Talk:No-Hearing Hearings

This article was nominated for deletion on May 29, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

change references: reference-names

IMO, it is preferable for the reference-names we use with references to encode the date with the name. Doing so allows us to more easily re-use references if we realize that the info the reference substantiates belongs in another article, or the reference can substantiate an unreferenced assertion in another article. Adding the date makes it much less likely that there will be a name collision if and when the reference is cut and paste into a different article, or even if someone adds additional references from the same publication. -- Geo Swan 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone delinked the names of the other authors of the study

Someone delinked the names of the other authors of the study. I'd like to ask — why?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article should say that the Denbeaux represent two captives

I think we need to work a bit on the wording however. From my reading I would say that Randy is absolutely correct, The study doesn't state how many captives were sold for a bounty.

At least several dozen captives testified that they were sold. I'll supply the details later today.

I believe $5000 was the minimum price, not the maximum.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get the number. It's interesting that the Denbeauxs' students didn't tally this information when they were willing to make a big deal out of bounties in the summary. I think it's likely that they do have the number internally but preferred that everyone run with the 86%. Whatever it is, I think the fact that the study didn't reveal the number should continue to be addressed in the article.

I wouldn't be too sure about $5,000 being the minimum. Hamdan was a valuable captive when they got him. Just imagine if Hitler's driver had been captured during WWII.

In any case, I'm guessing that $5,000 is probably really the same $4,285 mentioned in the study. The NY Times reporter[1] may have rounded it up in when he wrote about it.

BTW: According to the article on the Afghan afghani (currency):

In April, 2000, the afghani traded at 6,400 AFA per USD. By 2002, the afghani was valued at 43,000 AFA per USD.

That ought to explain why they have the number $4,285.

-- Randy2063 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I am sure the bounty hunters were always paid in American money.

One of the illiterated monoglot Afghans said he was bought for "five dollars". He could recognize American money. He saw his captors get handed five bills of American money, and seems to have assumed they were $1 bills. More likely the pay-master had a stack of $1K, and paid the captors in $1K bills.

I'll start that list tonight.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geo, I have a feeling that I've read about the use of U.S. dollars too, but the number "43" is too much of a coincidence.

Technically, they haven't made anything like $1K bills in decades. I suppose you mean stacks of $100s.

-- Randy2063 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio,

I disagree with most of the changes you've made. I don't see how it's "more accurate" to leave out the difference between the Denbeauxs' spin and the facts. I'll let it sit for the moment, in the hope that Geo's analysis on bounty hunters may work better anyway.

It is highly POV to say that these lawyers are interested in human rights. The group they're linked to in the source (Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities) are not claiming that as their agenda. It's a redistributionist organization that wants to shift a portion of the defense budget to social programs. Even giving them every benefit of the doubt, that's still "left-wing" on its face. You might legitimately want to call it something softer, but it's not human rights. As a compromise, I've changed it to liberal(ism).

-- Randy2063 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List, so far

Here is a list of those captives who explicitly claimed they were "sold". I know it is not complete, because there are other captives I know of, who claimed they were captured by bounty hunters who didn't make this "sold" list.

FWIW, there are a whole bunch of captives who report friendly Pakistani villagers welcoming them, and holding a celebratory feast, only to turn them over to the authorities the next morning, that make me think thye were sold for a bounty, even if they don't know they were sold for a bounty.

And who knows how many Recorders did not feel these claims were worth recording in the summarized transcripts?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ....[reply]

The list of captives whose transcripts explicitly repeated the word "sold" is complete. Abdullah Khan, and Nasrullah (Guantanamo detainee 951) I added because they were captured together with Shahzada (Guantanamo detainee 952) — a slight stretch.

Were the Uyghurs all sold for a bounty?

Abu Bakr Qassim, the Uyghur, was one of the 38 captives whose denials were credible enough they were classified as NLEC. Eighteen of the Uyghurs fled the bombing campaign together. Five of them were credible enough they were classified as NLEC. But they were all captured at the same time. So if Qassim's account of the capture is credible, all 18 were sold for a bounty. Geo Swan 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was everyone held at Mazari Sharif sold for a bounty?

