Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Charges to be filed today?

Scott Horton reported yesterday that charges were to filed today against "The Bush Six". I figure the best way to cover this material would be to a single article that dealt with the charges in detail. I started to prepare a draft here. Comments to it are welcome at its talk page. I figured the articles about the six men should each have a relatively small section that sets the context for the charges for that particular man, and then refers readers to the main article, via {{see}} or {{main}}. I figure Feith's specific denials of the charges would merit coverage in both that main article and his own article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across enough references that I moved it to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hudson Institue in lead section

An editor wants to label them neoconservative. Is there a source for that and is that an appropriate label for inclusion in this bio? TIA, Tom (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh gah. Neoconservative is not a well-defined term. It's used by some to describe any Republican who used to be a Democrat, it's used by others to describe a precise cohort of the same, it's used in Europe as a code word for sinister Jewish influence, it's used by yet others as "anybody from the Bush administration we don't like." The most common usage is used to describe Dem foreign policy hawks who switched parties during the Reagan Administration, but your mileage may differ. The Hudson Institute's founding predates the modern neoconservative movement, and its range of projects is a good deal broader. Thus, any characterization of them as "neoconservative" would be inaccurate and misleading. Ray^Talk 06:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"it's used in Europe as a code word for sinister Jewish influence" - Code word? What absolute nonsense. Neoconservative means the same in Europe as it does in the US. I wouldn't trust the motives of anyone making such ridiculous accusations. There are plenty of sources which describe the Hudson institute as neconservative. Some editors like User:RayAYang are describing the perfectly legitimate label of neoconservative as 'name calling' - this is clearly POV and bad faith editing. Vexorg (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems it's used globally as a code word for Jewish influence as well [1] [2] [3] [4], which possibly elevates the label in its current usage into a smear. Of course, it might be helpful if Vexorg can give us a definition of neoconservative. One that, perhaps, does not rely on namecalling in editorials and uses concrete criteria, criteria which might justify his recent labellings of people as old-school conservative as Karl Rove as a neocon. For my part, I remain dissatisfied with Vexorg's position, but I regard it as progress that Vexorg has finally deigned to speak to us and make his accusations of bad faith openly. Ray^Talk 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh Dear. Not one of your links shows anyone actually proclaiming the neocons are a Jewish cabal. The 2nd link doesn't even mention the word neoconservative/neocon and the rest just spout the usual silly propaganda of shouting anti-Semitism at anyone that criticizes Israel or the pro-Israel/Pro-Zionist-lobby. The use of the phrase 'code word' is a dead giveaway for those who spout this ADL'esque psy-op. The world has moved on from that old nonsense of trying to stifle criticism of the Israel Lobby by shouting racism. You're not even worth talking to if you are someone who clings on to that old discredited bunk. Vexorg (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Time-out. What is ADL'esque? Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it conform to WP:NPOV to call the Hudson Institute as simply "conservative"? -- Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. But calling it neoconservative when it predates the neoconservative movement would be ridiculous, to say nothing of the other problematic areas with the neoconservative label. Ray^Talk 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

'Problematic areas'? - You are clearly someone to be wary of given your nonsense regarding neoconservative alledging to be a 'code word' for a Jewish conspiracy. I'm still stunned at such a conspiracy theory. Vexorg (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Neocon#Antisemitism "code word" is fairly well known and has already been noted in WP. Although that article says it's been "adopted by the political left," it's also common on the "anti-war" far right.

The main problem with using the word neoconservative is that it's become a general epithet. People often say "neocon" when they really mean "conservative" because they don't know the difference.

Given that Feith has never been a Democrat, but is a Jew, I'd say we should leave it out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Automated archiving?

I propose to set up one of the bots (Misza, probably) to automatically archive all discussions on this page that have been inactive for 90 days. Any objections? Ray^Talk 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology or Biography

I just read this article for the first time. It is well written. However, it does seems more an apology for Mr. Feith than a biography. By this, I mean the piece is full of testimonials to Mr. Feith. I wonder why they are necessary and why one includes them in the piece. Why is thie article not more like the article on David S. Addington?

