Talk:U.S. to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to Afghanistan

The last two paragraphs of this article contend that this is a change in the US position as concerns the war crimes court -- I don't really understand how that relates to the meat of this story. The paragraphs don't seem to address the relationship. I have removed them... If you reinsert them, please link them more clearly to the rest of the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * the last 2 paragraphs were meant to show the background of Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes, and also to remind readers of the U.S. stated position on its immunity from war crimes prosecutions and that this new event(story) is all part of the way the U.S. deals with its war crimes in 2005 since it is not subject to any international oversight. Since you didn't understand the relevance/connection, then perhaps that level of background is too deep for this platform because to explain it in baby steps would encyclopediatize the article. Paulrevere2005 12:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

POV to use the word "detainee" without clarification
Doesn't the whole thrust of the use of words like "detainee" or "enemy combatant" create a POV that the captive did something wrong? Don't we need to mention the person is innocent because they have never been charged or convicted of a crime? Paulrevere2005 12:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the way the headline of this story was changed. I also liked the background information regarding Pierre-Richard Prosper. The trouble with those last 2 paragraphs was that they shifted gears to rapidly, losing the reader. That's not the fault of the reader, that's the fault of the author. PaulRevere2005, plz draw more definitive relationships... not bothering to do so is lazy... yeah, like ev'one will pick up yer slack. Got enough trouble with each's own reporting that wants to get over. -14:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * so don't sit back like we don't get... yeah we "get it", give it -Edbrown05 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources cited for this article address whether the detainees/prisoners/captives/whatever have been charged with a crime (though I'm sure if the US could charge them, the would). I don't particularly care for the headline... How about U.S. to return some captives (detainees or whatever) to Afghanistan? Nor does either source indicate how long the individuals have been held (three years or otherwise). I think prisoner or captive connotes wrong-doing more than detainee... I've been detained by my family while attempting to leave the house. I dunno. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chiacomo, detainee is much a more neutral term in terms of an article. All it means was that they were detained, or kept, by US soldiers - and they were.  No inaccuracy in using it.  --Mrmiscellanious 15:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Who are you trying to kid? If Bin Laden had captured a dozen navy seals back in 2002 and kept them in an Afghan hell-hole for 3 years to interegate them and throw their bibles in the crapper and put bags over their heads and stand them in torturous poses for hours on end and dunk their heads into water until they almost drowned....; who among us would be referring to those captives as "detainees"? We'd be calling them "kidnapped"!...just like when the Iraqi insurgents take captive one of our contractors or soldiers now.... the only NPOV word is "KIDNAPPED!" Paulrevere2005 00:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * An Islamic defeat of a western culture band wagon means what? -Edbrown05 00:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC) And it's been argued, rightfully in my opinion, the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are less interested in religion than political power. -Edbrown05 01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, release the 'flour power' thugs in Gitmo. -Edbrown05 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Hostages" is the word
It seems that when our enemy takes our people and holds on to them, we call that kidnapping and call the victim a hostage..here are some wikinews references..[] ; so, in order to maintain NPOV, I think at least the headline should be changed. Paulrevere2005 04:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hostages is far more POV than detainees. Double  Blue  (Talk) 04:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with DoubleBlue, and still fail to see the issue with using the word "detainee". --Mrmiscellanious 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Detainee neutral term used to indicate people held by a government, such as those it does not classify and treat as either prisoners of war or suspects in criminal cases. sounds accurate to me, held by gov't. Double  Blue  (Talk) 05:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok; I'll defer to the majority;especially since DoubleBlue did present a wikipedia reference saying "detainee" is a neutral term. Paulrevere2005 13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

this story is screwed
A story that was something is now nothing. Inconsiderate. Yeah I'm a fool, at least I try to be a considerate fool. -Edbrown05 19:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC) external links: