User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Correspondence/Metropolitan90 June 2008

Previous discussion from here and here

reasoned discussion I thanked you a few months ago for being willing to engage in meaningful discussion. I really appreciate it, as I have been profoundly frustrated by the unwillingness of some of the other participants in these discussions, to be respectful. Some have made unprovoked breaches of WP:NPA, rather than respond to my civil counter-arguments, which I find very disturbing. And I am afraid I found many participants have stated views that misquoted the wikipedia's policies. In our discussion a few months ago, you said that the articles on the Guantanamo captives should be judged on a case by case basis. And in this most recent discussion you cited the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. I regard our disagreement over Ajam as an honest disagreement between two individuals willing to consider the other person's counter-arguments. Ajam was a captive who faced what I regarded as very serious allegations, but he didn't attend or testify at any of the administrative procedures in 2004, 2005 or 2006. No books or newspaper articles covered him. Abdul Salaam, on the other hand, had an article written about his CSR Tribunal, back on January 22, 2005. And he had his case described in Andy Worthington's book. Further he testified on his own behalf, in 2004 and 2005. I think Abdul Salaam's case is remarkable because his is one of very few cases where the OARDEC personnel who drafted the Summary of Evidence memos leveled fewer allegations against him in 2005 then they did in 2004. Most captives faced twice or more as many allegations during their 2005 review than they did in their 2004 CSR Tribunal. I've worked very hard to make sure I didn't insert my personal POV into these articles. I've worked hard to make sure I didn't insert original research into these articles. I've worked hard to make sure everything I wrote was documented through authoritative, reliable, verifiable references. I think I managed to do a good job at this, because the material I have contributed has only rarely been challenged over these concerns. Some of those challengers didn't turn out to be serious enough to try to be specific about what concerned them. Granted some of them had found a limited number of lapses on my part. I am only human. I am grateful to them. And I fixed those lapses. But most people who could be serious and specific about their concerns turned out to have concerns based on misconceptions, or misinformation. Granted, the conclusions I drew about how remarkable it was for the second memo to drop two thirds of the allegations used to justifiy his detention doesn't belong in article space. But, it seems to me exactly the same kind of judgment call that lead to my regarding his case as remarkable is being made by those who want to erase all coverage of the captives. Here is the paragraph Andy Worthington devoted to Abdul Salaam: "Also captured at this time (and subsequently released) was a family of businessmen from Birmel, in Paktika Province, who were caught up on what the Americans described as 'a sweep of the Birmel town bazaar,' which was as random as it sounds. Twenty-seven-year-old Abdul Salaam, his 50-year-old brother Haji Osman Khan and his 19-year-old cousin Noor Aslam ran a hawalla (a money exchange forwarding business) with branches in the Pakistan and the UAE. Salaam was arrested at his shop by US and Afghan soldiers, but he insisted he was an honest businessman and had never received money on behalf of the Taliban or al-Qaeda; he explained that the money they received was from families outside the country who were supporting their families in Afghanistan." The second and third sentences of WP:BIO state: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1]. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary. I think where the guidline says "famous or popular" we could put "notorious". Abdul Salaam is not individually notorious. But is he "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention"? I feel sure that if we had only the sources we currently have about Abdul Salaam, but he was an American citizen, that no would even think of questioning whether he merited coverage on the wikipedia. Okay, thanks for reading to this point. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC) First of all, let me indicate that you have obviously paid a lot more attention to what is going on at Guantanamo than I have, so there may be errors in my comments below. If so, please let me know so I can correct them for future discussions. Also, some of my comments may seem to be somewhat scattershot, but I have a variety of ideas to get out with regard to Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826) and articles like that. Geo, it is my understanding that you believe that every Guantanamo detainee who has been the subject of an OARDEC review should be considered notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article (because the OARDEC review constitutes a secondary source which establishes notability per WP:BIO). Furthermore, if I understand OARDEC and Combatant Status Review Tribunal, every detainee who has been held at Guantanamo since June 2004 is supposed to have his status reviewed. Thus, every detainee held at Guantanamo for the last four years would be notable in your opinion. Am I accurately describing your opinion? I do not believe that the OARDEC review constitutes a secondary source, however, because it is a record of an administrative proceeding in which the subject was involved. As to publications which clearly are secondary sources, you mention that Abdul Salaam is discussed in the book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison. According to the book's web site, it purports to "tell the story of every man trapped in Guantánamo". Thus, his appearance in the book was not the result of his activities or experience or life being particularly distinctive, but just because he was one of the Guantanamo detainees. Furthermore, a 352-page book (per the website), which covers 774 detainees, would only be able to devote an average of less than half a page to each detainee. If the paragraph above is all that Worthington wrote about Salaam, it would seem that Salaam received only three sentences' worth of coverage in the book, which was shared with two of his relatives. I can't find the Associated Press article which you recently cited (Alexandra Olson (January 22, 2005). "Detainee Has Last Guantanamo Panel Review". Associated Press.). If it's offline only, it ought to be cited to a particular newspaper. But the citation is a minor point; mostly I want to know what it said. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826), you indicate that the detainees have been called "the worst of the worst". But that description is supposed to apply to the detainees collectively. Assuming that whoever called the detainees "the worst of the worst" also meant that Abdul Salaam himself was "the worst of the worst" would be an example of the Fallacy of division. I don't know of any example of Salaam personally being identified as "the worst of the worst". In the same discussion, you write: I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here. Certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself merits coverage in Wikipedia; it's still easy to find international press coverage of his capture in 2003, and that's not even getting into the coverage one will be able to find in today's newspapers (June 6). But I don't see how Salaam is comparable to KSM, either in terms of how serious the accusations against them are, or how much attention they have received. You also write: The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. Well, that's the problem with Abdul Salaam -- he doesn't stand out even compared to the other detainees at Guantanamo, at least not in my opinion. He certainly hasn't been the subject of a major political commercial and become a frequent topic of discussion in a presidential campaign. There hasn't been a hit song about him nor has he been the main character in a major motion picture (nor was he a top-ranked athlete before being sent to Guantanamo). The most distinctive things you have brought up about Salaam are (1) that he testified on his own behalf and (2) that upon review, the number of allegations against him were fewer than before. Neither strikes me as even being an interesting fact about him, much less a claim to notability. Salaam seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum of notability compared to Horton and Carter. This next point does not relate to Salaam, but I believe you have in the past asserted that there was a problem in that some of the detainees have had their names spelled inconsistently. I can't find where that is clearly stated, so I can't be 100% sure. But if that is an issue, I think it could most likely be explained by the fact that many of these detainees' legal names are spelled using a non-Roman alphabet and there are various ways to transliterate those names from Arabic (or other languages) to English. And finally, the lead of Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826) implies that Salaam is still being held at Guantanamo, but the infobox says he was "cleared for release" in 2005, and the quote from Worthington says he was subsequently released. If Salaam is no longer at Guantanamo and is now free in the outside world, that needs to be made much clearer in the article about him. By the way, if you would prefer to continue this discussion on your user talk page or elsewhere in your userspace, just let me know and I will follow up there if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your very detailed reply. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do I plan to lobby for?

