Talk:UN calls for Guantanamo shutdown

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Vonbergm in topic Issue with Title
Jump to navigation Jump to search

foreign language quote


For easier verification, here is the German original of the quote used:

ZEIT online: Die US-Regierung wirft Ihnen nun Einseitigkeit vor. Sie hätten das Lager ja gar nicht besucht und nur Beweise vom „Hörensagen“ verwendet.

Manfred Nowak: Es ist die alleinige Verantwortung der USA, dass wir nicht nach Guantánamo konnten. Die US-Regierung hatte uns in ihrer Einladung ausdrücklich verboten, mit Häftlingen zu sprechen. Doch ohne Häftlingsinterviews ist eine umfassende Inspektion nicht möglich. Das ist auch die Position der USA, wenn es um andere Länder, etwa China, geht. Uns nun vorzuwerfen, wir hätten nicht mit Häftlingen gesprochen, geht also wirklich zu weit! Solche Argumente war ich von demokratischen Regierungen nicht gewöhnt. Im Übrigen haben wir vor allem einen rechtlichen Bericht erstellt. Die Fakten, die unserem Report zugrunde liegen, sind ja nicht umstritten. Viele Anordnungen, die wir analysiert haben, kamen ja von US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld selbst. Und vieles haben wir aus öffentlich zugänglichen Dokumenten.

--vonbergm 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

position of US or of UN? last line

He pointed out that this "is also the position of the United States when it concerns other countries, like China".

Shouldn't this be the following?

He pointed out that this "is also the position of the United Nations when it concerns other countries, like China".

i'll try looking in the sources, but someone who has already read them might find this first... Boud 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned inline, that's a quote from the Zeit interview with Nowak. It's a translation of the line Das ist auch die Position der USA, wenn es um andere Länder, etwa China, geht that you see right on this page. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks - but it's still a bit confusing regarding what is this, anyway here's what i've understood and done (our edits crossed on the talk page):

Das ist auch die Position der USA, wenn es um andere Länder, etwa China, geht.

Some of the babelfish translation including some of the context is:

It is the exclusive responsibility of the USA that we could not after Guantánamo. The US government had expressly forbidden us in its invitation speaking with prisoners. But without prisoner interviews a comprehensive inspection is not possible. That is also the position of the USA, if it concerns to China other countries, about. Us now to accuse, we with prisoners would have spoken, does not go thus really too far!

i think this is clearer - the position of the USA, concerning China etc, is that "without prisoner interviews a comprehensive inspection is not possible". i've put:

He pointed out that the need for interviews with prisoners, in order for considering investigations to be comprehensive, "is also the position of the United States when it concerns other countries, like China".

Boud 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Boud, that makes it clearer. --vonbergm 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sick and Tired of the Hypocrisy


Isn't there some way to report the elephant in the room? The fact that the USA has consistently crippled and killed civilians during wartime for the past 200 years? That American elite were the primary financiers of Hitler's rise to power; and the US government of Saddam's regime; and Osama's rise to power; and the Saudi monarchy's promotion of Islamic extremism? That the USA is the only country to use atomic weapons on human beings? That the USA has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined??? Is there no way to drive home the point that Guantanamo is the Father raping the kids and that by letting it continue the rest of us are the timid little wife closing the door to the bedroom????? Neutralizer 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I only want to respond to what is actually directly related to this article. I don't believe that wikinews is the forum to "drive home points", but consistent and solid reporting might raise awareness. In fact, now that Britain has more or less officially joined the chorus of the nations asking openly for the closure of Guantanamo might be fertile gound for a new article to focus on the international response to the report. --vonbergm 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes unfourtanatly it isn't :( . I still personally want comments though. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Issue with Title


I don't think the title matches the point of the UN's report. I believe the main idea of the UN report is that the US should shut down Gitmo. The report lists several reasons, including of course the allegations of torture. But even if the US was giving the detainees punch and pie and reading them bedtime stories, the fact that they are being detained without charges or access to counsel is just as important as the issue of torture.

Also, the US is not disputing that it is detaining people without charges or counsel. Rather, the US is saying that it is legal to do so. On the other hand, the US disputes the allegation of torture. If the article alleges torture, the resulting public conversation revolves around two worthless topics: 1) the semantics of what constitutes 'torture'; and 2) the fallacy of 'terrorists deserve to be tortured.'

It makes more sense to me to frame the article by making the title reflect the central thesis of the report: "UN calls for US to shut down Guantanamo facility" or something similar. And then the article can summarize the UN's stated reasons.

Besides, the allegations of torture aren't really NEWS. Everybody and their grandmother has been alleging that the US is torturing people at Gitmo. Up until now, nobody has really framed the argument as,"Shut the place down!" That's what I think is newsworthy about the report.

Thoughts anyone?

I am quite agreed with this. The question of right to be trailed is of outmost importance, and should not disapear. Rama 12:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree too. The title is way off. Neutralizer 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good catch, you are right on target. I prefer shorter titles like "UN calls for Guantanamo shutdown", but anything like this should be good. So be bold and change the title! --vonbergm 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply