Talk:Abdulhadi Abdallah Ibrahim al Sharakh

concerns with a recent edit...

I think this edit introduced serious inaccuracies. I also think other aspects that aren't inaccurate are simply unclear. Geo Swan (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit comes from a Congressional staff report. Nothing could be clearer. The prior edit appeared to be a little but a screed against the Bush Administration, lacking any encyclopedic information whatsoever. The edit explains what a CSRT actually is, devoid of the POV formerly stated.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

stemming from AR 190-8...

The new material asserts the CSR Tribunals are: "an administrative mechanism utilized by the United States military stemming from procedures used to determine whether an individual is considered a prisoner of war ("POW") during traditional conflicts."

This is true. They ARE modeled after these procedures.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true the they were modeled after the Tribunals described in AR-190-8 -- but with a fundamental difference. AR 190-8 tribunals complied with the Geneva Conventions. CSR Tribunals did not. The officers who sat on the CSR Tribunals were not authorized to make a determination as to whether the captives were POWs. Commander Crisfield makes this clear during Moazzam Begg's Tribunal. Begg had been issued a POW card by the Red Cross -- only to have it stripped from him. He had asked for the testimony of the Red Cross worker who issued the POW card to him, and a US officer who was aware of the card. The President of his Tribunal was initially going to rule their testimony relevant -- until an OARDEC Legal Advisor informed her that the CSR Tribunals were not authorized to rule on whether or not the captives were POWs.

This is an interesting position. One must make a determination of whether a person is a POW or not based on the Red Cross's position on the matter. Even with this interesting tidbit, your point is irrelevant. The rule of the CSRT is clearly stated within the edit itself. The role of a CSRT is to determine whether the person is an Enemy Combatant. The fact they are not POW's is self-evident, as those captured were not members of a national army, and were not in uniform. Further, the Geneva Covnention is silent on this subject, except for Art. 3 as to their treatment, so your legal argument that CSRT's do not comply with the Geneva Convention lacks any merit whatsoever. They are patterned after AR-190-8 proceedings, they are not AR-190-8 hearings in and of themselves.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it is highly misleading to imply that the captives were being treated as POWs, or that the CSR Tribunals were authorized to rule on the captives' POW status.

I believe only you have made this leap in logic. Perhaps you could point to where this is stated and we can discuss it further?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarly AR 190-8 Tribunals were authorized to determine that captives were not combatants -- that they were civilian non-combatants. CSR Tribunals, in contrast, were only authorized to make a recommendation on whether earlier determination that the captives were "enemy combatants' were correct.

And it is worth noting that the AR 190-8 Tribunals used the same definition of combatant as the Geneva Conventions, while the CSR Tribunals definition of combatant was so broad that someone could be an "enemy combatant" without being aware of it. An innocent donation to what one thought was a legitimate charity cold get one classified as an "enemy combatant", if it were believed some of that charities resources had secretly been diverted to support terrorism.

According to the Geneva Convention definition of combatant veterans aren't combatants. Once they have been discharged, hung up their uniform, gone home, they are civilians, just like all their neighbors. Of course if they spontaneously take down their varmint rifle, and take some pot-shots at invaders, then they would be combatants, but civilian combatants. They wouldn't be combatants due to their previous military training. The allegations captives faced during their CSR Tribunals showed that captives were having military training, or military service, years earlier, or even decades earlier, was being offered as a justification for classifying captives as "enemy combatants".

A couple of the captives had military service during the 1991 Gulf War being advanced as a justification for classifying them as "enemy combatants" -- even though they had served on the coalition side. Some captives were said to have fought in Bosnia in 1995, and had that advanced as a justification for classifying them as "enemy combatants". Geo Swan (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is irrelevant. See Ibid.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

an opportunity to present “reasonably available” evidence...

The new material asserts: "Each detainee has an opportunity to present 'reasonably available' evidence and witnesses to a panel of three commissioned officers to try to demonstrate that the detainee does not meet the criteria to be designated as an 'enemy combatant'."