Was everyone held at Mazari Sharif was sold for a bounty? I think they were. If the accounts of the captives who survived the riot are to be believed, then the bounties were paid on entry.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewording?

Intro paragraph(s)

I think it is perfectly valid to say that Mark and Joshua Denbeaux represent two Guantanamo captives. I don't have a problem with the article stating this in the lead paragraphs. Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phrases that can only be used, if qualified, cited, quoted, paraphrased?

Even if it seems obvious though, does it comply with NPOV to call them "left-wing", or "liberal"? Or are these words and phrases, that are based on the writer making an interpretation, a judgement, reaching a conclusion? If they are, then I think we can say something like:

"Mark and Joshua Denbeaux have played central roles in the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) efforts to connect Guantanamo captives to pro bono lawyers." Some critics have criticized the CCR for these efforts, labeling them a "left-wing group".<ref>A ref</ref> According to What's his name, the phrase "habeas lawyer" is a term of derision in Guantanamo. (I wish I had made a note of that reference. This is real. Sadly, "habeas lawyer", or "habeas attorney" really is a term of derision down at Guantanamo, not just in Cully Stimson's office.)

But, if it can't be made in an unqualified manner, maybe it doesn't belong in the lead? Maybe it belongs in the body of the article? Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCR's leanings are pretty clear. The CCR website describes themselves as on the left when they say, "CCR has served as an incubator for progressive lawyering..."

That is unfair in a way. William Kunstler was one of its founders. He was so extreme that calling him progressive would offend some progressives.

-- Randy2063 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, you have raised some very valid concerns about some weaknesses of the Denbeaux's studies. I congratulate you on them. And you feel free ot remind me, on my talk page, if I ever seem to have forgotten one of them.

The Bush administration, or the DoD, hasn't come up with any comparable attempts to catalog or collate the public information about the captives. Neither have any former Bush administration types, like John Yoo. If Yoo ever leads a team of law students, who conduct a study that suggests different conclusions, I think we should make the same effort to cover it and its conclusions, in a manner that complies with NPOV as we make to cover the Denbeaux studies. If we find authoritative, verifiable critics, we can cite them, etc, so long as we don't give them undue coverage.

It shouldn't matter whether the conclusions of the Denbeaux studies cast doubt on the assertions of the Bush administration, or, the conclusions of a theoretical John Yoo study supported the assertions of the Bush administration. Both studies should get fair criticism.

Would we describe John Yoo as right-wing? Or would we quote critics who described him as right-wing? I think the latter is okay.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush administration has surely done a lousy job of public relations, but PR would really be the only purpose for them to provide this kind of analysis. As a matter of law, the detainees aren't being held or punished collectively. Each case has to stand on its own.

Although either way is probably fine, my preference is that we call someone what they are, rather than saying so-and-so calls them that. But I understand it's not always so easy to find a reference. I don't know that "right-wing" is the best description for John Yoo. My reluctance is that the right has extremes (and the near-extremes like the paleocons) that wouldn't fit in his camp. He is a conservative. His memberships in both the Federalist Society and the American Enterprise Institute are pretty good indicators.

-- Randy2063 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"established" versus "claimed"

I agree that a previous wording was not as accurate as desireable. The article used to say:

"A previous study, the Denbeaux study, had already established that 92% of captives there were not al-Qaeda fighters and appeared to have been captured by bounty hunters, in return for a $5,000 reward."

This was replaced with:

"A previous study, the Denbeaux study, had already claimed that 92% of captives there were not al-Qaeda fighters and appeared to have been captured by bounty hunters, in return for a $5,000 reward.

The way I see it there are two separate assertions attributed to the Denbeaux study here:

What the study said about the captives who were, or weren't, "al Qaeda fighters".
What the study said about the captives who were, or weren't turned over to US custody for a bounty. -- Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Denbeaux study didn't really "establish" how many were fighters. It was the CSRTs that did that. The Denbeauxs merely collated and compiled them all, and released most of the statistics arranged in a provocative manner. They left out the actual data on bounty hunters but strongly implied it was part of their case.

