Jump to content

Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.226.78.94 (talk) at 01:44, 11 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{{archive box collapsible|large=yes|box-width=100%|

Evidence allowed under coercion

This article claims Khalid pled guilty to the 9/11 attack, and other terrorist attacks. However, this plea actually appears to be invalid according to American and generally Western standards of justice, since as Glenn Greenwald has commented [1], the military courts at Guantanamo don't appear to use the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and do permit evidence obtained under coercion, as well as the chief prosecutor leaving after refusing to use evidence obtained under torture, and having evidence lost and destroyed. This rather makes a mockery of any claims made on this page, and I think the reader should be notified, although I'll have to think about how to put this diplomatically. - Connelly (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe WP needs a special Banner "This article refers to evidence acquired under coercion, you can help WP by acquiring evidence in this matter without using coercion.Geo8rge (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading it the term alleged should be used more, until there is some sort of trial.

Years of service

Should this phrase be used in relation to terrorists? It gives the impression that they are legitimate military personnel who are serving a nation in my opinion. Is there a better phrase that could be used? 'Years active' perhaps?

edit - Same question applies for the use of the term unit.

Charge 7c - Plaza Bank, Washington

Okay there's a conspiracy theory regarding the Plaza Tower in Seattle Washington. However, there was a 2004 Reuters link that there was an Al-Qaeda plot to hit the tallest building in Washington State which is the Columbia Center. In the Columbia Center article, it states
On June 16, 2004, the 9/11 Commission reported that the original plan for the September 11, 2001 attacks called for the hijacking of ten planes, to be crashed into targets including the "tallest buildings in California and Washington State," which would have been the Columbia Center and the U.S. Bank Tower.
Also in the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Columbia Center is one of the buildings that was planned to be attacked. In the 9/11 Commission, when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed regarding attacks in the United States, it stated
As originally envisioned, the 9/11 plot involved even more extensive attacks than those carried out on September 11. KSM maintains that his initial proposal involved hijacking ten planes to attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. He claims that, in addition to the targets actually hit on 9/11, these hijacked planes were to be crashed into CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and Washington State.
Also KIRO addresses this story. [2]
"Since al-Qaida targeted tall, high-profile targets it may be a reference to the 76-story Columbia Center, the tallest building in Washington."
Now let's go through the list in Charge 7 and compare it to Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
1. Library Tower, California. (Also known as the U.S. Bank Tower)
2. Sears Tower, Chicago, (Sears Tower)
3. Plaza Bank, Washington state. (Could either be Columbia Center or "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza")
4. The Empire State Building, New York City. (Not listed in the article)
So we got 2 spot on charges with 1 confusing, and one that was not known. Even the 9/11 Commission didn't mention this. However they were accurate in stating that Al Qaeda does target high-rise skyscrapers. ViriiK 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of alias' Khalid has should be at least fifty instead of 27. The source comes from research done in Rohan Gunaratna's book INSIDE AL QAEDA J. Kubicki Jr. 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkubickijr (talk • contribs) I thought Wikipedia was only supposed to address factual things? The statement from the Pentagon says "Plaza Bank" - nothing more, nothing less. You are speculating - they clearly state "Plaza Bank".

I created an article on Plaza Bank (which was founded in 2006, he allegedly wanted to bomb it < 2003!!). That's the US administrations fault, not Wikipedias. This page had references to the Plaza Bank website and all. That page suddenly vanished, there isn't even a delete history. Nobody has even out of politeness sent me a message on my talk page so I don't know who deleted it or why.

I MUST SAY I AM DISGUSTED WITH WIKIPEDIA'S ACTIONS ON THIS.

