise a Guantanamo client. Fine, but that is no reason to remove the historical context, or the discussion of international law, separately from how it is currently interpreted and applied by US courts. The distinction and relationship should be clear, and then everyone should be happy. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] 20:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::No, I did not say that and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I stated and I will state again that we should put down what the actual legal status is of the detainees under U.S. law is. And the current law is based upon [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]. At least until, it is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress steps in and changes the law. Now what the Red Cross and other international organizations say is interesting and should be in the article but it should not be held out as the U.S.law. -----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::No, I did not say that and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I stated and I will state again

that we should put down what the actual legal status is of the detainees under U.S. law is. And the the

current law is based upon [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]. At least until, it is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court

or the U.S. Congress steps in and changes the law. Now what the Red Cross and other international

organizations say is interesting and should be in the article but it should not be held out as the U.S.

law. -----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Also, please keep calm and remember [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::I did not personally attack anyone. And don't tell me to keep calm. You keep calm. I just simply pointed out that the editors involved do not know what they talking about. This is factually true and I will repeat this each and every time that I feel that it is necessary. No one else here has legal training but yet they are pretending to know what they are talking about. It is fine not to have legal training and attempt to edit the document but if they get the basic facts wrong then I will point it out. As I told the last person who gave me this lecture: I do not need the lecture, you need the lecture. You simply do not like the facts of the situation and you are attempting to attack me personally because the facts of the situation are not on your side. For example, one anon editor incorrectly stated that Judge Robertson said so and so in Hamdan. Judge Robertson is a Federal District Court Judge, ruling by himself, and he has been overturned by a three judge Federal Court of Appeals. For all intends and purposes, what Robertson stated is irrelevant--unless, as I stated, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Ct of App AND agrees with Robertson's reasoning. For the most part, there are a few historical exceptions, we do not write Wikipedia articles about overturned--factually incorrect--court cases. So to sum up, when editors such as Tony Sideway or 68.12.128.91 make changes or comments that are factually incorrect I am going to point out that they do not have legal training and they do not know what they are talking about.----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

what they are talking about. It is fine not to have legal training and attempt to edit the document but if they get the basic facts wrong then I will point it out. As I told the last person who gave me this lecture: I do not need the lecture, you need the lecture. You simply do not like the facts of the situation and you are attempting to attack me personally because the facts of the situation are not on your side. For example, one anon editor incorrectly stated that Judge Robertson said so and so in Hamdan. Judge Robertson is a Federal District Court Judge, ruling by himself, and he has been overturned by a three judge Federal Court of Appeals. For all intends and purposes, what Robertson stated is irrelevant--unless, as I stated, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Ct of App AND agrees with

Robertson's reasoning. For the most part, there are a few historical exceptions, we do not write Wikipedia articles about overturned--factually incorrect--court cases. So to sum up, when editors such as Tony Sideway or 68.12.128.91 make changes or comments that are factually incorrect I am going to point out that they do not have legal training and they do not know what they are talking about.----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

::::No, Keetoowah, the issue is not about how international treaty is enforced. It's about the legal status of Gitmo detainees. Unless you can prove that, under the Geneva Convention, they don't have the legal rights I stated, than my information is still relevant. If you feel that the information about Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is incorrect(which I now see) then you should have corrected it. You shouldn't just delete whatever parts of the article you disagree with. And I do know what I'm talking about, Keetoowah. If you know what you're talking about, you shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. ([[User:68.12.128.91|68.12.128.91]] 10:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

:::::How the intl treaty is enforced is the issue because we all agree that intl law applies. Also, since you have not read the actual underlining court case then we need to talk about that. Hamdam makes it clear that, as far as U.S. law is concerned and as U.S. stands right now, the 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies. Now, Tony Sidaway and all of the other editors may not like that FACT but that does not make it so. Why don't try actually reading the case, the whole case. What I have been saying is written right in there. Also, the court went on and pointed out that even if the Geneva Convention applied, which it pointed does not but they went through the exercise, then the terms of the Geneva Convention are met by the military tribunal system. The burden is on the non-legally trained editors--68.12.128.91 and Tony Sideabout--to show me why Hamdan is NOT the law of the United States. And if Hamdan is NOT the law of the U.S. then what is the law of the U.S. in the alternative universe of our anon editor and Tony Sideabit.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

is written right in there. Also, the court went on and pointed out that even if the Geneva Convention applied, which it pointed does not but they went through the exercise, then the terms of the Geneva Convention are met by the military tribunal system. The burden is on the non-legally trained editors--68.12.128.91 and Tony Sideabout--to show me why Hamdan is NOT the law of the United States. And if Hamdan is NOT the law of the U.S. then what is the law of the U.S. in the alternative universe of our anon editor and Tony Sideabit.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)