I think one big problem here is that you're trying to build upon the data from the Denbeaux study for a non-biased article about detainees. That can't get very far without running into conflicts between statistical facts and the Denbeauxs' lawyerly spin.

Here's a line from the first Denbeaux study's intro:

"2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

That's not as clear-cut as it sounds. (Note the word "definitive.") The report shows how that that "40%" also includes those the government believes to be either al Qaeda or Taliban. Here's what it says on page 8:

"If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither. Under this assumption, the data reveals that 40% of the detainees are not affiliated with al Qaeda and 18% percent of the detainees are not affiliated with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Such an assumption may work in criminal court where one must be convicted of a specific crime, and merely being at the scene with a gun in your hand isn't always enough to convict, but it's not the rule here.

We shouldn't forget that the Denbeauxs' two clients are not Al Qaeda nor Taliban. (That's just from a cursory reading of those articles; I still have to look again at their CSRTs.) I'm guessing that the Denbeaux study was intended to create pressure for releasing anyone who isn't a card-carrying member of al Qaeda or the Taliban -- and especially their two clients.

-- Randy2063 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did the study -establish- about al Qaeda fighters?

I think the original wording exaggerated what the study asserted.

I don't think the study tried to establish what percentage of the captives were al Qaeda fighters.
I don't think it is possible for outside observers to establish what percentage of the captives were al Qaeda fighters, based on the transcripts of the captives Tribunals - or from the entire unclassified dossiers.
I don't think it was theoretically possible for the Combatant Status Review Tribunals to establish what percentage of the captives were al Qaeda fighters. I think structural problems barred them from establishing anything of the sort.

What the Denbeaux study established about the captives was that only 8% of the captives faced the allegation that they were al Qaeda fighters.

It seems to me that the first Denbeaux study chose to assume, at least for the purpose of the study, that if Guantanamo intelligence analysts had concluded, or strongly suspected a captive was an al Qaeda fighter, they would make sure the allegations against him stated he was an al Qaeda fighter, and that any captive whose allegations didn't assert he was an al Qaeda fighter did not face a serious suspicion of being an al Qaeda fighter.

I think this should be reworded to something like:

"A previous study, the Report on Guantanamo detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees, had already established that the DoD allegations against only 8 % of the captives asserted that they were al-Qaeda fighters.

The DoD may have beleived that more than 8% of the captives were al Qaeda fighters, but those assigned the task of compiling the allegations were too rushed, or incompetent, to include those suspicions.

On the other hand, the allegations against some of that 8% were, well flimsy. So saying the study established that they were al Qaeda fighters, at second hand, is just plain wrong, and probably wasn't meant the way it reads. Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from what I said above about the word "established," I think we need to figure out what the importance is of separating "fighters" from the rest of the enemy combatants. It seems to me like a way for the Denbeauxs to exaggerate the importance of their data.

We can probably find some pretty important detainees who aren't "fighters" and some who are now free that are.

The allegations may or not be flimsy. I'd guess that some of them are backed up by al Qaeda's documents and hard drives recovered from training camps and safe houses.

-- Randy2063 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did the study -establish- about bounties and bounty hunters?

My reading is that the study didn't establish, or attempt to establish, how many captives were turned over in return for a bounty. Which is, I think, a different question from how many captives were turned over by bounty hunters.

If Dostum was paid millions for turning over alleged al Qaeda fighters, does that make him a "bounty hunter"?

Are Pakistani police officers, or border guards, who turn over an Arab refugee who slipped over the border, or an Arab student living in the foreign students' dormitory at Salafi University a "bounty hunter"?

