Talk:Abdul Razakah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

removal of questionable information[edit]

The "Witness requests" section had this passage that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) The introduction of this passage (hidden in the template) does not make clear the real source for the text. 2) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 3) The introduction to this text presents the information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 4) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 5) The introduction to this text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this information in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1) If the introduction does not make something clear, fix it! :)
2) I'm unsure how the tribunal proceedings of the US military can be dubbed "questionable", we qualify all the statements explaining they're American allegations.
3) I re-loaded the 78-page document to which you are referring, the biography is absolutely present. Your failure to find it reminds of your failure last week to notice there were two pages to a cited document - and your subsequent attempt to remove sourced information from the article. Read things more closely before assuming sources are lying.
4) The text does not require multiple sources, it has a valid, reliable source which is reporting on itself. We are not using the military source to cite facts about the prisoner, we are using the military source to cite facts about the military's claims.
5) See #3. Your failure to read sources carefully is not cause to delete sourced information.
Reverted your removal of information, please do not do that in the future without consensus. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sherurcij you are edit warring! And you are acting against the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community!
You have re-inserted controversial negative material into this BLP of a living person.
You have done this against the fact that the editor who has removed it has stated his BLP concerns clearly in the edit history and talk page.
You have not waited until consensus would have been achieved for re-inclusion.
Your edit summary and the five points you list here as your response to my concerns are mostly wrong. The material is controversial and problematic and i am willing to discuss this in an orderly manner.
I have checked the article, sources and your comment again carefully. I still have strong concerns.
It is strong consensus on Wikipedia to remove and not to re-insert material that has been marked as possible problematic by other editors.
I ask you in a friendly way to end your edit war and to remove this controversial negative material from this BLP article now until things for re-inclusion and way of presentation has been discussed and solved. IQinn (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop spreading misleading information to talk pages. You are linking to a biased part of the discussion. You are free to link to the discussion but this link is misleading and your behavior is disruptive. Please stop this. IQinn (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • User Geo Swan just changed the destination of the link that he had posted - without edit summary and without leaving a note. That is the misleading link he used before. IQinn (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't leap to uncharitable conclusions. I was just about to note that I had changed the diff to your most recent comment, and provide a diff to this discussion, where I explained a similar update of the link. But when I saved this page I learned that I had new messages on my talk page -- from you. So I addressed those first. You might consider showing a bit more patience in future. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Conclusion? I did not draw any conclusion. I just left a note to prevent misunderstanding - not good to have it like that - not even for one hour. Please leave at least an edit summary in the future to prevent this from happen again. IQinn (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims of WP:NPOV[edit]

This edit, with the edit summary of "Undid revision 375513725 by Geo Swan (talk) revert POV edit" actually re-inserts passages that are not written from a neutral point of view.

I am not unsympathetic with those who want our articles to say captives were "wrongfully imprisoned". If Urbina's ruling used that term, we can use that term -- properly attributed. Urbina's ruling was appealed. So this should not be presented as an established fact.

