Talk:Binyam Mohamed

POV

I have edited this to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, Geo Swan is that when you create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, that you forget to include the basic information. Joaquin Murietta 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not "obvious"

No one would question the value of improving a biographical article, by adding in the birth date, and the dates of other significant events. JM can pat themself on the back for having added some dates to this and other biographical articles.

But I think JM is making mistakes that they can justify removing material, in order to restore what they regard as a NPOV, merely by claiming the need for those changes was "obvious". -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not obvious why his alleged extraordinary rendition is POV

JM removed the information that Mohammed had been identified as a subject of the controversial technique of extraordinary rendition, without saying why. I restored that information. It is verifiable. The Amnesty International link identifies his that way. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not obvious why external links were removed

In particular, JM removed a bunch of external links, without giving a justification for their removal. I have restored them. I don't see any downside to including links that talk about the subject of biography. I replaced one link which quoted five paragraphs from Mohammed's August 11th statement to another link that quoted all eleven paragraphs. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not obvious how Mohammed's participation in the hunger strikes could be POV

Before JM's edits the article talked about Mohammed's participation in the current hunger strike and the previous hunger strike. JM removed the references to the hunger strike, without explanation. Mohammed's claim to participation in the hunger strike is verifiable. That passage, IMO was not written in a POV way. If my best effort to write it in an NPOV way, I would welcome any civil explanation of what I did wrong

I expanded that section. I think I did it in an NPOV way. If JM, or anyone else, can find an offical reply to Mohammed's statement, or an official denial that the first hunger strike was ended through negotiation, of course they should expand that section to reflect that. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The value of meaningful explanations of edits

I've explained my edits. I encourage JM, if they choose to add or delete anything to do the same. Maybe if they identify what they regard as problematic we can arrive at a compromis that leaves everyone satisfied?

Wikified dates -- external link format

There is a team working hard to wikify dates, to enable articles to be processed mechanically, in new ways. This team has automated tools to assist them. It takes them about one minute each for them to examine an article, approve the changes to the wiki dates. Let me suggest it is a courtesy to them to refrain from undoing their work. JM routinely undoes the date wikification in the external links of articles he edits. I'd like to encourage them, as a courtesy to others, to stop doing so. JM also routinely unlinks the name of the actual publication in the external links of the articles he edits. This is not only the way everyone else edits article, but, it is useful in cases where the publication moves an article from the current server to their archive server, to have a link to the publications home page. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Google hits

Creating stub articles in order to score google hits? This idea would never have occurred to me. I guess some people do use a simple count of google hits to determine the importance of a person, or event.

I always tell the truth. I never have a secret agenda. I contribute to articles on detainees in the "war on terror" for the same reason most other wikipedians contribute to articles. Most of contribute to articles in topics we are interested in, where we think we know something, that other people might be interested in it too. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"By his own admission"

There seems to be a dispute about whether we can say definitively that this man trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq. I think we can agree on the following:

1. The Summary of Evidence Memo says he did
2. He is reported to have admitted that he did
3. He now claims that this admission was extracted under torture

It seems to me that the evidence that he did actually attended this camp is disputed. I have therefore changed the line "who, by his own admission, trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq" to one that I believe is supported by the evidence cited here: "...who, the US authorities claim, trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq". If anyone wants to add more text to the introduction that he admitted this attendance, then I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the previous wording implied that it was an undisputed fact that he did actually attend this camp - and I don't believe the evidence supports that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.28.152 (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone a little further and removed the word 'terrorist' from the sentence - it's a word that is perhaps best avoided in *any* article (except for the eponymous one), and in any case is implicit in the name 'Al Qaeda' for those that believe that the organisation is a terrorist organisation. Many such training camps existed in this area during the war against the Russians in the 80's, conducting exactly the same type of weapons training, therefore a more neutral description might be appropriate? Little grape (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MJD. 213.106.28.152 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed NPOV Tag

I have removed the NPOV tag. The article as it stands seems to me to be well balanced and well sourced. There is nothing there that cannot be verified by reference to the sources cited. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with your edits. Agree with removal of tag. Joaquin Murietta 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

except for the last phrase. Please compare. Also it is peripheral to Beyam Mohammed. Also removed current tag.

