Talk:Khalid Saad Mohammed

Reliable Source?

I have had an opportunity to review the materials used in support of this article, which is commonly used to support all articles on detainees held at GTMO. The materials used as a "source" are "primary sources", meaning memos and other legal documents, and the documents are used as a source for claims regarding the status of each individual detainee. I have a serious problem with this approach, namely that the use of primary sources in this case violates wp:rs which states explicitly "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." The policy clearly favors use of secondary sources that have been vetted. As it stands, I believe the article in question's sources fail the test for a reliable source as stated by Wikipedia, and that these articles as a group are the product of original research. I would appreciate an explanation as to why these sources should remain in these articles in light of the fact that they appear to violate Wikipedia policy as primary sources. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say primary sources are forbidden, only that they "be used with caution."

I do understand what you're saying but I think they're important here. Even if it was forbidden, I'd move that we keep them. A lot of the secondary sources on GTMO (probably most of them) are biased. In many cases the CSRT and ARB excerpts (which I assume is what you're referring to) are the only hint the reader may have that these detainees were being held for important reasons. The U.S. government is almost silent about individual cases. Much of the news coverage comes from the detainees' lawyers. They'd all look like choir boys if not for the CSRTs and ARBs.

In fact, the Tipton Three were released before the CSRTs were started. We only got their side of the story, which probably only encouraged someone to make a propaganda movie about them.

If you look back at the article on Moazzam Begg, it used to be almost 100% favorable to Begg. I found more, and it has been improved a lot since then, but it was the CSRT that inspired me to look around.

Besides that, these articles have become important resources by keeping this data in an organized fashion. The media hasn't done a good job keeping track of this stuff. The U.S. government put it out in unsearchable PDF form. For a long time, it was organized only by the detainees' lawyers. That allowed them to spin it in their favor.

One big problem I see is that it's not clear enough that these are excerpts from the documents. It's implied by the occasional "[sic]" but there is nothing else saying they're excerpts.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Randy, the ARB/CSRT and other "Primary" material is often the most "important" backbone of the notability of these people. It may not be true that "He fought in Tora Bora and helped UBL escape", but that fact is what makes the article notable - the fact his lawyer says he has a wife and two children back home in the NYT one day...doesn't explain why we care about him. Both primary and secondary sources are necessary in these cases. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Sherurcij. Using primary sources is a direct violation of wp:rs. Whether they are required or not to provide this particular detainee and other similarly situated notability, they violate core policy in this area, and fail as sources. I can accept Randy's rationale that they are the lesser of two evils, and that their attorneys are hardly non-biased observeres in all of this with an obligation tp paint their clients as innocent victims of happenstance (so sorry about the AK 47 he was carrying), but yours is hardly persuasive. One does not violate core policy to provide a tool for notability. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, I think your comment contains two very serious misconceptions.

1. Transcripts from the OARDEC administrative procedures, just like transcripts from board meetings or legal trials, are primary sources. But the Summary of Evidence memos are secondary sources by any reasonable definition. Us wikipedia contributors aren't allowed to insert our own personal conclusions into article space. But we should be referencing the conclusions we find in reliable sources. The Summary of Evidence memos were written by OARDEC authors who worked for a whole different agency than those doing the front line analysis. The OARDEC authors sifted through, compiled, synthesized reports from half a dozen or more different agencies when drafting their summary memos. I maintain they are unambiguous instances of secondary sources.
2. You assert here that the article cites: "memos and other legal documents". You have called the memos legal documents in the past, and called the CSR Tribunals and annual administrative reviews "legal procedures". I am surprised you would make this mistake, because, as you have reminded us, you are a lawyer in real life. Over and over again the officers presiding over these administrative procedures told the captives the reason they were not being allowed legal assistance at their tribunals and hearings was that they were NOT legal procedures at all. I am sure I have pointed this out to you before.

The United States government has many agencies, other than the DoD and the DoJ. If the Department of Energy contracted with a researcher to do a study on Caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, carbon sequestration, or subatomic particles, the report the researcher wrote would be a primary source. If a worker from the Department of Energy were authorized to write a summary memo on what primary sources said about wildlife in ANWR that would be a secondary document. We would have no problem regarding the summary written by the Department of Energy worker as a reliable source. The OARDEC memos are exactly the same position. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we would have quite a problem. The Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants is a quasi-judicial body that applies administrative process. Its findings, its memos, all of these are primary sources. They are part and parcel to the event, they are a product of the proceedings. A "secondary source" would be one step removed from the event. A reporting agency that would go through a vetting process is an example of a secondary source. Your explanation that these reports are compilations of evidence and should be looked at as secondary sources fails to appreciate the fact that they are part of the proceedings. In other words - They are legal opinions based on the unique standard of evidence utilized in these proceedings. I also note that you have a problem with the term "legal". Let me share something with you - These are "legal" documents, whether they are the products of an administrative process or not. The United States did away with the differentation between the courts of law and equity long ago, and your statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the American judicial system, most likely because the Canadian and British systems retain the separation of equity and law, which is largely non-existant in the United States outside of the state courts of Rhode Island and Delaware, and certainly not in the federal system at either the District Court or administrative levels. I am surprised that you do not know this fact. Please learn it now to avoid making a similar mistake in the future. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where primary source ends and secondary source begins, but the rules don't say primary sources are absolutely forbidden.

I think it qualifies as "used with caution" if it remains clear to the reader that these are excerpts.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)