I've edited this article to put the facts back in, and will think about remaking the Plaza Bank article tomorrow unless someone else wants to. HighTouch 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not create facts based on what you observe without citations. If you have a relevant article that addresses this issue. Bring it up. But I reverted your change because you have nothing to support your argument. You relying on your own opinion to prove facts. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh!? Have you not read the full transcript from the US administration where they say "Plaza Bank"? That is the only info about these charges, straight from the horses mouth, which the media have based ALL their reports on. Did you not see that Plaza Bank in Washington is: http://www.plazabankwa.com/ - founded in 2006? Is you duty on Wikipedia to cover-up US government screw-ups, or to write articles based on the available information? HighTouch 07:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. However you're still basing your opinion based on your observation that since the Plaza Bank may have been constructed in 2006 but you still have no citations to support this argument. I already brought to you KIRO News which stated that it's most likely in reference to the Columbia Center (Bank of America) or or "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza". Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza is adjacent to Columbia Center here [3]. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the official document says "Plaza Bank" then it is "Plaza Bank" unless the US authorities state they have made a mistake and correct it. Mainstream news channels and "most likely in reference to" don't wash with me. US govt said "Plaza Bank". Unless you have evidence otherwise (i.e. denial or confirmation of error from US govt) then you are IMHO vandalising or removing factual elements from this article. HighTouch 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a source to corroborate your argument. Not your opinion. ViriiK 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf - The only official document. Any media discussions are opinion. This document clearly states Plaza BANK. Please stop edit-waring and discuss here HighTouch 07:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown me the transcript which we all know about. But you're creating another issue about Charge 7c which you take issue with. Find me the New York Times, anything that takes issue with Charge 7c and I'll gladly support you. Until then, I'll be keeping it out until it's properly cited. ViriiK 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I've called into administrator intervention since you're making this a personal issue. ViriiK 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. My edit was before yours, I'm the new user so you're supposed to welcome me nicely. So why don't we try to be grown up and leave it at my edits until admin arrives?
Your edit fails the rules of wikipedia. We are not supposed to make facts on the spot. The reason why wikipedia is frowned upon in the eyes of the world is because people are able to insert their opinions, false information, and many more. That's why we have Wikipedia:Citing sources which you didn't follow whatsoever. ViriiK 07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not my opinion! It's from the guys own mouth! Whether he was tortured or not HE SAID IT. You're the one forming opinions saying it might be this or it might be that. HighTouch 07:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that takes issue with Charge 7c? Yes or no? You're the one attacking me on the basis I'm doing this because of supposed "patriotism" based on my biography. ViriiK 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about!? THere's only one source - that is the transcript as released here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf (we've already been through this). Does that document say "Plaza Bank, Washington". YES or NO?
I've already stated this. You as the sole person take issue with the charge. I have provided argument contrary to your opinion such as [4], 9/11 Commission, and even a 2004 Reuters news story. Where is yours? All I see are opinions. ViriiK 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lie. 201.231.185.144 created it. WLRoss edited it. They go to sleep, you remove their changes, I revert back. That's 2 additional people at least who might have issues with your changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighTouch (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, I would like to remind all parties to this dispute of the WP:3RR. Remember the fact that someone else has violated the 3RR doesn't allow you to violate is as well. Secondly, I have to agree with ViriiK on this one. The addition appears to be Wikipedia:Original Research to me. Unless some other Wikipedia:Reliable source has noted this, it is not up to us to make an issue out of it. Nil Einne 08:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean I can edit the September 11th article then, debunking all the official theories using my own research? Or does this only apply to removing things that make the US government look bad/silly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighTouch (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Um, I don't really know how to answer that since you seem to have completely misunderstood our policies. Wikipedia has a policy that disallows contributors from adding original research to wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Attribution is the correct policy to look at nowadays.). Everything needs a Wikipedia:Reliable source to back it up. If there were a reliable source mentioning the fact that the mention of plans to blow up Plaza Bank doesn't make sense since it didn't exist until 2006, then we could probably mention it in the article. However we cannot make this inference ourselves and put it on wikipedia. BTW, you might want to calm down a bit on the rheoteric. If you do some research on my contribs, even take a look at this page, you may realise I don't particularly like the US government nor do I trust them. However this doesn't mean I want to allow original research in the article either. Nil Einne 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US statement says "Plaza Bank, Washington", we are agreed on that now I believe. Plaza Bank (Washington) website - http://www.plazabankwa.com/about.asp states "Founded in early 2006, with a vision...."