The phrase " became clear early on that they were innocent..." is also not compliant with the neutral point of view. To whom did it become clear, early on? The phrase could be used, if (1) attributed; (2) cited to an WP:RS.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Note - both involved editors are flirting with 3RR right now. Hopefully this can be resolved without page protection. Taroaldo (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Uighur's in Guantanamo where all innocent and wrongly imprisoned. This is not a POV and not a violation of WP:NPOV this is a verified fact WP:V.
Some may not like that or some may want to cover this up. Some may want to use Wikipedia to spread their propaganda.
I repeat: This is a verified fact. There is no POV in innocent. You are innocent or you are not and all the Uighurs in Guantanamo were innocent a fact that is already known now for quite a while and verified WP:V, the habeas corpus does not matter much in case of the Uighurs that they are innocent is verified in tons of other sources. You might point me to the source for the appeal of the habeas corpus. Has the appeal been decided? As i know the government does not dispute the fact anymore that they where innocent. The question was just if they could be allowed into the US or to find countries willing to take them. Please point me to the information of the appeal. I would be eager to know.
You disagree they where innocent? You disagree they where wrongly imprisoned? There is hardly anybody now who doubt this fact. You may educate yourself on this. But our personal POV does not matter this is all verified WP:V in multiple secondary sources and that should be made very clear in the article that Abdul Razak was innocent and wrongly imprisoned we can no leave any doubt on that when writing the article as it would not only be a moral but also a violation of WP:BLP IQinn (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
WRT "innocent" -- this is not a "verified fact".
  1. Does the Chinese government agree they are "innocent"? No.
  2. The DoJ appealed Urbina's ruling on Razakah's habeas. Did they think he is "innocent"?
  3. Urbina wasn't ruling on Razakah's "innocence". None of the habeas rulings were on whether the captives were "innocent" of a crime. None of the Uyghurs were charged with a crime. All of the habeas rulings were on whether the "preponderance of the evidence" supported the Executive Branch claim that it was justified to hold them because the were enemies of the USA, or had supported al Qaeda.
The first Uyghur to get a ruling was Huzaifa Parhat. His 2008-06-20 ruling was in the only DTA appeal to run to conclusion. The Executive Branch considered appealing that ruling. The Executive Branch had a schedule of when it had to file factual returns in the Uyghurs' habeas cases. The Uyghur's factual returns were due in October. In those factual returns they would have been obliged to lay out valid evidence to justify the Uyghur's detention. It is important to quote our sources accurately. The DoJ did not acknowledge that the Uyghurs were "innocent". The DoJ did not acknowledge that the Uyghurs were not, after all, "enemy combatants". The DoJ simply said that they were changing their plans, and would not put forward arguments that the Uyghurs were "enemy combatants". Some commentators went on record as interpreting this change of plans not as an acknowledgment that the Uyghurs weren't enemies, but merely as a strategic decision that the value of establishing that the Uyghurs were enemy combatants was insufficient to justify making classified sources public.
Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's "innocence" has been an established fact.
  • As I have explained to you before, if you find Urbina's ruling, and he used that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article -- properly attributed to Urbina.
  • If an WP:RS, like a newspaper or legal magazine quotes Urbina's ruling, and he used that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article -- properly attributed to Urbina.
  • If an WP:RS, like a newspaper or legal magazine, in summarizing Urbina's ruling, uses that phrase, you can include the phrase in the article -- attributed to the WP:RS, not to Urbina.
  • If you find Urbina's ruling, and he used a different phrase, like, "...the USA has no legal justification to hold Razakah...", you are stuck using that phrase, even if other judges used the phrase "wrongfully imprisoned" in other habeas rulings.
WRT where to find the DoJ's appeal... A reference to the CCR's Guantanamo habeas scorecard was offered right in the paragraph where I added that the ruling in his habeas was appealed. The CCR's Guantanamo habeas scorecard has a column for whether a habeas ruling was appealed. That column in Razakah's entry says his ruling was appealed. I urge you to double check references more carefully before claiming assertions were unreferenced.
WRT his "innocence", you assert above: "There is hardly anybody now who doubt this..." -- this is an argument based on common knowledge. Further, your draft asserted that their innocence was established "early". We don't base our articles on common knowledge, or our personal opinions as to what is common knowledge, we base them on what we can verify from authoritative reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It is an verified fact that the Uyghurs are innocent. No doubt about that. The Chinese Goverment! :)) I think we can simply ignore the view of this criminal dictators with the longest list of human rights violations in the world WP:Undue. It is an verified fact that the Uyghur are innocent. Any crime they did? Anything else than fleeing an oppressing country in search for a better future?
You make me laugh. You mean you agree they were wrongfully imprisoned it is verified but you want to censor it because of what? Because you want to censor it? We should not rewrite history? Bullshit :)). You want to cut out verified facts and you want to cut out that they are innocent and wrongfully detained. That is the fact here.
I told you these are all verified facts and i told you the appeal concerns the release into the US. The government did not have sufficient evidence that would justify a detention of the innocent Uyghurs. The appeal deals with the question if they have the right to be release into the US. Shame on the US for not leaving them into their country. But as said in case of the Uighurs we have enough reliable sources that verify that they are innocent and that they have never posed any thread for the United States and that they where sold for a bounty when crossing into Pakistan.... Cutting out these verified facts is a WP:BLP violation and harms our reputation as an reliable encyclopedia and reduces us to a cheap propaganda tool. IQinn (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain the definition you are using for "verified fact"? Did Urbina use the term "wrongfully imprisoned" or "innocent"? Then the phrase should be attributed to Urbina. If you add references to the article that quote Urbina, then you get to use the phrases, attributed to Urbina. As has been pointed out to you before, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, yet many commentators argued his acquittal was a failure of the justice system. Was OJ Simpson's innocence a "verified fact", because he was acquitted? OJ's case was controversial, just like that of the Uyghurs. For both OJ and the Uyghurs it is best to attribute assertions of innocence to the WP:RS who made them. Sabin Willett, the co-author of the Boston Globe piece you cited, was the Uyghur's lawyer. It is not surprising he believes they are innocent.