I agree - I'm not sure if it's stricly related, but this paragraph is odd:

During his time in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration, Feith helped to convince the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz all to recommend against ratification of changes to the Geneva Conventions. The changes, known as Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, would have allowed non-state militants to be treated as combatants and prisoners of war even if they had engaged in practices that endangered non-combatants or otherwise violated the laws of war. Reagan informed the United States Senate in 1987 that he would not ratify Protocol I. At the time, both the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized in favor of Reagan's decision to reject Protocol I as a revision of humanitarian law that protected terrorists.[5]

It's not clear to the reader why the WP and the NYT have been singled out for mention - I understand that they are prominent left-wing papers, supporting a decision of a right-wing official, but is this relevant? If so, shouldn't the article explain why? At the moment it risks sounding like these examples have been 'selected' so as to present Feith in the best light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookatim (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP is not a left wing paper ! 199.31.3.197 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's moderate but liberal.

The NYT and WP were selected because that was in the references we had. It's important for the article to show that this wasn't a controversial decision at the time. History also shows that it was the right one.

If anyone has editorials from the time, or now, that say it was a bad decision then go ahead and post them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the source cited only verifies the NYT's opinion, not Feith's. Unless we can get a source on Feith's role in the protocol, the whole paragraph should be cut. Ray^Talk 05:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but it's in the documentation for his book. I added one reference. There are probably more.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Lookatim The paragraph you site does explain why, but it sounds like you may have a prejudice of your own against Feith.

   If Feith comes off looking good here reflects depends on whether you think protocol 1 was a good idea. If readers think 
   Protocol 1 was a good idea then I doubt they will see Feith in a positive light.  But the paragraph does explain the "merits":
   Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, would have allowed non-state militants to be treated as combatants and prisoners of war 
   even if they had engaged in practices that endangered non-combatants or otherwise violated the laws of war."
   What's interesting is that you feel the need to lable each party with left or right wing; as if this should influence
   our judgement.  Further, the paragraph does establish some precedence for Feith's point of view (If this was indeed his view).
   Thus it's particularly relevant to positions he would take later on as in the latter Bush administration.
   Further, the NYT and WP have prestigious reputations (deserved or not).  Like it or not it is relevant that they are 
   purported to have agreed with this position (What's the magical buzzword these days?....Bipartisanship?) Spiker 22 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Spiker_22

reverting poorly explained excision

The edit summary for htis edit implies that the person making the excision has explained their excision on the talk page -- but they did not. So I am reverting it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the exact same text as what we discussed above. I didn't say "I've posted to the talkpage" I said "discussed on the talkpage" which is true, and you participated. To me it seemed like the rough consensus was against including this issue in the article until it developed, and in the interim you created The Bush Six to cover it more generally. Did I miss something? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I started an article about the Spanish inquiries. That should be the central place the wikipedia covers the inquiries. But they merit mention in Baltazar Garzon's article, and in his colleagues Eloy Velasco's article. It merits mention in the articles about the four former captives whose claims of torture triggered this inquiries: Omar Deghayes, Jamil al-Banna, Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmad and Lahcen Ikassrien. It merits mention in the articles about the other five former Bush officials under investigation: Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee, David Addington.

WP:NOT does not explicitly state: "The wikipedia is not a hagiography". But, in my opinion, this is the most important missing section. Nathan seems to be suggesting that coverage of the Spanish inquiries into Feith's role should be ghettoized -- obfuscated -- hidden from our readers. If Nathan has his way readers who come to Feith's article hoping to find neutral coverage of the inquiries, supported by WP:RS, won't be able to find that coverage. I do not believe there is any policy that justifies this excision.

There has been extensive coverage of this inquiry. Feith responded to them, himself, in the WSJ. I am frankly mystified that anyone could offer a serious justification for this excision.

So, I am reverting this excision. Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are three editors against including this as it is, and you for it. I'm not sure revert warring on the basis that you believe you are right is the best decision here. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think what you are trying to say is important, is it possible you could rephrase? I find your meaning unclear. Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the text you inserted was not accurate or up to date. In the interim, I've clarified it and added April's developments. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I find your "clarification" misleading. And I am concerned over its appropriateness. I suggest that the general details of the inquiries belongs in the main article. Feith's specific rebuttal may belong in both the article on the inquiries and in this article.

I suggest, covering the Spanish Attorney General's comments here, and presumably in the dozen other articles that inform readers about The Bush Six increases the maintenance burden. Once the AG's comments are covered in multiple places they will inevitably diverge. That is a serious problem. And all those instances will require being kept up to date. I suggest moving that material to the main article.

Your coverage of the AG's comments here are misleading because it leaves out that, under the Spanish justice system, the AG does not control whether charges are laid.