Now please correct me if I'm wrong - but I was of the understanding that 2006 came after 2003. Was it not correct to state fact in the article? I didn't form my own opinions about why the mistake (or cover up) was there. I simply stated the 2 facts, and the date discrepancy. I can't see how these 3 things can be argued. HighTouch 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain this better. If you put together facts in such a way to lead a reader to come to some conclusion, then it may be original research. You don't have to explicitly link the facts. In this case, there are 20 or so targets mentioned in the report I believed. I'm pretty sure we don't mention all of them. This is not surprising since, amongst other things, the transcript is a primary source so we have to take care when using it (again check out Wikipedia:Attribution). Currently, we only mention the ones that have gained the attention of other reliable sources which is probably what we should be doing. The only reason why anyone is mentioning Plaza Bank, as opposed to the other targets or other details that are in the transcript is because it has come to the attention of people that the Plaza Bank which many assume he is referring to was not in fact completed until 2006. Were it not for this fact, it is unlikely we would mention it. For this reason, it is original research for us to mention Plaza Bank at all. If we already mentioned Plaza Bank for whatever reason then potentially (my gut instict, haven't thought about it in depth) it may be okay for us to mention that it wasn't completed until 2006 (this would depend on several factors like whether there was doubt about which Plaza Bank was be referred to). Nil Einne 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into this Plaza Bank thing a bit more and have now realised ViriiK has already pointed out a bigger hole in this issue. There appears to be great doubt about what was actually mention by Plaza Bank. Sources [5] appear to believe it may have been a reference to the Columbia centre or something else. Whatever the case, it is clearly OR for us to try and make any claim about whether or not the Plaza Bank existed, given that reliable sources don't agree with that the Plaza Bank referred to is the one your referring to. You might try and argue they're just letting their biases get in the way. Even if this is true, it is not up to us to try and come up with a novel intepretation. That is the very definition of OR. (I should add this whole thing seems a little silly to me. There are many, many problems with the whole KSM thing including the fact he was held in places unknown for 3 years and may have been tortured and the fact that there are very good reasons why he might want to lie or boast. Many sources have in fact questions the veracity of what it is claimed he has said. Most however aren't nitpicking over every single detail but looking at the bigger picture. Even if this whole thing is a hoax, it seems rather unlikely that anyone would make such a major error as to pretend he was trying to blow up something that didn't exist.) Nil Einne 09:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i can't get the http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf link to work, or even find the site. Is this a USA location access only site? Hypnosadist 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted paragraph was NPOV and while not appropriate for inclusion on it's own merits is appropriate because it is consistant with other false claims and exaggerations KSM made in his confession. Why do we need a reliable source for a known fact? KSM has admitted planning an attack on a building he didn't know existed. I wasn't happy with the original paragraph which is why I added Mohammeds actual words to confirm he did say that building.

There is this mention from a reliable source but whatever he may have meant it is not what he actually said and it is POV to explain his statement away by substituting other buildings until there is an official explanation of the error. The fact that answers so far have been "no comment" is worrying and another reason for inclusion until disproved.

'Plaza Bank' in Washington on al-Qaida list
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, March 15, 2007
SEATTLE -- A document released by the Pentagon says the "Plaza Bank" in Washington was on al-Qaida's list of targets.
Since al-Qaida targeted tall, high-profile targets it may be a reference to the 76-story Columbia Center, the tallest building in Washington.
The document is the censored transcript of the closed-door tribunal at Guantanamo Bay for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (HAH'-leed shayk moh-HAH'-med). It says he confessed to planning Nine Eleven and 30 other plots.
Another downtown Seattle bank is the "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza."
Seattle F-B-I agent Ray Lauer says he could not comment on what Mohammed might have meant or whether the F-B-I was previously warned to take any special precautions involving such a bank. Wayne 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"including six months of torture at Guantanamo Bay"