With regard to your question as to whether I plan to continue to lobby for keeping an article on every captive who had a CSR Tribunal convened. No, I have decided that I will not argue for keeping articles on the captives who are known only through the allegation memos, who did not testify on their own behalf, and haven't had additional press coverage. I started moving the allegations themselves to wikisource. It is going slowly however, because it erodes the time I have to incorporate recent developments, like Morris Davis's testimony, or the new documents that are at odds with the earlier claims against Omar Khadr.

Just to clarify your comment:

...I do not believe that the OARDEC review constitutes a secondary source, however, because it is a record of an administrative proceeding in which the subject was involved.

If you were referring to the transcripts from Abdul Salaam's CSR Tribunal and Review Board hearing I absolutely agree, those are primary sources -- because they are raw and uninterpreted -- like a list of temperatures at a weather station.

But captives were not invited to have any involvement in drafting the memos. The authors of those memos compiled those memos after sifting through intelligence reports from multiple agencies. I believe the record proves how independent the process of drafting the memos was. Because the record shows that the authors of the OARDEC memos frequently drew different conclusions about the captives than those drawn by their interrogators. The Algerian Six, for instance, were first arrested by the Bosnians in October 2001 -- after local officials at the US embassy in Sarajevo paniced. For some reason they were convinced that these six men had been plotting to bomb the embassy. The Bosnians kept the men in jail for three months, while they investigated, and found there was no evidence of a bomb plot. The Bosnian Supreme Court officially cleared the men of suspicion, and ordered their release. And, as the men emerged from the Bosnian jail they were seized by US forces -- kidnapped really, and shipped to Guantanamo. The men faced allegations of this bomb plot during their Tribunals. And they told their Tribunal officers that their interrogators had literally never asked them about the alleged bomb plot.

Their experience -- facing allegations on the memo OARDEC authors prepared for their Tribunal, that their interrogators had never asked them about -- was not an isolated experience. Many captives told their Tribunals that the allegations on the memos were new to them. Some captives were concerned that the allegation memos they faced had been prepared for some other captive, because every single allegation was unfamiliar to them, not something they had ever been interrogated about.

The preparation of the memos was nominally, on paper, totally independent. And I firmly believe the record, in fact, supports the Bush Presidency claim that the memos preparation was in fact independent. If the memos had been prepared in collaboration with the analysts at Joint Task Force Guantanamo the surprising anomalies like the discrepancy between the questions interrogators asked the Bosnians and the allegations they faced during their Tribunals, would not have happened. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does KSM merit coverage here?

We are agreed that KSM merits coverage here. But we disagree on why he merits coverage here. You wrote:

Certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself merits coverage in Wikipedia; it's still easy to find international press coverage of his capture in 2003.

In other words, if you will allow me to paraphrase you, you agree that KSM merits coverage because he is popular/notorious (notorious being to polar opposite of popular...)

But that is not what WP:BIO requires. The second and third sentences of WP:BIO state:

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

No where have I been able to find, in this or any other policy, a requirement that the references be references in the popular press.

The policy states "worthy of notice"; "significant"; "interesting"; "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I would argue that Abdul Salaam is significant, worthy of notice; and unusual enough to deserve attention. Isn't this what the policy requires?

Now, if I understand what you have written, you don't personally consider Abdul Salaam's case interesting. It would be possible to write about Abdul Salaam's case in very sensationalistic terms -- terms that might make his case seem more interesting. But I aim, in my contributions, to strictly comply with WP:NPOV, which I believe requires cool, non-sensational coverage.

No offense, but I think it is a mistake for those participating in a deletion discussion to allow themselves to rely on whether they personally find the topic of an article interesting.

There are lots of topics I find totally uninteresting, and a limited number that I know I have a personal prejudice against. Iridology being the example that comes to mind in discussions like this. But, without regard to my personal prejudice against Iridology I would vote for it being kept if it were to be nominated for deletion. I suspect the core writings of this discipline are questionable and specious. But I am even more confident that there are verifiable, authoritative references that talk about Iridology, that could be used to write a truly neutral coverage of the topic. I would be happy to see truly extensive coverage of Iridology, provided it complied with WP:NPOV. And if the only coverage of Iridology here was a POV mess, I'd offer to re-write it myself.

To repeat myself the amount of coverage we have on a topic should not be based solely on their popularity/notoriety. Rather, let me ask, why shouldn't it be based on what authoritative, verifiable references support, and the amount of energy contributors who are prepared to comply with WP:NPOV and other key policies put into maintaining them?

