Talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 5: Line 5:


On getting to the end of the article, wading through lots of detail and not finding much about policy, the results of court review, etc., I find that a court ruling was expected in December 2007, almost a year ago. Has there been such a ruling?  If so, I would expect not only the details in the appropriate section, as well as in a main article on policy, but at least some overview in the lead to the article. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On getting to the end of the article, wading through lots of detail and not finding much about policy, the results of court review, etc., I find that a court ruling was expected in December 2007, almost a year ago. Has there been such a ruling?  If so, I would expect not only the details in the appropriate section, as well as in a main article on policy, but at least some overview in the lead to the article. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
== Move into historical article and delete? ==
The lede mentions these existed, but makes little mention of what is now relevant.  To what extent has this been superceded by the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]], the rulings of [[Susan Crawford]], and the directives of the Obama Administration?
I suggest it be merged into a historical article, and the standalone article, along with [[Administrative Review Board]], deleted.  We can discuss the structure of doing so; I have an article on the history of U.S. interrogation policy in my sandbox, and it will probably become a high-level parent article with a number of subordinate historical articles. U.S. interrogation policy in unconventional warfare did not begin on 9/11, or with Guantanamo.
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:03, 26 February 2009

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Definition [?]
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Military, Politics and Law [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English
To do.


Metadata here


Fountain pen.png
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of this version.
George Swan 19:34, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Resultes of court hearing? More summary in intro?

On getting to the end of the article, wading through lots of detail and not finding much about policy, the results of court review, etc., I find that a court ruling was expected in December 2007, almost a year ago. Has there been such a ruling? If so, I would expect not only the details in the appropriate section, as well as in a main article on policy, but at least some overview in the lead to the article. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Move into historical article and delete?

The lede mentions these existed, but makes little mention of what is now relevant. To what extent has this been superceded by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the rulings of Susan Crawford, and the directives of the Obama Administration?

I suggest it be merged into a historical article, and the standalone article, along with Administrative Review Board, deleted. We can discuss the structure of doing so; I have an article on the history of U.S. interrogation policy in my sandbox, and it will probably become a high-level parent article with a number of subordinate historical articles. U.S. interrogation policy in unconventional warfare did not begin on 9/11, or with Guantanamo.

Howard C. Berkowitz 04:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)