Joaquin, I have compared the versions. Without an explanation of the reason for resumption of the hunger strike the last sentence becomes orphaned and meaningless. The reasons for the strike resuming are well documented in the sources listed and should be included. I have reworded slightly. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with your new langauge because the detainees believed the US authorities failed to honour promises to meet their demands as opposed to The hunger strike started in July 2005, and resumed in August 2005 when the US authorities failed to honour promises to meet the demands of the detainees.Thank you for your edits which now have made the article NPOV Joaquin Murietta 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Placed Dispute Tag

I thought we had a neutral edit on 18 October. After that, the addition of the self-serving quote skewed this article back. Dispute veracity or need for the lenghty quote, as opposed to linking to it. Joaquin Murietta 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We still have a neutral article. Are you really disputing the veracity of Mohammed's statement, released by Clive Stafford Smith and reported in the Guardian? The hunger strike is a significant issue, detainees may die as a result. The quotation clarifies the context in which it was resumed. If you feel this unbalances the article, source a suitable US government statement that balances it and add that to the article. If it is verifiable, great. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to repeat my request to JM to explain their edits. -- Geo Swan 06:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what exactly is disputed in this article? The veracity of the quote cannot be questioned. If it is the need for the quote, I am open to persuasion. But just slapping a tag on (numerous) articles then leaving them for weeks is not acceptable. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• No response, removing tag. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Charges filed

I added the reference to the Guardian regarding the charges filed yesterday and the description of the allegations of the complaint. Joaquin Murietta 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Did a minor edit to this section JM, some re-wording and spacing. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Took out a comma and added parens, CM. Joaquin Murietta 15:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, an improvement. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that Binyam Mohamed is an Eritrean not Ethiopian. When Eritreans get in trouble, they claim to be Ethiopians.

Malfunction in References: #12 (On Main Page)

Please note: Reference #12 is not functioning. Please update reference. Thank you. Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.93.114 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eritrea or Ethioia?

? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All the references I've read (including those in the reference section of the article) state Binyam is Ethiopian, or does this question mean something else?--Sully (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Preventing Obama from knowing things that he should know

"Under the bizarre laws the Americans have, they are preventing their commander-in-chief from knowing things that he should know," Clive Stafford Smith told Der Spiegel. "He is being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel." (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,609464,00.html) --217.232.85.39 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is bunk. If you believed it, you've been fooled. Clive Stafford Smith is a <removed libel. See edit summary. Ha! (talk)> lawyer who claims to care about human rights, and he's one of the <removed libel>. <removed libel>

I'm sure you understand that it's only natural that some materials are classified in wartime. It is highly unlikely that Stafford Smith has a secure channel direct to the President's office. Whatever he sends will have to pass through the lower levels, and there is no guarantee they would all have sufficient security clearances. That's why it must be redacted.

Regardless, the materials he did send had all of their redactions clearly marked. There's a copy of this posted online; you can't miss the redaction markings. There is no chance whatsoever that President Obama could not see that -- should he choose to read these materials at all. He can see anything he likes. If he wants the full copy, he only has to ask to see it.

It is quite possible that he won't even need to ask. If his office is efficiently run, the staffers will order that the classified version be sent to him before he even sees the redacted one.

To make this even more ridiculous, President Obama has the authority to fully declassify and release these materials if he chooses to do so. Stafford Smith is blowing an awful lot of smoke here.

Nothing these lawyers say should be trusted as being the full truth. They will play you every chance they get.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: Here are some sources if anyone doubts what I say.

The document is here. The redactions are at the bottom. As you can see, there's no missing it unless someone is blind or extremely stupid.

If Clive Stafford Smith were to be taken seriously, this is actually an insult to President Obama's intelligence. I don't really think that's what he intends but he shouldn't be doing this. In reality, he's probably just making a lot of noise, which is what lawyers do when they don't have a good case but want to pretend that they do.

It came out a couple of years ago that the President can declassify documents on his own. There was also an executive order that allowed the VP to do so as well.