When I started working on covering the Guantanamo captives there was a wikidocument that quoted something Jimmy Wales said about the wikipedia's coverage of the TV show "The Simpson's". The wikidocument quoted him saying he agreed that there was room on the wikipedia for an article on every episode of "The Simpsons", and room for an article on every minor character -- provided those article complied with the wikipedia's key policies. I agreed with this statement, and was guided by it. I read something, a few months ago, that said Jimmy Wales backed away from this comment, to a certain extent. I spent a day and a half looking at the wikipedia's coverage of The Simpsons and Futurama.

The wikipedia's coverage of The Simpsons and Futurama remains extensive. There isn't an article on every minor character. But most episodes have articles. Even if Jimmy Wales has backed away, I still agree with what he originally said -- provided those articles are neutral and well-referenced.

The opposite of "noteworthy" is "mundane" or "routine"

You went on to write:

But I don't see how Salaam is comparable to KSM, either in terms of how serious the accusations against them are, or how much attention they have received.

As above, the coverage of a topic here should not be based solely on their popularity/notoriety. Rather, I would suggest, a topics popularity/notoriety in the daily news should not even be the primary measure of whether a topic merits coverage. Some years ago there was an afd I got involved in. The article was initially pretty sparse. Someone did some work on it, found a couple of references to show that the guy had been an 18th Century playwright. The original nominator wouldn't let it go -- complained those references were too sparse, and google found no further references to him at all. And the guy who found the references suggested, very tactfully, that given the inherent bias towards topical information on google, on the web, anyone who was still netting any google references after 200 years certainly merited inclusion. Ditto with many non-spectacular scientific or technical topics.

Yes, agreed, KSM faced much more serious allegations than Abdul Salaam. Yes, agreed, KSM has received much more press coverage than Abdul Salaam. But, I think this is not what the policy requires.

I want to be careful in how I write this. The Guantanamo captives' situation is highly emotionally charged, for many reasons. After discussing this with many people it seems to me that many people want to believe that detention of the captives, is mundane, well understood, routine.

But there is nothing mundane, routine or well understood about their detention, the conditions of their detention, the conduct of their Tribunals. They are unprecedented -- unquestionably unprecedented -- well outside the bounds of the normal practices of justice systems or prisoner of war camps.

The Bush Presidency started claiming, a few years ago, that the Guantanamo captives receive more protections than those ordinary POWs receive. They base this claim One differences between the CSR Tribunals captives started to receive in August 2004 -- and the AR-190-8 Tribunals that the USA used to fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions in earlier conflicts. But, frankly, this claim is nonsense. The most important difference between the CSR Tribunals and the AR-190-8 Tribunals is their mandate. It is an overwhelming difference.

AR-190-8 Tribunals are authorized to determine that a captive is an innocent civilian, who should be released; AR-190-8 Tribunals are authorized to confirm that a captive is a combatant, but one who complied with with Geneva Conventions, and so should continue to be protected by POW status; Finally, AR-190-8 Tribunals are authorized to determine that a captured combatant violated the Geneva Conventions, and can be stripped of the protections of POW status, and, in particular, can be charged with war crimes.

The CSR Tribunals are not authorized to determine whether captives qualified for POW status -- a very serious limitation -- unprecedented, not mundane, not routine.

The Bush Presidency wasn't going to provide any kind of Tribunal at all. They did so only after years of unprecedented detention under public pressure and after a ruling from the Supreme Court.

The Alexandra Olson article

The Olson article is online. But looking at the two online instances it is not clear to me that they are authorized mirrors, republished with the permission of the original copyright holders. My understanding of the policy on references is that unauthorized mirrors, or mirrors whose authorization is not clear, should not be used as references in article space -- so I commented out the "url=" field. I can however give an explicit link here, in talk space, without problem?

• Alexandra Olson (January 23 2005). "Detainee Has Last Guantanamo Panel Review" (Document). {{cite document}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |work= ignored (help)

Among the places it was originally published was The Guardian, and I updated the reference to reflect that.

