Talk:USA leaving Abu Ghraib

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Developing story as lead?[edit]

Is it a good idea to be setting a story as the lead when it's not published yet? ironiridis 15:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Published, so never mind. ironiridis 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture help needed[edit]

Im incompetent. Cant get this image to work in article using same code as wikipedia us in this article. International 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image is hosted on Wikipedia. Because there is no source information (where the image came from) it will not be accepted on Commons. Because of this we cannot use that image. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that. ironiridis 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title/Content[edit]

I though tthe prison was going to be turned over to the iraqi's? at least thats what I have been seeing. Jason Safoutin 21:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's also what I saw on t.v., that would be turned over to the Iraqis. --Angela H. 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add another half sentence on this (based on the second source), but then I saw that it was already written in the text of the article. --Angela H. 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture dispute[edit]

What exactly is the problem? the edits say "grotesque" and "relevance"..and here I see the problem may be lack of a source? If the truth is that no photos of the abuse are acceptable, then let's say so and deal with that as opposed to tip toeing around the matter. Neutralizer 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the picture wouldn't be acceptable. Wikinews has a policy of non-censorship. We won't be posting links to the goatse man, but that doesn't mean we'll pussyfoot around anything which could possibly offend anyone. This image is directly related to the prison and directly related to the scandal. ironiridis 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree BUT...this is about the transfer of the prison or the closing of it. Not about who or what was tortured. There for IMO, no picture of ANY prisoner is needed. Jason Safoutin 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the torture itself, this story would be of zero interest. ironiridis 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This news event is about the closing of the prison. A picture of the prison itself, or of material/people being moved out would be specifically relevant. Additional publication of torture/abuse images is gratuitous, especially considering that all such images which show prisoners are specifically prohibited by the Geneva convention. I'd support such an image if the article were about a torture event, but it isn't. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The prison was far more well-known in the Middle East under Sadam as an execution/torture site. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Amgine; No, the abuse is the story just as with Auschwirtz the holocaust is the story even though lots of other things happened before and after at Aushwitz. It's not just like any other prison handover; it's not something to be denied or discounted or shoved off to the side; at least in my opinion its not. This story is about the abuse; if there had been no abuse there would be no story in this handover. Neutralizer 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, just in case you were unaware Neutralizer, the Russians were accused of using Nazi holocaust camps to torture and execute prisoners. The fact that Sadam's regime used Abu Grahib extensively for executions, torture, and abuse Iraqis is a major element of this story also. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with ironiridis; it would be like someone insisting that a story about a nazi concentration camp should not have a photo showing the jewish prisoners when they were in it. If anyone were to make that argument they would likely be accused of "holocaust denial". Neutralizer 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not any justification. There is NO reason the have any picture of any tortured prisoner. This is about it being transferred or closed. An abused prisoner picture, has no relevance to the article whatsoever. Jason Safoutin 22:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason what about this "Pictures of extensive detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib taken inside the prison in November 2003 had been released earlier this year. In January 2005, United States Army court martial found Army Spc. Charles Graner guilty of abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The jury sentenced Graner to ten years in prison.Total nine American soldiers were found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse case." International 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's akin to insisting that a story about the Russians giving a nazi concentration camp back to the Germans should show images of prisoners Russians kept there. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine, find some victimpix of Saddams Abu Ghraib then. International 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Amgine; No, the abuse is the story just as with Auschwitz the holocaust is the story even though lots of other things happened before and after at Aushwitz. It's not just like any other prison handover; it's not something to be denied or discounted or shoved off to the side; at least in my opinion its not. This story is about the abuse; if there had been no abuse there would be no story in this handover. Neutralizer 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer, that sounds like your POV...because i totally disagree with you. Jason Safoutin 22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, unfortuantely, your disagreement does not consitute a lack of POV on your part. In any case, this picture violates the Geneva convention. Let's respect and abide by this convention. ironiridis 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't even see the prisoner in this photo. Neutralizer 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, unless you can add something that a prisoner was abused during this article, add it, Until then there is no reason to have any picture of any prisoner being abused or had been abvused. International: you reason has no basis. This article is not about any torturing, just closing/transferring. Neutralizer: This is not abouyt any abuse. period. Jason Safoutin 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reprise:Jason what about this "Pictures of extensive detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib taken inside the prison in November 2003 had been released earlier this year. In January 2005, United States Army court martial found Army Spc. Charles Graner guilty of abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The jury sentenced Graner to ten years in prison.Total nine American soldiers were found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse case." International 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

smaller image as compromise[edit]