Where is the source for this? Is it me or does that scream POV? ViriiK 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is undeniable that torture as defined by the Geneva Convention is common in Gitmo as it was admitted in the Senate Armed Forces Committee report in 2005 but it is legal under current US law (if the torture leaves no permanent physical injuries) because Gitmo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Convention, (however there have been 3 confirmed fatalities due to legal "approved" torture). Source: ABC Nov 2005.
According to the CIA KSM was tortured from March 2003 to at least mid 2004 (multiple CIA sources including the CIA IG John Helgerwon.) Source: New York Times Nov 2005. However it was in a secret location in eastern Europe and there is no info on what was done after he arrived in Gitmo apart from HRW reports so any mention of there should include the word "alledged" to comply with NPOV. Wayne 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne, the article should not state, as a fact, that KSM was tortured — it is too prone to trigger revert wars, among other reasons. But, where, in heaven's name, did you get the idea that the Guantanamo captives are not covered by the Geneva Conventions? -- Geo Swan 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misread my post. I said the word "alledged" should be used when torture is mentioned (the last line).
As for your question. I provided the source for that paragraph (ABC Nov 2005). Here is another.
Quote from the Chicago Tribune July 14 2005:
"Despite the harshness of these tactics, it is not clear that they violated any law...the Bush administration has said the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to the Guantanamo detainees, saying they are suspected terrorists rather than prisoners of war."
The Geneva Convention in it's entirety did not apply at all from Jan 2002 to June 29 2006 when the Supreme Court (Hamden Vs Rumsfeld) ruled that denying the Convention to detainees was illegal. In August 2006 the US War Crimes Act draft amendment was released to permit "physical, mental, or sexual violence" (banned by the Geneva Convention) as long as the methods used do not cause permanent physical injury. The draft also exempted civilian interrogators from liability. I'm unsure if this has been ratified since then. Wayne 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that the Guantanamo captives are not covered by the Geneva Conventions simply because President Bush says they are not covered? Heck. I already knew Bush and his crowd said that his detainee policy is legal.
Surely you have a better argument that the USA complied with the Geneva Conventions than that President Bush assured you the USA was in compliance? He assured the world that Saddam possessed a vast arsenal of WMD that was ready for immediate use.
The Bush administration tried to skate over the clear meaning of article five of the third Geneva Conventions. They tried to claim the USA wasn't obliged to convene "competent tribunals" to consider whether the captives were civilian refugees, or lawful combatants entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because "they didn't have any doubt".
What Article five says is that captors are obliged to convene a competent tribunal "should doubt arise" over their proper status. That was what Rasul v. Bush was about. The assertion that they didn't need to convene competent tribunals, because they didn't have any doubts even the General who was hand-picked to have authority over the Guantanamo military commissions stated that it was his legal opinion that doubt existed over the status of any captive who claimed he wasn't a combatant, or claimed he qualified for POW status.
The Bush administration is flouting the Rasul v. Bush ruling. The SCOTUS ruled that the USA had to convene a venue where the captives could learn the allegations against them. The SCOTUS recommended that the DoD design a procedure modeled after the Tribunals described in AR-190-8. I went to AR-190-8, and read what it had to say about how Tribunals should be conducted, and the authority the officers who convened an AR-190-8 tribunal had.
The officers who convene an AR-190-8 Tribunal have the authority to:
  • determine that the captive actually is a lawful combatant, who is entitled to the protections of POW status.
  • determine that the captive is not any kind of combatant, after all, is a civilian refugee, who should be classified as a Geneva Convention "protected person", who should be freed immediately, or if that is not possible, because it is not safe, because that would put him or her in the middle of a battlefield, he or she should be sent to a humanely run refugee camp.
  • determine that the captive has done something that is a breach of article four of the third Geneva Convention, so they should be stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
You will hear a lot of BS from the Bush administration, and their apologists, that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals fulfilled the USA's obligations to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But this assertion is clearly demolished if one reads Moazzam Begg's Tribunal documents. The President of his Tribunal, and OARDEC's legal advisor, explicitly state that the Tribunals are not authorized to consider whether the captives qualify for POW status.
Article five says that, until a captive had had a "competent tribunal" — one like those described in AR-190-8 — not one like the CSRTs, which determines that the captive is not entitled to the protections of POW status, all captives must be accorded all the protections of POW status.
None of the captives have had a competent tribunal, one that satisfies the USA's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. So, all of the captives should have been accorded all the protections of POW status. That means no torture. It also means no humiliation. It means no sleep deprivation. It means no "dietary manipulation". It means that captives must not be compelled to answer any questions beyond, "name, rank and serial number".
As for the article four, for captives, who were combatants, to be considered lawful combatants, they have to:
  • carry arms openly.
  • wear a fixed, distinctive marking, visibile from a distance (generally paraphrased as they have to wear a uniform... but it doesn't actually say they have to wear a uniform...)
  • answer to officers, who are responsible for their actions, who answer up a chain of command.
  • finally, they can't violate the laws and customs of war — ie, no atrocities, no summary battlefield executions, no raping, looting, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
I read a transcript of a debate Alberto Gonzalez had on PBS with a senior law professor who was a habeas corpus lawyer for a Guantanamo captive.
  • Gonzales acknowledged that practically everyone in Afghanistan carries an AK-47, so he was willing to acknowledge that the "carrying arms openly" factor didn't apply.
  • However Gonzales argued that the other factors did apply.
    • Gonzales's argued that it was well-known that the Taliban were just a mob. I direct your attention to the second allegation that Khirullah Khairkhwa faced.
      • "Detainee was appointed the governor of Herat Providence in Afghanistan from 1999 to 2001. Detainee worked for Mullah Omar while serving as governor. The detainee had control over police and military functions in Herat to include administration of the Taliban’s two largest divisions. Detainee was required to route all decisions through Mullah Omar."
      • Hello! Gonzales claim that the Taliban was "a mob" is diametrically opposed to the interpretation of military intelligence analysts who drafted this allegation. Is there any question that what they described, fully complies with the obligation that lawful combatants answer to officers, who answer for them, up a chain of command? Now Khairkhwa says he was only responsible for the Police, that the military forces were a separate command, who answered to Mullah Omar. That doesn't matter. Whether they answered to Khairkhwa, who answered to Omar, or they answered to a General officer, who answered to Omar, they answered up a chain of command, to Omar.
    • Gonzales argues that the Taliban didn't wear a uniform. However some of the Guantanamo captives were detained, in part, because they had been issued with what the Guantanamo military analysts called a "Taliban uniform".
    • Gonzales argued that it was well known that the Taliban routinely committed atrocities. This is unjust. No one is suggesting that all American GIs are war criminals because Steve Green and his pals invaded that teenage girl's home, killed her family, then raped, and murdered her. No one is suggesting that all American GIs are war criminals because of the killings at Haditha. A lot of the captives association with the Taliban was completely involuntary. After decades of warfare Afghanistan has a terrible need for skilled people. Even being able to read and write could get you conscripted into their civil service. Their armed services were filled with conscripts recruited at gunpoint. To hold an involuntary conscript responsible for an atrocity committed by someone else, when they weren't even present, is extremely unjust. I strongly suspect that only captives who actually committed the atrocity, or the officers responsible for their behavior, can be stripped of lawful combatant status for that atrocity.
I think the Supreme Court clearly intended that the Tribunals the DoD come up with were in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, that they intended that the Tribunals were authorized to recognize which captives were actually civilians the USA was obliged to free immediately, and recognize which qualified for the protections of POW status. That is why the told the DoD to model their Tribunals after the AR-190-8 Tribunals. I suspect that the only reason they didn't tell the DoD they had to use AR-190-8 Tribunals was as a concession to the executive branch's claim that they needed a procedure that allowed them to preserve "national security" secrets.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rm unsupported speculation

