Talk:Enemy Combatant (book)

Anonymous edits from Guantanamo...[edit]

An edit was made here by a DoD IP address, User:130.22.190.5: [1]. An adjacent IP address, User:130.22.190.10 just said he was a current Guantanamo guard, so I believe these edits were also made by someone at Guantanamo.

I'd like to ask, generally, for good faith editors from the DoD to identify themselves as such.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing proselytizing[edit]

I'm removing this section "Under current US law, no compensation is necessary for action taken under war powers act [cite needed if not patent nonsense] and, according to the Federalist Papers[cite needed--which article? and of what relevance to the proposition?], the National Security is the utmost concern of the United States government."

This article is about the book, not US statutes and precedent.

EAGreene (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then why did you leave in the ridiculous bit about "without charge, compensation or an apology"? Not that there was ever any doubt, but it's long been established as perfectly legal and moral to detain prisoners in a war without charging them in the criminal justice system.

I realize that Wikipedia's Gitmo detainee articles are full of this "without charge" nonsense, but you brought this up. Why is one "proselytizing" and the other not? It seems to me that the editor who put in the line you disagreed with was merely adding context to the other point.

This page isn't an ad for the book or a platform for Begg's views. I'll remove the other bit, and perhaps the temptation to explain the facts of life won't be there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object, though I personally would have left the "without charge". Your point is understood, and thanks for following up. Cheers.

EAGreene (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enemy Combatant (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927212923/http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2446 to http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2446

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raban quote[edit]

Here it is, in full: Enemy Combatant has been praised in Britain for Begg’s outstanding liberality of mind and evenhandedness toward his captors, some of whom are described as unfeeling brutes, others as decent human beings who become his “friends.” Bold mine, obviously. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I has read in the (distant) past, but could not look today. I still think it reads as a bit odd to use a US quote to support a UK response, but accept that it is sourced. Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]