I am going to correct your use of references. Yahoo references generally expire within a short period of time. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nathan references one source that implies the Spanish AG has the authority to prevent Garzon, or his colleagues laying charges. Other sources state otherwise. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Martin Sieff (2009-04-16). "Spain wants torture charges against Bush Six dropped". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02. But the final decision on whether or not to proceed with the case will lie with the daredevil judge prosecuting it. And he's never backed down yet.
• Jason Webb (2009-04-16). "Spain attorney general against Guantanamo probe". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02. While the recommendation of Conde-Pumpido, one of Spain's most senior legal voices, reduces the chances Garzon will push ahead with the investigation, he could still do so anyway.
• "Spain: No torture probe of US staff". Al Jazeera. 2009-04-17. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02. The prosecutors' ruling is not binding, but it could mean the case against the suspects fails to proceed.
• Marlise Simons (2009-03-28). "Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials". New York Times. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02. But in Spain, the attorney general does not have the last word; an investigating judge decides whether a case will proceed. Lawyers familiar with the case said that the stage had now apparently been set for a struggle between judges and politicians.

Avruch/Nathan asks, in his first edit under this sub-heading, if he missed something. I missed something -- that User:Avruch, who first excised this material on April 6th, in a huge excision they hadn't discussed ahead of time, was the same individual who excised this section on May 1st. Avruch/Nathan, please understand that other readers who look in the revision history can't recognize "Nathan" is the same person who weighed in on the talk page under "Avruch". Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, from the edit summary alone you can't see the connection. I'm sorry for any confusion, although I have included "formerly Avruch" in my signature since the username change to help users make the connection in discussion. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Al Jazeera? You can't be serious. The simple fact is that Garzon asking prosecutors to consider the complaint is not the whole story - the prosecutors did, and they opined that the complaint should be dismissed. The attorney general - the chief prosecutor of Spain - personally rejected the complaint, and if we are going to discuss the complaint and Garzon at all then that should be included. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not challenged your seriousness. Please extend me the same courtesy.

You have avoided what I regard as a telling concern -- your raising of the AG's comments here remains out of place. Why don't you excise your coverage of the Spanish AG's comments, then try reading what the other references say, then try to introduce neutral coverage of his comments in The Bush Six?

The Bush administration may have showed a lot of prejudice against Al Jazeera. But please remember this is an international project. I think you will find that neutral observers say they respect Al Jazeera's efforts to a neutral, reliable source. I can't speak to the neutrality and reliability of their non-English coverage, but I have found their English print coverage quite reliable. I think you would do well to reconsider your mockery of Al Jazeera. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't avoid it - I addressed it directly. Garzon's action was to ask prosecutors to consider the complaint. They did so, and declined to prosecute. As you say, this wouldn't prevent him from pressing charges himself - but he did not. Your objection above, that including the AGs comments and the rest makes the information more difficult to maintain, goes to exactly why I thought the subject should be excluded in the first place. It is precisely what people mean when they say that Wikipedia is not news - the worst of all outcomes is that we give an unbalanced and inaccurate account of events because we've failed to keep up with developments, and if we exclude the comments by the AG and subsequent prosecutors that is what we will be doing. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you repeating your assertion that Spanish Prosecutors can control whether magistrates like Garzon and Velasco lay charges. I asked you to review other references that I thought cast doubt on your interpretation. It looks like you haven't reviewed those references. Is there something else you need in order to get you to review references someone thinks cast doubt on contributions you made?

You wrote above: "Your objection above, that including the AGs comments and the rest makes the information more difficult to maintain..." ... Umm -- that is not what I said. My concern is that you raised, here in Feith's article, details that belongs in The Bush Six. If the details are covered in just one place -- the article about The Bush Six, then maintaining multiple accounts, in multiple articles does not become a problem.

I think trying to keep the brief section in this article, and in the other articles that refer readers to The Bush Six, "up to date", is a mistake. Those brief sections should be written as timelessly as possible. That Spanish inquiries looked into the conduct of Feith and his colleagues merits being a permanent part of their records. So long as these brief section remain brief it should be a relatively simple matter to write them so they will be as neutral and useful ten years from now, or 100 years from now, as they were a month ago.