I personally believe the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned, because I personally believe all the Guantanamo captives should have been held in a manner that complied with the USA's obligations as a signatory under the Geneva Conventions. But, as I have tried to explain to you many times in the past, my personal opinion, and your personal are simply irrelevant. Only positions in WP:RS count. Policy requires us to stick with what our WP:RS say, without regard to what we personally believe.
We can not simply ignore the position of the Chinese government, or other parties that disagree with us, whatever personal feelings we have about them.
You are conflating a determination that they are "innocent" with a Urbina's actual determination that Razakah was not an enemy. Consider Sadiq Ahmad Turkistani, the Uyghur who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. He openly acknowledged he travelled to Afghanistan to purchase drugs for resale in Saudi Arabia. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had a read through; it seems Urbina has ruled for him to be set free saying his detention was unlawful. It does not say he was innocent (or, rather, it does not explicitly say he was innocent). To call him innocent we need a critical source to say so (remember; verifiability not truth). Calling him wrongly imprisoned, again, needs specific sourcing; saying that based on Urbina's ruling is WP:OR. In short: to use the word innocent we need an explicit source that identifies him as innocent, to say he was wrongfully imprisoned we need a reliable source to say that. Otherwise it simply cannot be in --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I reverted to an earlier version which gives attribution and doesn't have WP:WTAs. I'm concerned though about the "charge = extrajudicial detention" versus "charge = No charge" part. I'll leave it to you guys to clean that up. I simply reverted for encyclopedic tone and attribution, as well as good English. BECritical__Talk 18:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- what specifically concerns you about 'extrajudicial detention' vs 'no charge'? Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, and don't know if they are the same. BECritical__Talk 20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking further, extrajudicial detention as defined here appears to imply that the subject will never be charged. It's difficult to see ahead to "never" without a crystal ball. Following that reasoning, it might be more appropriate to go with 'no charge'. This would acknowledge that there is the possibility that the individual may be charged at some point. Just some thoughts. Taroaldo (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Changed accordingly. BECritical__Talk 21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
With regard to your interpretation of the wikipedia article on extrajudicial detention, that whoever wrote it implied captives would never be charged. I can assure you that the wikipedia volunteer who wrote the passage "Extrajudicial detention is the holding of captives, by a state, without ever laying formal charges against them" is not a lawyer. I can assure you that the wikipedia volunteer who wrote that passage didn't mean to imply one needed a crystal ball to look ahead to know that they would never be charged. I can assure you of this, since I wrote that passage.
The police in countries that honor the rule of law can arrest individuals, and not lay charges upon them, immediately. In those old BBC shows "Prime Suspect" much of the plot would focus on the 72 hour time limit UK cops worked under. DCI Tennyson and her team were always rushing to assemble enough evidence to substantiate a charge, prior to that 72 hour time limit running out, when they would have to release their suspect, if no charge had been laid.
Different countries that honor the rule of law have different time limits. If I am not mistaken some countries have introduced new legislation to give longer time limits to the police when an individual they are holding in custody is suspected of a terrorism related offence. But countries that honor the rule of law continue to have time limits on how long an individuals can be held without being charged with a crime.
Prisoners of War are a special case. They can be held, for the duration of a conflict, without ever being charged with a crime, because the countries that are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, including the USA and Afghanistan, agreed that combatants can be held without charge.
It has been almost nine years, so I will remind everyone that in 2001 the George W. Bush administration announced that they would not consider any captives apprehended in Afghanistan to be Prisoners of War. It seems to me that this means that the USA doesn't get to claim the blanket exemption the Geneva Convention grants for holding Prisoners of War, without charge. In 2001 the US Congress passed the AUMF -- "authorization to use military force". President Bush claimed the AUMF granted him the authority to hold captives, without charge.
I have no problem with anyone rewriting the article on extrajudicial detention. (I see it was written before the introduction of <ref>{{cite}}</ref> markups, and should be rewritten for that alone.) I am concerned with how you are interpreting how it is currently written. What I meant by the passage you interpret as requiring a crystal ball does not require a crystal ball. If, in the UK of DCI Tennyson, the Metropolitan Police are required to assemble sufficient valid evidence to substantiate a crime, and then charge a suspect of that crime, within 72 hours of arresting them, then I think any suspect they held for 73 hours without charge could be described as being held in extrajudicial detention.
Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was critical of the Bush administration's use of Guantanamo as a legal black hole. President Barack Obama commissioned a task force to review the cases of the remaining 200+ captives in Guantanamo on 2009-01-22. After his task force reported to him he confirmed that the executive branch continued to plan to charge and try some dozens of captives. Another hundred or so would be released or repatriated. But, like George W. Bush, he said something like 50 captives would not be charged, and would not be released.
IANAL. But then I think you acknowledged you aren't either.
There are lots of good references that document Guantanamo captives detention being characterized as "extrajudcial detention" -- [1], [2], [3].
I don't know how familiar you are with the Citizendium, started by Larry Sanger, an original co-founder of the wikipedia. Its selection of articles is currently much smaller than the wikipedia's. But, it turns out, it has three detailed articles, I plan to read today: extrajudicial detention, Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration and Extrajudicial detention, U.S., Barack Obama Administration. If you remain interested I would be interested in your opinions. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)