The article doesn't explicitly name Abdul Salaam. The DoD didn't publish the official identities of the captives for another fifteen months, on April 20 2006. But the allegations the Alexandra Olson article cites are a match to those on Abdul Salaam's memo.

Abdul Salaam isn't the only captive who is alleged to have a connection to a hawala. Mohammed Sulaymon Barre also worked for a Hawala. But the allegations he faced are not a match for those the Alexandra Olson article quotes. Barre was not in Afghanistan -- he was a refugee camp in Pakistan. And he didn't work for a mom and pop hawala. He worked for a Somali based hawala with offices around the world. And Abdul Salaam's memo was drafted on December 30 2004. Mohammed Barre's was drafted on September 19 2004.

I suspect some of my challengers might characterize the conclusion I drew that Abdul Salaam was the hawala owner named as original research. I would dispute this. When there are only two captives explicitly named as hawala workers, and the other guy doesn't match the DoD spokesman's description, I would argue that this is the kind of "sky is blue" assertion that does not require a citation. And I stopped short of explicitly stating the DoD spokesman named Abdul Salaam. I wrote:

The Associated Press reported that Lieutenant Terry Green described the last captive to go through his CSR Tribunal, on 2005 January 22, was a 30 year old Afghan, who ran a hawala, who had two major customers who had ties to al Qaida.

My intent was to place an accurate paraphrase that went no further than what the source supported.

Worthington's book

Regarding how many captives Worthington's book explicitly covers -- it doesn't explicitly cover all 774. I didn't cover Ajam. It explicitly covers about half the captives.

Can I ask you to look again at what Worthington's book documents about Abdul Salaam?

• Captured in a "random sweep", in his home-town's market -- ie not "on a battlefield".
• Claims he was an innocent businessman.
• Held for five years, without charge.

May I suggest that if Abdul Salaam was an American citizen, and all we knew about him was what Worthington wrote about him, no one would question whether he merited coverage here.

The way I see it the coverage of the Guantanamo captives is the butt of a systemic bias.

Fallacy of division

I was not familiar with the term "Fallacy of division". I've read it twice now. I don't really see how it applies here. Can I ask a couple of questions to clarify what you mean here? We agree that KSM merits coverage.

If all the captives faced allegations as serious as KSM's would they each merit an article? You might have argued earlier that they would require both serious allegations, and considerable press coverage. But, forgive me, I believe this would be an interpretation based on a misquote of the policy.

Are there other captives who faced allegations of being a Taliban leader, or an al Qaeda leader, or some other kind of official? Yes. Dozens of the captives are alleged to have held some kind of leadership or official position.

Would you agree that all the captives who were accused of holding a leadership position merit coverage? Or would you still argue that the serious allegation had to be supplemented by press coverage? But, an alleged al Qaeda official is just as important when the details of the allegations against him have attracted the attention of the press as when they have not.

And, I suggest, a captive who was once accused of being an al Qaeda official would remain significant, even if he was later cleared of suspicion. The process through which he was first accused, and later cleared, is significant.

The first sentence of Fallacy of division says:

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.

But, it seems to me that when Rumsfeld, and others, called the captives "very bad men", and "the worst of the worst", they characterized ALL the captives, individually, as "very bad men", and "worst of the worst". Rumsfeld didn't say: "Guantanamo contains some very bad men." Maybe I am misunderstanding what the Fallacy of division article means. But, it seems to me, that it might apply if Rumsfeld and the other senior commentators had offered more measured characterizations. But he didn't.

The importance of multiple names

How many captives were inconsistently identified? I haven't finished figuring that out. I am still going through the second big release of documents from 2006, that was published in September 2007, and finding many instances of captives who had been identified consistently on the documents published in 2006, but had an inconsistent name on the new documents.

How many of those inconsistent names were simply due to inconsistent transliteration? It is hard to say for sure. Half at least. Maybe two thirds can be chalked up to incompetent transliteration.