An anonmymous ID [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed&diff=151296879&oldid=150516288 strongly implied that Ali Khan had been trained by al Qaeda to lie about his sons torture. This allegation is both speculative, and unsourced.

Various Bush administration and DoD spokesmen have defended the conduct of captives jailer and interrogators against accusations of abuse and torture by claiming that captives taken during the the war on terror have been training to lie about torture. Sometimes they cite a captured document called the Manchester Manual. Apologists for US personall accused of torture claim this manual instructs its readers to lie about torture, if captured.

My reading of the two relevant chapters of the manual are that the manual does not instruct its readers to lie about torture. The manual was written during the late 1990s. Its intended audience were fundamentalists whose likely captors were countries known to make routine use of torture. Rather than instruct its readers to lie about torture, it tries to prepare them for the inevitable torture they will experience, and to prepare them to make their reports of torture credible.

The manual counsels its readers, if captured, to do everything they possibly could, if captured, to get a full medical examination, prior to their interrogation. This medical examination would provide a baseline, so they could prove that the scars inflicted by torture were not due to a pre-existing condition. This is complely the opposite strategy for captives to take if they were going to lie about torture, because that early medical examination would undermine lies about torture.

The anonymous IP contributor didn't cite any references for the implication that Ali Khan was trained by al Qaeda. I am extremely skeptical that Ali Khan ever received any al Qaeda training. Ali Khan lives in the USA, but he is not a US citizen. He is a legal resident, with political refugee status. If any US security officials had any credible proof that Ali Khan had possessed a copy of the Machester Manual I strongly suspect he would be stripped of his right to reside in the USA.

