Talk:Extrajudicial detention: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
m (→‎Further discussion: clarify wording)
m (Text replacement - "Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration" to "Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration")
(85 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
While this article uses material that first appeared on the wikipedia, I was the author there too.


Cheers!  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 17:52, 18 October 2007 (CDT)


Welcome, George.  Please have a look at [[CZ:Article Mechanics]]--we would like to develop a ([[CZ:Neutrality Policy|neutral]], of course) narrative here, not just have a list of brief sections.  This means CZ will have fewer sections and lengthier, "meatier" sections.
== Fresh start ==


Your definition would seem to apply to ordinary prisoners of war, e.g., Al Qaeda militants captured and held in Iraq.  Is that the intention? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:38, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
The article page now has completely new content, obviating the Wikipedia reference. It discusses international law to the extent practical as a start; the article can't be based on [[common law]] or Anglo-US practices alone. International law is emerging here; see, for example, ''[[hostis humani generis]]'', [[universal jurisdiction]], [[extraordinary rendition]], and [[international extradition]], along with [[Geneva Conventions]] and [[Third Geneva Convention]].


:Thanks for your note.
Structurally, this is intended to be a top-level article dealing with an internationalized view. I propose that there be articles dealing with the national practices of countries where this is a substantial issue, with appropriate subarticles. For example, in my sandbox now are [[User: Howard C. Berkowitz/EJUS]] dealing with general U.S. extrajudicial detention, but, due to sheer volume, there is also (more ready for mainspace) [[User: Howard C. Berkowitz/EJUSGWB]] dealing with 2001 onwards. Certainly, there is enough material for national articles and subarticles for many countries. Hopefully, Citizens from the British Isles will deal with everything from [[The Troubles]] to the Palestinian mandate.  


:I was not an expert on the Geneva Conventions prior to the reading I did researching articles for another wiki. But I do know a lot about some sections of it now. It is recognized by the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] that captives apprehended in Iraq are all entitled to the protections of POW statusWith the exception of the (100?) or so "[[ghost prisoners]]" Rumsfeld authorized the US military to keep "off the books" I believe that none of the captives in American custody in Iraq should be considered to be in '''extrajudicial''' detention.  In principle the Geneva Conventions and other national laws and international agreements authorize their detention.
Note also that there are complementary articles on [[interrogation]], a subset of [[eduction]], and again with a need for national articles and subarticles (e.g., in progress [[User: Howard C. Berkowitz/IntUS]] and [[User: Howard C. Berkowitz/IntUSGWB]]. I hope these will move to mainspace soon. See also the rewritten torture.  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


:The 772 captives who were held in Guantanamo, and a similar number who are held in detention in Bagram and Kandahar are held in '''extrajudicial detention'''. Their detention is not authorized by any law or treaty -- merely by President Bush's assertion they are "[[enemy combatant]]s".  The unknown number of captives who were held secretly in the CIA's "[[black site]]s" are also being held in extrajudicial detention.
:Many of the subarticles now exist, no longer in my sandbox:
:*[[Extrajudicial detention, U.S.]]
:**Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration
:*[[Intelligence interrogation, U.S.]]
:**Intelligence interrogation]]
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


:*Ah.  You probably meant [[Afghanistan]] not Iraq.  Yes.The captives apprehended in Afghanistan, the couple of dozen apprehended in other parts of the world, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisher_al_Rawi Bisher al Rawi], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_al-Banna Jamil el-Banna] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saifullah_Paracha Saifullah Paracha].  Yes.  Those guys.  Cheers!  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 11:16, 19 October 2007 (CDT)
== Approval as top-level article? ==


:I am going to take the liberty of starting a couple of mini-essays to respond to some of the other points in your note.  I don't want to clutter up this talk page with material that is not strictly about this article.
With the very clear understanding, as shown in Related Articles, that this is a top-level article, should it be considered for Approval? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:Cheers!  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 09:33, 19 October 2007 (CDT)
 
''Please'' do not start any political essays on this page.  I will delete them if you do.  My note's point was very simple, and does not require essays to respond to. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:47, 19 October 2007 (CDT)
 
= Article =
'''Extrajudicial detention''' is the description applied to the holding of captives, by a state, without ever laying formal charges against them.
 