• Guantanamo captive 5
  • Abdul Aziz al-Matrafi
  • Abdul Aziz Al Matrafi
  • Abdallah Aiza Al Matrafi
• Guantanamo captive 25
  • Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi
  • Majid al-Joudi
  • Majid Abdulla al-Joudi
  • Majid Abdallah Al Judi
  • Majeed Abdullah
  • Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi
  • Abdullah Majeed Al-Jodi
• Guantanamo captive 39
  • Ali Hamza Ahmed Suleiman Al Bahlul
  • Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman Ismail
  • Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul
• Guantanamo captive 46
  • Salah Bin Al Hadi Asasi
  • Sayf Bin Abdallah
• Guantanamo captive 67
  • Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini
  • 'Abd Al-Razaq 'Abdallah Hamid Ibrahim Al-Sharikh
• Guantanamo captive 70
  • Houari
  • Sofiane Haderbache
  • Abdul Raham Houari
• Guantanamo captive 73
  • Yusif Khalil Abdallah Nur
  • Abdul Rahman Abdallah Noor
  • Abd al-Rahman Bin Khalil Bin Abdallah Nur
• Guantanamo captive 114
  • Yussef Mohammed Mubarak Al Shihri
  • Yusef Modaray
  • Yusef M Modaray
• Guantanamo captive 126
  • Salam Abdullah Said Bahaysh
  • Salam Abdullah Said
  • Salim Abdallah Said Al Bayahsh Al Shihri
• Guantanamo captive 132
  • Abd Al Salam Ghaytan Murayyif Al Zaydani Al Shihri
  • Abdul Salam Ghetan
• Guantanamo captive 148
  • Adel Ben Mabrouk Bin Hamida Boughanmi
  • Adil Mabrouk Bin Hamida
  • Adil Mabrouk Bin Hamida (Boughanmi)
• Guantanamo captive 154
  • Mazin Salih Musaid Al Awfi
  • Saed Khatem Al Malki
• Guantanamo captive 156
  • Allal, Ab Aljallil
  • Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd
  • Abdelrahman Abdulla Abdel Galil
  • Adnan Farhan Abd al Latif
  • Afnahn Purhan Abjillil
• Guantanamo captive 175
  • Ghalaab Bashir
  • Hassan Mujamma Rabai Said
• Guantanamo captive 189
  • Salem Abdul Salem Ghereby
  • Radfat Muhammad Faqi Alji Saqqaf
• Guantanamo captive 194
  • Muhammad Abd Allah Mansur Al Futuri
  • Muhammad Abd Allah Manur Safrani Al Futri
  • Muhammad Abdallah Mansur Al Rimi
• Guantanamo captive 196
  • Musa Ali Said Al Said Al Umari
  • Musa Bin Ali Bin Said Al Amri
  • Abd Al Rahman Moaza Zafer Al Amri
  • Musa Bin Ali Bin Said Al Amri Al Umari
• Guantanamo captive 213
  • Khalid Bin Abdullah Mishal Thamer Al Hameydani
  • Khalid Abdullah Mishal Thamer Al Mutayri
• Guantanamo captive 217
  • Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri
  • Abd Al Aziz Sayir Al Shamari
  • Abd Alaziz Sayir Shamari
  • Abd Al Aziz Sayer Al Shammri
  • Abd Al Aziz Sayer Al Shammeri
  • Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwaln Al Shammeri
  • Abdulaziz Sayer Owain AI-Shammari
  • Abd Alaziz Sayir al Shamari
  • Abdulaziz Sayer Owain Zaher Al-Shammari
• Guantanamo captive 228
  • Abdullah Kamal
  • Abdullah Kamel Abudallah Kamel
  • Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari
  • Abdullah Al Kamel
  • Abdullah Kamel Abdulla Kamel]]
• Guantanamo captive 229
  • Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani
  • Mohammad Finaytal Al Dehani
  • Mohamad Funaitel Al-Daihani
  • Munammad Sihli Al Dayhani
  • Mohamad Fenaytill Sahli Mohamad Al-Daihani
  • Mohamad Fenaytill Al-Daihani
• Guantanamo captive 269
  • Yousef Abkir Salih Al Qarani
  • Muhammad Hamid Al Qarani
• Guantanamo captive 288
  • Mutij Sadiz Ahmad Sayab
  • Sayab Mutee Sadic Ahmed
• Guantanamo captive 326
  • Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam
  • Ahmed Adnan Ahjam
  • Ahmed Adnan Ahjm
• Guantanamo captive 328
  • Ahmed Mohamed
  • Ahmad Muhamman Yaqub
• Guantanamo captive 330
  • Kari Bilal
  • Maasoum Abdah Mouhammad
  • Shargo Shirz Juwan
• Guantanamo captive 341
  • Said Ali (al Ghamidi) Al Farha
  • Said Ali Abdullah Al Farha Al Ghamidi
  • Said Ali Al Farha
  • Seed Farha
  • Said Ali Al Ghamidi Al Farha
• Guantanamo captive 546
  • Mahmud Salem Horan Mohammed Mutlak Al Ali
  • Mohammed Abdullah Al Harbi
  • Mohammed Sharif
• Guantanamo captive 549
  • Omar Said Salim Al Dayi
  • Abdul Rahim
• Guantanamo captive 575
  • Saad Masir Mukbl Al Azani
  • Jard Al Azani
• Guantanamo captive 647
  • Zibn Thahir Zibn Al Fadhili Al Shammari
  • Zaban Thaaher Zaban Al Shamaree
  • Zaban Thaaher Zaban Al Shamari
• Guantanamo captive 716
  • Ala Abd Al Maqsut Muhammed Sagim Mazruh
  • Allah Muhammed Saleem
  • Saleem, Allah Muhammed (Mazruh, Ala Abd Al Maqsut Muhammed Sagim
  • Ala Abd Al Maqsut Muhammad Sagim Mazruh
• Guantanamo captive 757
  • Ahmed Abdel Aziz
  • Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz
  • Akhmed Aziz
• Guantanamo captive 940
  • Adel Hassan Hamed
  • Hassan Adel Hussein
  • Adel Hassan