I think its ok according to Geneva convention. The prisoner face is blackned. International 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will tag this article misleading if any picture of an abused prisoner is shown. No abused prisoner picture relates to this article. Jason Safoutin 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cant you read?International 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure can...read my comment above. I will tag this article misleading if ANY irrelvant infomation or pitures (of abused prisoners) are added. Jason Safoutin 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
International: I'd like to ask you to be respectful of your peers in a dispute such as this. ironiridis 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Jason obviously don read the text a put in two times. International 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He disagrees with you. He's not illiterate. That kind of behavior is offensive; he never made the same insinuation of you. Please refrain from that in the future. Nobody likes it. ironiridis 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but as I read it he disputed the image by saying the picture dont relate to the article and state "Look, unless you can add something that a prisoner was abused during this article, add it, Until then there is no reason to have any picture of any prisoner being abused or had been abvused. International: you reason has no basis." and then "I will tag this article misleading if any picture of an abused prisoner is shown. No abused prisoner picture relates to this article." Its not about disagre. The article is also about prisonerabuse, both explicit and as a background and I put in the relevant text two times. International 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see he have reacted now below International 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, you can't tag an article just because you have no consensus for your point of view. Please try to collaberate a bit more, if you will. Neutralizer 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for our point of view, either. And that's the problem. We both have POV and we need to just drop this, since this is converned by other authorities which specify the humane treatment of prisoners. We'll be violating the same convention that the US has violated thousands of times. Get it off of there. Please? ironiridis 22:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article 13 of the Geneva Convention prohibits this picture, even if the identity is concealed. The prisoner themselves is not afforded the protection of public curiousity. Sorry guys, I agree with you here, but this is above WN. ironiridis 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prisoners of war or what are they definde as by U.S.? International 22:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a war ensuing, these people are prisoners, ergo they are prisoners of war. ironiridis 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's all take TEA. Until there is a compromise on the talk page, let's not restore this image. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the tea but I just restored the compromise size so let's not delete it. Neutralizer 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer: Not my POV. Its a fact. Abused prisoner is not realted to article. Therefore it is misleading. Jason Safoutin 22:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, I never said it was your pov??? Neutralizer 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. ironiridis 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup u did Jason, you can't tag an article just because you have no consensus for your point of view. Please try to collaberate a bit more, if you will. Neutralizer 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Yup. Jason Safoutin 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Convention doesn't Apply[edit]