For the record I dispute, in general, that having zero or limited coverage of a topic is better than having coverage that was neutral when it was written, but is now out of date. Do you think you could cite a policy or guideline that would back up this interpretation of yours? Geo Swan (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting myself: "As you say, this wouldn't prevent him from pressing charges himself - but he did not." Quoting you: "I see you repeating your assertion that Spanish Prosecutors can control whether magistrates like Garzon and Velasco lay charges." This process works better if we read what the other person actually writes. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding more time lost on this (highly marginal) subject, I've cut the news-y stuff out of the section and its length to reflect the current state of affairs and its probably weight in Feith's life. I've also rewritten the section to provide pertinent facts on the matter and to avoid giving undue weight to an investigation that hasn't even formally begun. I hope Geo will accept that, once the Spanish decide not to proceed further, we can cut it out altogether, as we have done for similar sections on different articles in the past. If this actually turns into a real part of Feith's life, we can expand. If this compromise should prove unsatisfactory, I would join my voice to Nathan's in agreeing that the article would be better off without a contentious, difficult-to-maintain section of dubious neutrality than with one. Ray^Talk 14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your version is better, I think, than the initial version... But it still leaves the impression that the idea of criminal charges is unopposed in Spain. Maybe the text of the section as it is, but with references that describe later events? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ray's new version differs very little from my initial version, of March 29th. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think more references couldn't hurt. They could form the basis for expansion if this becomes a bigger deal. Ray^Talk 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ray, sorry, I don't agree the section would merit excision if Spain were to clear the proponents of extended interrogation. I'd be interested in the "similar sections" excised from "other articles" that you suggest would be precedent for an excision here.

You referred to this section as: "...contentious, difficult-to-maintain section of dubious neutrality..." The section does address a controversial topic. Way back in September 2005 I encountered a correspondent on my very first {{afd}} who made a statement that really puzzled me. She claimed that the topic of the article was "inherently POV". Topics can't be POV. Our coverage of a topic can be POV, or comply with WP:NPOV. Controversial topics require greater effort on the part of the contributors. But I do not believe there is any topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view -- with enough effort. If a topic merits coverage, then that the current instance's lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV merely means the topic's coverage needs more effort -- not that it should be excised.

I do not agree that this is a "highly marginal" subject.

You wrote that "an investigation hasn't even formally begun". The determination as to whether Feith and the others should face Spanish charges has been transferred to Eloy Velasco. But Garzon remains involved. Here is a clip from April 30th's Wall Street Journal:

Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón began a formal criminal probe into allegations U.S. officials condoned the torture of Guantanamo prisoners. The judge said in a decision filed this week that he had initiated an investigation into the "perpetrators, instigators, necessary collaborators and accomplices to" what four former detainees say was torture at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, according to a copy of the ruling seen by The Wall Street Journal.

No offense, but I don't think your assertion that a "an investigation hasn't even formally begun" is consistent with our sources. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geo - the Guardian source you so kindly put up has more detail on the subject. It appears that, the original "Bush Six" case having been removed from his jurisdiction (and still under consideration for opening an investigation by another judge), Garzon has opened a separate probe into allegations of torture, without specific named suspects. As for removal, frankly I see no reason and no merit for including in a biography, much less one of a living person, every situation where charges may have been incited against the subject by people driven by an agenda, if such charges do not end up having any significant impact on the subject's life. I think you would need a very strong argument for inclusion, since Wikipedia is not meant to be a soapbox for repeating what would then be baseless charges against living people. Ray^Talk 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dual loyalties claim

Is there a source for the claim that a Jewish American gave intelligence to Israel that is not a conspiracy theory book? If we're going to make claims to a BLP page that look like classic anti-semitic charges, we should back them up with unimpeachable references.Jamesofengland (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Not only do harsh criticisms of Feith's work for Team B such as this not include the charge, and also materials like this attack on him as an "Israel firster" but I cannot find it in the source referenced at any of the references to Feith in the index. I'm removing the claim. Jamesofengland (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Post-government Career I removed the ugly insults clause from the last sentence. It's not neutral POV and it isn't fair to the criticisms of the faculty upset by Feith's appointment. Not sure if I should have added some sort of tag or not. Tomhormby (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Douglas J. Feith. 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/20100215080337/http://newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Douglas_Feith.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Douglas_Feith.php When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024). 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) 05:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Douglas J. Feith. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAH/is_2004_April_23/ai_116585447 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326114447/http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf to http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209075946/http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm to http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209075946/http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm to http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm 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: 5 June 2024). 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) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)