Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hozaifa Parhat

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Seems pretty clear that this is a textbook BLP1E situation. No one is saying that Wikipedia should not contain any information on Parhat, just that he doesn't need his own standalone article. -Scottywong| spout _ 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hozaifa Parhat

edit
Hozaifa Parhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On a living prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- This nomination is highly misleading. Parhat had an unique ruling made by DC court of appeals made in his DTA appeal, on 2008-06-20. Many reliable sources have commented on what that ruling said about him. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe Palazzolo (2008-07-07). "DOJ Seeks Lawyers for Guantanamo Cases: Justice says 50 needed to deal with 250 habeas cases". Legal Times. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. While the Detainee Treatment Act cases run separate to the habeas cases, detainee lawyers say the Parhat ruling cast doubt on the authority of hundreds of intelligence documents and records the government has held up as proof of detainees' threat.
    • John Patashnik (2008-07-03). "The TNR Conversation: Benjamin Wittes and Andrew C. McCarthy". The New Republic. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. I want to get your reactions to this week's decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Parhat case. The court rejected the administration's rationale for detaining Mr. Parhat, who is a Uighur, a Chinese Muslim, at Guantánamo, finding no evidence that would qualify him as an enemy combatant.
    • Josh Meyer (2008-06-24). "Court rules in favor of detainee: The Guantanamo inmate is ordered to be freed, transferred or given a new hearing, in a new setback for the Bush administration". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. A lawyer for Huzaifa Parhat, who has been kept virtually incommunicado for more than six years, said he and other members of Parhat's legal team would seek to have him freed immediately. Parhat is one of 17 Uighur Muslims, an ethnic minority in China, who are still being held at Guantanamo even though the U.S. government acknowledges they pose no threat.
    • Seema Saifee (2008-03-31). "East Turkestan: Uyghurs Unlawfully Arrested and Detained". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. But lawyers for the Uighur 17 will never give up. Oral argument is scheduled for April 4 [2008] in another Uighur case Parhat v. Gates, an action filed in the D.C. Circuit pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA"). In the first ever dispositive motion to be heard in a DTA case, the Court will consider whether – as a matter of law – Huzaifa Parhat is a non-combatant and should therefore be immediately released.
    • Andy Worthington (2009-02-19). "Obama's Uighur Problem". Counterpunch magazine. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. Ignored for years, they gained an unexpected reprieve last June, when three judges in the Court of Appeals in Washington — noticeably, two Republicans and a Democrat — were finally granted an opportunity to review the government's evidence against Huzaifa Parhat, one of the 17, and decided that the government's attempts to link him to the East Turkestan Independence Movement were thoroughly unpersuasive. As a result, they "held invalid a decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal" that Parhat was an "enemy combatant," and "directed the government to release or transfer" him (or to hold a new tribunal "consistent with the Court's opinion").
    • Jonathan Hafetz (2007-07-27). "Modest Improvements Cannot Save an Inherently Flawed Process at Guantánamo". Findlaw. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. The government claimed that the DTA sharply curtailed judicial review over detention decisions, and justified imposition of severe restrictions on counsel's access to detainees and information in the government's possession. However, the detainees in Bismullah (and the consolidated case of Parhat v. Gates) countered that the government misconstrued the statute and sought to render its review scheme a nullity.
    • But are these anything more than passing mentions? I don't see extensive coverage - just that he is mentioined in passing... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That subject is very notable and article-worthy, and the articles on the detainees themselves can be merged and redirected into it, as individually they do not meet the bar for notability to have individual articles that would, by necessity, essentially duplicate the information in the article about the group, as they have done nothing else notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From what Geo Swan has highlighted, it seems that the issue he wishes to highlight is what the ruling meant for the legality of the arrangements prisoners were being held under. This should be covered in the appropriate article on these arrangements, rather than an article on an otherwise non-notable person. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient coverage to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In news and book searches found multiple passing mentions of the subject but none that would be considered significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. That being said the subject falls under a notable group, a redirect can be left in the articlespace and its verified content can be merged within that target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but what elements of "significant coverage" do you think are missing? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brendan M. Driscoll (2006). "The Guantanamo Protective Order". Fordham University Law Journal. p. 26-27, 39-47, 57-61. Retrieved 2012-08-21. There is considerable debate about the appropriateness of the Green Protective Order. This debate is most vigorously presented in the arguments submitted by the parties in the pending cases Bismullah v. Rumsfeld and Parhat v. Gates, brought pursuant to the DTA."' In these cases, the question of the whether the Green Protective Order should be put in place is currently being litigated."
    • Jason S. Pinney (2009). "The Uighurs AT Guantánamo : "SOMETIMES WE JUST DIDN'T GET THE RIGHT FOLKS"" (PDF). Northeastern University Law Journal. pp. 13–14. Retrieved 2012-08-21. We won. In June of 2008, the Parhat court rejected the Government's enemy combatant determination and ordered that Parhat be released, transferred, or that a new CSRT be convened. The Government waived its right to subject Parhat to a second CSRT, and accepted the court's non-enemy combatant determination. The only question remaining was release.
    • Stephen I. Vladeck (2009-03-01). "The Long War, the Federal Courts, and the Necessity / Legality Paradox". American University Washington College of Law. p. 18. Retrieved 2012-08-21. But perhaps they were just the courts taking the last in a series of incremental steps: Rasul provided that the federal courts had jurisdiction; Boumediene provided that Congress could not take that jurisdiction away; Parhat provided that the Uighurs were not properly classified as "enemy combatants"; and the district court's decision in In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation suggested that the appropriate remedy, if the government could not legally transfer the detainees to any other country, was release.
    • Jennifer Daskal, Joanne Mariner (2008). "Locked Up Alone: Detention Conditions and Mental Health at Guantanamo". Human Rights Watch. p. 1, 12, 17, 28. Retrieved 2012-08-21. In April, Huzaifa Parhat, another Uighur who was reportedly determined eligible for release over four years ago, described his daily routine to his lawyer, who wrote:

      Wake at 4:30 or 5:00. Pray. Go back to sleep. Walk in circles -- north, south, east, west -- around his 6-by-12 foot cell for an hour. Go back to sleep for another two or more hours. Wake up and read the Koran or look at a magazine (written in a language he does not understand). Pray. Walk in circles once more. Eat lunch. Pray. Walk in circles. Pray. Walk in circles or look at a magazine (again, in a foreign language). Go back to sleep at 10:00 p.m.

      The next day is the same except that the detainee may leave his cell for two hours of recreation in a slightly larger pen or for a shower.

    • Ernesto A. Hernandez-Lopez (July 2011). "Kiyemba, Guantanamo, and Immigration Law: An Extraterritorial Constitution in a Plenary Power World". Chapman University School of Law. p. 20. Retrieved 2012-08-21. The precise nature of the location of these camps, how long the Uighurs were there, and what training they received, if any, remains debated in legal pleadings and orders. This information is invariably under government seal as confidential. Yet, the executive concedes that all of the Uighur detainees are not unlawful enemy combatants and that the Parhat holding applies to all of them. See In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litig., 581 F. Supp. 2d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2008). For the most developed discussion of their reasons for leaving China, stay and training at a Uighur camp in Afghanistan, flight from Afghanistan after the U.S. military campaign in October 2008, and capture in Pakistan in December 2008, see Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 837–38, 843–44 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    • Sabin Willett (2009). "Clericalism and the Guantánamo Litigation" (PDF). Northeastern University Law Journal. pp. 23–25, 30–32, 44, 45. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Early in January 2009, the author visited Guantánamo. For a fleeting moment he stood across a fence from two men famous in American jurisprudence, the Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene and the Uighur Huzaifa Parhat. Each had been adjudicated a noncombatant. Each was still a prisoner.
    • Jennifer K. Elsea, Michael John Garcia (2011-12-08). "Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 11m 19. Retrieved 2012-08-21. If the definition asserted by the government in Parhat is adopted, then the term would seem to require a close operational nexus in the current armed conflict. On the other hand, as the court noted, "[t]his argument suggests that, even under the government's own definition, the evidence must establish a connection between ETIM and al Qaida or the Taliban that is considerably closer than the relationship suggested by the usual meaning of the word 'associated.'" The court did not find that the evidence adduced established that ETIM is sufficiently connected to Al Qaeda to be an "associated force," as the government had defined the concept, but the decision might have come out differently if the court had adopted a plain-language interpretation of "associated force."
    • Stephen Holmes (April 2009). "In Case of Emergency: Misunderstanding Tradeoffs in the War on Terror" (PDF). California Law Review. p. 37. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Evidence suggesting that gullible executive-branch officials were fed deliberate disinformation by Chinese intelligence led a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the Pentagon's determination that a member of the Uighur minority from western China was properly held as an enemy combatant.
    • Joseph Landau (2009). "MUSCULAR PROCEDURE: CONDITIONAL DEFERENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE DETENTION CASES" (PDF). Washington Law Review. p. 21-22, 27, 31, 35. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Parhat focused on the underlying reliability of the government's evidence, which the court refused to credit, even under a relatively light standard of review.
    • Margaret Wichmann (2009). "REACHING BEYOND GUANTÁNAMO: THE FUTURE OF COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW IN THE UNITED STATES". California State Law Review. p. 9. Retrieved 2012-08-21. In Parhat v. Gates, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal's decision that Huzaifa Parhat was an "enemy combatant".90 The court found that Parhat's designation as an enemy combatant was not valid because it was not based on evidence that could be reviewed by both the Tribunal and the court.
    • Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney & Rabea Benhalim (2010-01-22). "The Emerging Law of Detention: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking" (PDF). Brookings Institute. p. 12-13, 39-40, 80. Retrieved 2012-08-21. The panel emphasized that it was not suggesting "that hearsay evidence is never reliable—only that it must be presented in a form, or with sufficient additional information, that permits the Tribunal and court to assess its reliability."

</ref>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hozaifa_Parhat&oldid=1177658230"