This claim has been refuted. The public record shows that although captive requested the testimony of witnesses there wasn't a single request for an "off-island" witness that was ruled "reasonably available".

Which can be stated in the article itself, yet the rule is as stated. Again, this appears to be a POV statement, one which violates Wikipedia's standards.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, it was rare for the Tribunal officials to be able to locate the documents the captives requested. Captives told their Tribunals they KNEW that documents like their passports or address books were present in Guantanamo because their interrogators had them present during their interrogations, referred to them, asked the captives to explain passages from them.

It would be an enormous lapse from the project's neutrality policy to repeat this refuted claim as if it were a fact. Geo Swan (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See Ibid. You are not making a good point here. The fact that the rule may not have been followed does not effect what the rule requires.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

required to present all relevant evidence...

The new material asserts: "The government is required to present all of its relevant evidence, including evidence that tends to negate the detainee’s designation, to the tribunal."

Which is true.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I suggest this is highly misleading. The passage suggests that the evidence was presented to the captive. The DoD has published 179 unclassified dossiers from the captives' Tribunals, that included the unclassified recommendation memos. With only one exception all those recommendation memos stated that the unclassified evidence -- that is the evidence presented to the captives -- was insufficient for the Tribunal to reach a conclusion, so they had relied on classified evidence.

Again, this appears to be a POV statement. The rule is the rule, the fact it may or may not have been followed can be handled within the article itself if appropriate.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What was and wasn't classified turns out to have been arbitrary. Some captives faced allegations during their CSR Tribunal that weren't declassified for other captives until their first or second or third annual review for other captives. Geo Swan (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now making another legal determination. Again, the rule is the rule. The section added explains what a CSRT is, and what the rules are. Any criticism of how the rules may or may not have been followed can be included in the article itself. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

reply and request for courtesy

I know I asked you before, as a courtesy to your correspondents, and other readers, to follow the convention of having your comments follow those of your correspondents. I know I explained to you that when you insert your comments in the middle of someone else's comments, later readers are going to have difficulty figuring out who wrote the earlier comments, or when they wrote them. Further the insertion of comments in the middle of the other person's comments can remove the context, and very unfairly make the original correspondent look careless or ridiculous.

Please show respect to later readers, as you failed to do here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromise wording

We have to be prepared to compromise here. I can't be tied to my wording. There is another contributor's wording out there. The fellow who wrote that wording can't be tied to his wording. And you can't be tied to yours. It seems to me that the most useful thing for you to do would be to state, civilly, and specifically, what your objections to alternate wordings are.

Here is something you should know. The wording I drafted? I have received feedback from people I trust that they think my wording was too long. Since your wording is longer than mine I think you should consider the possibility your wording is too long as well.

I've stated why I think your wording is misleading.

In your comments here you keep repeating that you wanted to explain what the CSR Tribunals are. Why do you think that is what these paragraphs should do? We have an article on Combatant Status Review Tribunals. A detailed explanation of the CSR Tribunals belongs in that article. These paragraphs, or paragraph, should provide some context, not a full explanation of the tribunals. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

POW status irrelevant?

• In your revision in the article you assert the CSR Tribunals: "stemming from procedures used to determine whether an individual is considered a prisoner of war ("POW") during traditional conflicts."
• In your confusingly placed scattered replies to my comment you assert: "...your point is irrelevant. ... The fact they are not POW's is self-evident, as those captured were not members of a national army, and were not in uniform."
• Your wording states that the CSR Tribunals stem from procedures used to determine whether captives should be considered POWs. If this section doesn't clearly state the CSR Tribunals are not authorized to determine whether the captives were POWs readers will read this section as stating the CSR Tribunals were authorized to determine whether the captives were POWs.
• Your comment contains a very serious error. When you and I decided to contribute to the wikipedia we were supposed to commit ourselves to comply with its policies. One of its policies is the neutral point of view policy. I am supposed to try my best to refrain from contributing material to article space based on my personal opinion of what is "self evident". And you are not supposed to base your contributions on what you think is "self evident" either.

You may have reached the personal conclusion that it is "self-evident" that the Guantanamo captives were not POWs. You must understand that this is your own personal, unreferenced conclusion, and you cannot base your contributions to article space upon it.

