Talk:Al Wirghi v. Bush

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

explanation[edit]

Another contributor changed every instance of "captive" in this article to "detainee".

I know this captive feels this is the correct term, because it is the one used by the Bush administration.

This particular edit was, unfortunately, careless, as it broke this article's inclusion in Category:Global War on Terror captives' habeas corpus petitions. I think it was worth reverting for this alone.

Over and above, I find this contributors claims that since the Bush administration chooses to call the captives "detainees" this makes the term the "legal term" or the "legal term of art" unconvincing.

I think it is important to choose a neutral term. The SCOTUS has over-ruled various aspects of the Bush detainee policy -- so the assertion that their detention is "legal" -- this is not a neutral claim. It could be argues it would be just as neutral to describe the captives as kidnap victims. None of them has been charged in a real court. Now that the captives are finally having their habeas corpus petitions considered the Bush administration has chosen to abandon their claims that they ever had evidence to justify the claims they were enemies in the first place.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by Congres.....and by Federal law.....and by the Supreme Court of the United States....and by International convention...... I think it is important not use a label like "captive" as it imparts your own political bent on this subect, which, based on your own words is "captives as kidnap victims". Nor is the legality of their status the proper subject for this description, as this would mean your own poltical views would be imparted improperly, which violates the neutral policy you have stated supra. No, the "legal term of art" (meaning the word used to describe something) is "detainees". Thank you again for your thoughts on this particular subject. Perhaps it would be better if we placed this matter up for a third party review, and we can let the Wikipedia community decide who has the better argument on this subject. Please let me know whether you will agree with this solution.Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]