Talk:U.N. denied access to Guantanamo inmates
Mrmiscellanious, the full inclusion of the position of Nowak is necessary to maintain consistency as the full positions of the other participants are provided as described by the UNOG release cited as source. His full position is precisely Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Also, the information regarding China that you removed is included in the German language article listed in the source. Read it, if language understood, otherwise that line is provided here and an effort at translation to English, below. If removal of the information was done knowing this, please explain justification as I believe it describes part of the essential background for understanding the events reported on here. The information is directly described as said by Nowak (the article also favors the shortened form as you have done of his title in first use here, so I will list the full position where other participants positions are described).
- And if you don't read German, here is an English langauge source: http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1059064.php/Rumsfeld_says_U.N._officials_will_not_be_given_access_to_detainees
- "Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special envoy on torture, said their visit was limited to one day - December 6 - and criticized the United States for a maintaining a standard lower than China in terms of openness when it comes to Guantanamo."
- --vonbergm 04:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Selbst China stelle für Besuche in seinen Gefängnissen keine solchen Bedingungen, sagte der UN-Sonderberichterstatter für Folter, Manfred Nowak, am Montag (Ortszeit) in New York. "Sie (die USA) sagen, sie hätten nichts zu verbergen. Warum wird es uns dann nicht erlaubt, mit den Gefangenen zu sprechen?", fragte er.
Even China places no such conditions for visits into its prisons, said the UN-Special Correspondent (Ed. Rapporteur) on torture, Manfred Nowak, in New York on Monday (local time). "You (the USA) say you have nothing to conceal. Why is it not permitted for us to speak with the prisoners?", he asked.
Addendum, I suppose also that the modifications of making definitive fact those matters that are only presently desired by the US were done out of desire to reduce the "dry" character you identified, but I believe this should be minimised in the article's development for the sake of its accuracy.
- Please sign your comments. That really irritates me when people don't. Anyways, I find the China part a bit irrelevant at the least in this article, unless you were wanting to push a POV of implicating opinion. I see absolutely no reason to include the reference to China at all. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies, sign not considered at all. What makes it POV to include information on the uniform standard by providing precisely the content of Nowak's comment on it? We are not censors, we simply report the information. As to revert, restore the second as I removed the offending information with notice immediately upon notice of your former response but left my other modification including full title in second reference in it. 126.96.36.199 03:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- The reason to include the China reference is to put the conditions set for the visit into international perspective.
- Some of your other edits make the article factually wrong. For example, the United Nations representatives were granted permissions to visit the base. But not the ENTIRE base, i.e. the United States reserves the right to decide which parts of the facility the representatives may visit, and which once they may not. Please read the sources more carefully before making changes beyond spelling, grammar and the like (which are appreciated!) --vonbergm 04:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the "China" info back into the article. --vonbergm 06:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like very much to publish this article, but as yet, can find no accurate sources representing the government's refusal to allow the UN visit. It appears that the objection is based on the fact that the UN would be expected to publish its findings where the ICRC deals with government confidentially -- if that is in fact the reason, then I cannot help but be critical of the government in this situation. I'm searching for sources outlining some more concrete objection to the visit... Anybody got anything? I understand that, at this point, this article doesn't accurately represent the government's POV and really can't be published. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I must agree with you. Apart from the Red Cross reference (which does not make sense to me) the only thing I found was the German language reference: "Das Verbot von Gesprächen mit Häftlingen begründen die USA damit, dass sie sich "im Kriegszustand" befänden. Gemeint ist der Krieg gegen den internationalen Terrorismus."
- Rough translation: "The USA justified its refusal to let the representatives talk to the detainees by arguing that they are presently 'at war' [i.e. war on terror."
--vonbergm 06:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Found another link: http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-11-01-voa48.cfm "A Pentagon spokesman said the conditions for the visit would be similar to those for members of the U.S. Congress and the media who have visited the facility, and noted that this is an exception to the Defense Department's long-standing policy of having the International Committee of the Red Cross as the only international organization allowed to send inspectors to Guantanamo." 'Long standing' cannot mean anything but '4 years'. I guess the argument is that 'it has always (always=4 years) been that way'. Not really convincing....
One other interesting item that same article seems to say that that decision was made somewhere high up in the government. Rumsfeld is quoted: "I'm not involved in the decision," he added. "That is a decision that the government of the United States has got to address because it's a precedent that applies across the government." --vonbergm 06:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have done another extensive search through google news and came up with no other (better) reason for US refusal. What if there was no other reason given? Can the article then not be published because of this? Going to bed now, maybe someone else can resolve this. --vonbergm 07:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Modified the last sentence to reflect the reason given by US administration. This is the only US POV to be found after extensive searching, i.e. looking at Rumsfeld's statements during press conference and administration statements. Can't hold back story just because US administration does not offer clearer POV. --vonbergm 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)