I don't think either should be called bounty hunters. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the local officials in Yugoslavia who collaborated in holding Khalid el-Masri in extrajudicial detention for a few weeks, prior to shipping him to the salt pit were paid a bounty for their eagle-eye and their cooperation in breaking the human right s laws of their countires were paid a bounty. Similarly, the local officials who collaborated in the extrajudicial detention of Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil al-Banna, and Martin Mubanga, received a bounty in return for their collaboration. Ditto for those who collaborated in spiriting away the "Algerian Six" from the steps of the Bosnian Supreme Court, when they were cleared of all charges of conspiring to attack the US embassy in Sarajevo.

But reasonable assumptions can't go into wikipedia articles, unless we can attribute them. And, I think the authors of "Report on Guantanamo detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees" chose not to put an unproveable, potentially controversial assumption into their article.

Were bounties paid when Americans were the captors? Captives who were catpured by Americans, who believed there were captured based on dennunciation full of false allegations thought so. Personally I think so too. Of course that is insufficient for inclusion in the wikipedia.

I think I have to re-read that portion of the article.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't share all those assumptions as being reasonable. Local and regional officials had good reasons for collaborating with the U.S. -- especially in the months after 9/11. I'm sure you've heard that Musharraf had recently said he was threatened with the use of force if Pakistan didn't cooperate. The popular will in the U.S. would have accepted attacking anyone. Even Iran recognized that, and became more cooperative for a while.

There were plenty of stories of Afghans being happy on 9/11 because they knew the U.S. would finally come to fight the Taliban. Those people had been living in Hell for years, and many would have gladly cooperated without a bounty.

I do agree it's reasonable to think there were more for whom a bounty was received than were listed in the CSRTs. It could even be a lot more, but I doubt it's anywhere near the number that the Denbeauxs would like people to believe. This is another reason why I think we should be careful about mixing Denbeauxs' claims with things we mine from the CSRTs.

-- Randy2063 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be another fly in your soup:

Ambassador Nancy Powell, America's representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America's $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material - printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages - remained "impounded" on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois.[2]

The Denbeauxs' appendix only shows the leaflets distributed in Afghanistan, although they do say Pakistan was included in the rewards program. Their example of Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan.

-- Randy2063 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That is important. I am sure glad you drew this to my attention before I did any work on a Taliban bounty article. And I will be sure to take it into account.

Thanks! -- Geo Swan 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally be so bold -- see talk

I wouldn't normally be as bold as I was in this edit, but the article is currently in {{afd}}. It may be deleted, so I am going to be bolder than usual, and make the excisions I discussed earlier.

These first two paragraphs belong on the wikipedia. They may belong somewhere in this article. Arguably, they should only be in the article about the earlier study. I am certian they don't belong in the intro paragraph.

Randy, let me acknowledge you have made some very valid points about the Denbeaux. I value your opinion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV -- see talk

I've started about 600 articles. About 5% have been nominated for deletion. This is only the second time I can remember the wikipedian who nominated an article for deletion subsequently making an edit to that article. TO the best of my recollection, even my most malicious wikistalker didn't do that when he nominated articles for deletion.

TDC, YMMV, but I think your best friend would warn you that an edit of this kind puts an avoidable strain on your correspondents.

No, I am not accusing you of bad faith. But I think you have been careless, and acted in a way that gives an avoidable appearance of bad faith.

Yes, you and I are both supposed to be doing our best to assume good will. But that means we should be trying to show our good will. And one way we can do this is by avoiding edits that look suspicious and place a burden on our correspondents where their common sense is at war with WP:AGF.

I think your best friend would suggest greater caution — if you ever nominate another article for deletion.

IMO, in general, an edit like this should be discussed on the talk page. Remember WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battlefield.

I added that text back in.

Yours for cooperation Geo Swan 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{afd}} closed

This article was proposed for deletion on 20:24, 29 May 2007 by Torturous Devastating Cudgel The discussion can be found here. The closing admin User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me concluded keep on 02:01, 5 June 2007.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trim

I undid these revisions because there seems to be a temporary glitch in one of the sites I used. Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of study

This is the title of a book-length study published in 2006, and should have been capitalized as the study was. This use of lower case is artificial and a distortion of the title. It really should be moved to the appropriately capitalized titleParkwells (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]