Detention without charge, sometimes in secret, has been one of the hallmarks of totalitarian states.
 
==the writ of habeas corpus==
 
In English speaking democracies, since the [[thirteenth Century]] signing  of the [[Magna Carta]], captives were able to call upon the [[habeas corpus|writ of habeas corpus]] — literally "show the body", a legal procedure where the state was required to show that there was a meaningful, legal justification for their detention.
 
==Detention without charge by democratic countries==
 
In recent decades some democratic countries have introduced limited mechanisms where individuals can be detained without being charged or convicted of a crime.  See, for example, the Canadian [[Minister's Security Certificate]].
 
==The United States use of extrajudicial detention during the "war on terror"==
 
During its "[[war on terror]]" the [[United States]] has made eavy use of extrajudicial detention.<ref name=Bush20011113>
{{cite web
| url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Detention%2C_Treatment%2C_and_Trial_of_Certain_Non-Citizens_in_the_War_Against_Terrorism
| title=Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
| publisher=[[Whitehouse]]
| author=[[George W. Bush]], [[President of the United States]]
| date=[[November 13]], [[2001]]
| accessdate=2007-10-10
}}</ref><ref name=OrderEstablishingCsrt20040707>
{{cite web
| url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040707review.pdf
| title=Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal
| date=[[July 7]] [[2004]]
| author=[[Donald Rumsfeld]] [[Secretary of Defense]]
| publisher=[[Department of Defense]]
| accessdate=2007-04-26
}}</ref><ref name=CsrtFactSheet20061015>
{{cite web
| url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2006/d20061017CSRT.pdf
| title=Combatant Status Review Tribunal
| date=[[October 15]] [[2006]]
| publisher=[[Department of Defense]]
| accessdate=2007-04-26
}}</ref>
 
Only eleven of the captives held in the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]]s have faced charges before [[Guantanamo military commissions]].
 
==References==
<references/>
 
=Further discussion=
Please do edit the article so as to address my concerns before posting it back to the main page.  This is, obviously, a politically incendiary topic.  In the past, we have made it our practice to work on politically incendiary articles on talk pages before posting them.  Thanks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:50, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:30, 3 May 2024

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The policy and practice of holding prisoners captive without judicial authority to do so, or without a recognized authority under international law, such capture of prisoners of war [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Politics, Military and Law [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English


Fresh start

The article page now has completely new content, obviating the Wikipedia reference. It discusses international law to the extent practical as a start; the article can't be based on common law or Anglo-US practices alone. International law is emerging here; see, for example, hostis humani generis, universal jurisdiction, extraordinary rendition, and international extradition, along with Geneva Conventions and Third Geneva Convention.

Structurally, this is intended to be a top-level article dealing with an internationalized view. I propose that there be articles dealing with the national practices of countries where this is a substantial issue, with appropriate subarticles. For example, in my sandbox now are User: Howard C. Berkowitz/EJUS dealing with general U.S. extrajudicial detention, but, due to sheer volume, there is also (more ready for mainspace) User: Howard C. Berkowitz/EJUSGWB dealing with 2001 onwards. Certainly, there is enough material for national articles and subarticles for many countries. Hopefully, Citizens from the British Isles will deal with everything from The Troubles to the Palestinian mandate.

Note also that there are complementary articles on interrogation, a subset of eduction, and again with a need for national articles and subarticles (e.g., in progress User: Howard C. Berkowitz/IntUS and User: Howard C. Berkowitz/IntUSGWB. I hope these will move to mainspace soon. See also the rewritten torture. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the subarticles now exist, no longer in my sandbox:

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval as top-level article?

With the very clear understanding, as shown in Related Articles, that this is a top-level article, should it be considered for Approval? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)