Abdul Salaam's current whereabouts?

I wrote that he had been cleared for repatriation before I read that portion of Worthington's book. I try not to go beyond the strict limits of what the references say. In 2005 and early 2006 there were over a hundred and fifty captives who had been cleared for repatriation who were still in captivity, for one reason or another -- either because their home country wasn't safe for them -- or because their home country wouldn't agree to impose the conditions upon the captives the USA insisted upon. About a year ago some of these negotiations with the UK became public. The Major governmnet was embarrassed that British Security officials collaborated with the USA for the extrjudicial capture and the extraordinary rendition of several British residents, during a business trip to Gambia. One of these British residents was a guy named Bisher al Rawi. He had been an MI5 informant. MI5 had directed him to assist Abu Qatada help him find a hideout. Apparently security officials felt that either this guy was holding something back from the British, or they could blackmail him into going more deeply into the jihadist underground, if the CIA captured him.

When the British role in setting up the MI5 informant became public pressure mounted for him repatriation back to the UK. He might after all have been totally cooperative.

The negotiations must have become heated, because details became public. The USA would not agree to send back Al Rawi, unless the British agreed to accept half a dozen other British residents -- and agree to keep them under round-the-clock surveillance. Round the clock survillance is an enormous expense. The UK declined.

The USA has been complaining that the delay in freeing these men is due to other countries not agreeing to take them. But they are not acknowledging that the other countries are not agreeing to take them under very onerous conditions.

Worthington is pretty reliable. If he says he has been repatriated

Update

On November 26th, 2008 the DoD published the release dates. The list says Abdul Salaam was repatriated in February 2005.

• OARDEC (2008-10-09). "Consolidated chronological listing of GTMO detainees released, transferred or deceased" (PDF). Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-12-28.