Clearly, President Obama can order whatever classified documents he wishes to see. It's insane to suggest otherwise.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Randy - Correct. People do realize these individuals are defense attorneys and they represent their clients' interests? They are supposed to say their clients are as innocent as a new born babe, and their conditions in detention are horrible. Giving extra credence to these comments is unwise, and should be examined through the prism of client interest.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Personal Representative(s)' notes

Did BM acknowledge training at al Qaida camps? Another contributors edit summary said he acknowledged it to his Personal Representative. BM didn't attend his Tribunal. Although the DoD published the transcripts from the unclassified sessions of lots annual review board hearings, when there was substantive disucssion, even when the captive wasn't present, it was rare for them do so for the CSR tribunals. But BM is one of the captives who had their CSR Tribunal package published.

Those documents say his CSR Tribunal was not convened in Guantanamo -- it was convened elsewhere. I would guess Washington DC. The Personal Representative who met with him for 80 minutes wasn't there. A new PR was given the first officer's notes.

FWIW, those notes are riddled with careless errors.

The notes say he acknowledged the first four allegations. But, personally, I would interpret that as BM acknowledged attending a training camp in Afghanistan, which doesn't necessarily establish it was an al Qaida camp.

The notes imply his interrogators encouraged BM not to attend his Tribunal. That sounds like something they should have been prohibited from doing.

The notes state this was from BM's initial interview. Was there a followup interview? The notes state it was drafted on 2004-11-18. His Summary of Evidence memo is dated 2004-11-10. Usually the interview is the day after the memo was drafted. The eight day delay is unusual. His Tribunal was convened on 2004-11-22.

The detainee election form bears two dates -- 2004-11-17 and 2004-11-22. It lists the ranks of both Personal Representatives. A Lieutenant Commander is listed first. That would imply that the notes dated 2004-11-18, signed by the Major, were compiled second hand, possibly after a telephone conversation with the first guy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen the CSRT summary and the note you've just linked.

I agree we need to be careful. The article on Al Farouq training camp still says "alleged" al Qaeda camp. It may well have catered to more than just one terrorist organization.

One of the allegations he admitted to (3A4) includes "received instruction from a senior al Qaida operative." This can only mean that al Qaeda was present at the camp. The line about "no way out of AF other than the groups who could get him out of AF" is an admission he consorted with al Qaeda, if only out of necessity. But these things by themselves don't necessarily make it an al Qaeda camp.

The difference in dates is interesting. I suppose it could be a transcription error from handwriting to typewriter. It could also mean there were other PRs, and that this one didn't meet with BM until after the CSRT.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

US pressure detainees to hide torture at Guantanamo

This is the title of a news article here. The allegations come from Granma the news agency of Cuba. The article mentions documents which say: "The accused accepts not to participate or support, in any way, litigation or challenge, in any forum, against the United States or any other nation or official from any nation, whether military or civilian", adding that "the accused assigns the United States all legal rights to sign and present any document, motion or speech necessary to implement this requirement on behalf of the accused." Mohamed’s lawyers rejected the proposed agreement. He was nonetheless released on 23 February 2009. Does this news article rate a mention in the Binyam Mohamed biography?---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that source is adequate. It does establish notability for the claims, but because of the polemic in it, I'd want to see more direct sources to verify the alleged facts. The general situation could belong in an article on the whole Guantanamo situation. What is specific about Benyam Muhammad could be put here. The story you cite, for example, doesn't tell us that Benyam Muhammad's lawyers rejected the agreement, though, in fact, they only would have had the power to advise him, not to reject it. Find some more sources, maybe, PJH. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Granma February 24. ACLU biography. I'd look for sources on the specifics of the agreement proposed by the U.S. government, and then, as well, for specifics about Benyam Mohammed. Spelling of the name varies. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable corroboration of the thrust of the Granma article comes from the BBC News: US 'offered Binyam plea bargain'.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC) And the BBC have just reported that the police are to probe UK torture claims.---PJHaseldine (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news medium, we should be careful about what was just reported. This is not a specific argument. I'll look at the sources you cited. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)