The allegations against Majid Khan contained many allegations that his father and other relatives had denounced him as a terrorist. His father Ali Khan and his other relatives denies this allegation. Majid Khan wanted to call upon the testimony of his relatives, to dispute those allegations. His relatives were told that travel to Guantanamo would count as leaving the USA, and they were warned that if they did testify on Majid Khan's behalf, they could not count on being readmitted to the USA. If Ali Khan na the other relatives faced deportation for flying to Guantanamo to testify on Majid Khan's behalf then it is completely unreasonable to suggest that the USA would tolerate Ali Khan receiving al Qaeda training.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged terrorist activities" or just "Terrorist activities"

I think it's best to include the word "alleged" in the heading because:

  • The guy is still alive (as far as we know) so the special libel considerations are applicable.
  • The long list of possible activities is unrealistic - he could not possibly have been involved, let alone the driving force, behind all these attacks and attempted attacks.
  • Anyway, it makes no difference if it says "alleged" - readers understand that the word is necessary and make up their own mind.

--RenniePet (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Guantanamo: Lack of photographic evidence

No photo or video appears to have been released of Mohammed from his military trial, only artists' impressions. From a search of Google Images, the latest photos appear to be from his arrest in Pakistan in 2003.

I remember that in a video from Guantanamo a year or so ago, supposedly of Mohammed, a man was seen bowing and praying, but his face was not visible. ...

Frank Freeman (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and execution

  • I guess that the trial would take place in Guantanamo itself, but what about the execution and the execution technique. Would they use lethal injection ? Where would it take place ? Hektor (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First clause

Shouldn't the first clause read inter alias not inter alia? I thought the choice alia/alios/alias depended on the gender of the noun being referred to and name was f hence alias is alias for other (name) but its 25 years since I did Latin? Inter alia is among other things (alia is neuter) but not among other names? --BozMo talk 09:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many aliases?

Contradiction whithin the article; the opening paragraph claims that Khalid Mohammed has "more than fifty" aliases, while the infobox claims "as many as twenty-seven." Which is it? 216.235.8.118 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Children

The paragraph referencing source 46 says that fears for his children may well have played more of a role in his confession than his own torture. I read the article quoted, and to me it says almost the opposite; that it could have been a factor, but that he told far more than was needed to protect a family member. Anyone agree/disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verloren (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Information about his September 2008 trial should be added. Badagnani (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

The photos on the page appear to be of Saddam Hussein, not KSM. I don't have time to fix this now, as I'm working on a report for school, but the first one sure looks like Saddam to me, and the second one may be of him too.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mr Mohammed the world record holder?

183 water tortures seems like it might be the most officailly recognized.

he doesn't deserve to be on any world record, he's a freaking terrorist and deserves to be tortured and water-boarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning38 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interrogations yielded information to stop plots?

Karl Rove and a number of other Republican luminaries have stated on Fox News and elsewhere that waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation techniques" applied to KSM yielded information that helped prevent the attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and there are reports that the CIA has confirmed this: http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

However, George Bush stated that that attack was thwarted in 2002, while this article states that KSM wasn't arrested until March 1, 2003. Is the arrest date wrong, or are Karl Rove, the CIA, et. al. lying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.197.230 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a time machine, the time line just doesn't make sense. The argument being put forth is essentially that after the first plot was foiled, some AQ members still thought it was a good idea. One of the more prominent members of this group was later caught, which could have conceivably been because of the waterboarding of KSM, but
   “To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” 
    said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with
    departmental guidelines. http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/nation/na-terror
PantsB (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That George W. Bush, and his officials, claimed this or other plots were real, and were thwarted, is verifiable. Whether this plot, or other plots, were actually real, is not verifiable. Our coverage of the claims that torture saved lives has to be written from a neutral point of view. Which means we absolutely have call these unsubstantiated claims what they are -- claims. Geo Swan (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

Someone added acute accents to every instance of "Guantanamo".

I reverted it.

We had a long discussion, several years ago, as to when accents should be used. The consensus was that Spanish place names should have the accent, and English place names should not. So the article on the Cuban town has the accent, while the Naval Base does not.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jeremy

This guy looks just like Ron Jeremy Ron Jeremy. Or is it just me? Anyone else think so?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed&oldid=295697770"