I can't believe I'm pulling a Rumsfeld/Gonzales but the reference states the territory where the pictures are taken must be a "High Contracting Party" which Iraq is not...so this provision doesn't seem to apply at all? Neutralizer 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "High Contracting Party" actually mean? ironiridis 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the prisoner 'prisoner of war' or 'enemy combatants'? I would prefere prisoner of war then this whole insident might not happend International 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you had not published and republished a disputed picture, we would not be here. Jason Safoutin 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFire, stop being inciteful. Work toward a compromise. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inciteful?> not really. So far there is no reason to have an abused prisoners picturtes let alone anything about them being tortured when the story is Abu Graib closing or whatever. My opinion is as valid as everyone elses, and so far, there is no agreement to have a torutred prisoners picture. And unless the article is changewd to something else other than the prison closing thewn add one. Until then I am not convinced we need one. And there fore it is misleading. This article has nothnig to do with any prisoner beingf abused. Jason Safoutin 23:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those people are not prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention. If they were, they would have to be released almost two year ago ago under Article 118. --Deprifry|+T+ 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: The Hague has found the US invasion of Iraq to be an act of war (disputed by the USA.) The Hague has found Iraq to be an occupied country (disputed by the USA). Incidentally, the Afghanistan detainees have also been found to be prisoners of war. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The war officially ended with the transition of the government to the Iraqis in June 2004 and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. The UN consider Iraq to be a sovereign nation and the multinational forces are in the country "at the request of Government of Iraq" [1] --Deprifry|+T+ 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to retrieve that document. I'm also not sure the world court would recognize the statement the country is not occupied as only two of three recognized international election observer organizations certified the most recent election (one of which pointed out serious irregularities), and the government of Iraq does not have decision-making authority over the international forces (which is a fundamental characteristic.) But I don't believe there is current case regarding it, other than the outstanding warrants for Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Powell. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's SC resolution 1637 (here's an html link) and point 2 of the taken actions says that the SC "decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or no later than 15 June 2006, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq". So the UN specifically grants the Iraqi government the right to ask the foreign forces to leave the country at any time. Whether the U.S. would follow such a request is of course an entirely different matter. But as of right now, neither the United Nations nor the United States nor the Iraqi government consider the country to be occupied. --Deprifry|+T+ 02:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, but I wasn't refering to any of those bodies. (I'm wondering when the SC claims to have given a mandate to the multinational force, but not willing to go find it.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

compromise[edit]

Its being closed due to torture, nothing wrong with pictures related to torture being included. Why not use photos of modern torture implements? I suspect this is somehow more representative of the whole idea behind the closing anyway, i.e. torture in general, as opposed to specific victims. Nyarlathotep 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as i said above: the images of abused prisoners does not belong in this article. It is about the prison being transferred/closed. Therefore no abused prisoner images. if any are added, I will tag this article as misleading, like I said above. Jason Safoutin 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The army cites the fact the prison keeps being attacked as one of the reasons for closure. I would also guess it was not designed for the current insurrection, being designed/built in the 60s shortly after the Baath party gained power and the country was relatively stable. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reasoning:

  1. The quote of Lt. Col. Barry Johnson proves that torture is relevant
  2. But its not proper (and maybe not relevant) to include photos of specific torture victims
  3. Thus photos of generic modern torture implements is a logical compromise, i.e. general idea, not sppecific cases.

Nothing wrong with including a photo of a specific attacks aftermath either, of course. Nyarlathotep 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I do like the idea of this article having a picture more interesting that those boring pictures of the front gate. It an article about the end of a pretty heated situation. Nyarlathotep 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One flaw with your argument is this is background information, not the news event itself. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image which is freely available and might be a compromise?
Perfect...nowq why was this NOT looked into before? these images are TOTALLY relevant. Jason Safoutin 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. i suggest the first image: 5b.jpg. Jason Safoutin 23:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have we shown photos of Saddam since his capture?[edit]

Just wondering about that; do you know Amgine? Neutralizer 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have shown two images of Saddam since his capture. I protested the first use; I don't think I did the second. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

In the article: Pictures of extensive detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib taken inside the prison in November 2003 had been released earlier this year. In January 2005, United States Army court martial found Army Spc. Charles Graner guilty of abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The jury sentenced Graner to ten years in prison.Total nine American soldiers were found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse case This has NOTHING to do with the prison closing. Why is this in the article? Jason Safoutin 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called background information. It sets the context for the story and is very important to an article. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it has nothing to do with the prison closing. IMO it was added to have a reson to add prisoner pictures. I see no relevance to this, but I am not gponig to remove it. Jason Safoutin 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pov edit[edit]

I cant find any other explanation [2] International 23:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have one: readewrs click on the article becuse they want to read about the prison closing. That is the most important thing, not waht happened earlier. Why make them wait to read about the prison closing? How do you define this POV? Jason Safoutin 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, you are opalusizing me International 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USA_leaving_Abu_Ghraib&oldid=424078"