You went on to state that the captives "were not members of a national army, and were not in uniform". You write this as if you have taken, at face value, the assertions made by Press Officers during the early years of Guantanamo that the captives were all "captured on the battlefield". Subsequently the DoD was forced to publish the CSR Tribunal memos and transcripts. These documents simply do not support the assertion. The allegations against the captives, when read in detail, only support a minor fraction of the captives facing the allegation that they were captured on the battlefield.

For those captives who weren't captured on a battlefield, who were not armed, it doesn't matter what they were wearing. An unarmed Arab refugee, taken into Pakistani custody at a border crossing, is not automatically an "enemy combatant" because he wasn't wearing a uniform, when captured.

Nations that are complying with the Geneva Conventions treat all captives as POWs, until their version of a competent tribunal determines that they don't qualify for POW status. The Geneva Conventions don't have any provision for skipping this step.

I have read correspondents who asserted the Geneva Conventions don't apply in Afghanistan. However Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. So, the agreement is applicable in Afghanistan. The Taliban didn't have to re-sign the Geneva Conventions for it to remain applicable in Afghanistan, just as President Obama and President Bush don't have to re-sign every treaty the USA is a party to, for those treaties to remain in effect.

If what you meant to assert was that those Guantanamo captives who could meaningfully be accused of being combatants would not be lawful combatants if they weren't wearing a "uniform" you surprise me. As a lawyer I would not have thought you would repeat this misconception. The wording of the Geneva Conventions states combatants should wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance". That is a different standard from "wearing a uniform". From my reading a special armband or special hat is sufficient to fulfill this requirement.

So, did the Taliban issue a fixed distinctive marking for their fighters to wear? According to the OARDEC allegations they did. Several captives had their continued detention justified, in part, because they were alleged to have "been issued a Taliban uniform".

Similarly, the wording of the Geneva Convention does not state only members of a "national army" can be considered lawful combatants. It says they have to fit within a chain of command. So, did the Taliban have a chain of command? According to the OARDEC allegations they did. One of the allegations offered to justify the continued detention of Khirullah Khairkhwa stated:

Detainee was appointed the governor of Herat Providence [sic] 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.

Could this be a clearer description of a chain of command? So your inaccurately worded assertion that the captive shouldn't be considered POWs because they weren't members of a "national army" is clearly contradicted by the interpretation of OARDEC staff.

Could one argue that this was insufficient to establish that captives qualified for classification as a lawful combatant entitled to POW status? Sure. And whether or not should have been determined by the US military's version of a competent tribunal -- an AR 190-8 Tribunal.

I am going to repeat that, without regard to what spokesmen and press officers may have said, most captives were not captured on a battlefield.

And I am going to repeat my request that you show you respect your readers, by confining your comment to this section of my reply to below this signature. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the CSR Tribunals comply with the Geneva Conventions?

You wrote: "so your legal argument that CSRT's do not comply with the Geneva Convention lacks any merit whatsoever."

Really? How do you figure that? Countries that comply with the Geneva Conventions convene "competent tribunals" that classify them as:

1. innocent noncombatant civilian bystanders; who should be released;
2. lawful combatants, who should continue to be treated as POWs; and
3. combatants did not comply with article four, or who otherwise committed a war crime, and are thus not entitled to the protections of POW status.

Since the CSR Tribunals were not authorized to determine that captives were lawful combatants they did not fulfill the USA's Geneva Conventions obligations; they did not comply with the Geneva Conventions.

I am going to repeat my request that you show you respect your readers, by confining your comment to this section of my reply to below this signature. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reasonably available"? "Relevant evidence"?

You write: "Which can be stated in the article itself, yet the rule is as stated."

First, the details belong in the CSR Tribunal article -- not this article. What belongs in this article is a limited number of sentences that provide context for the coverage of the alleagions and the coverage of the Tribunal in the habeas dossier

I have no objection to neutral and accurate coverage of what verifiable reliable references say the rules for CSR Tribunals were. But your wording was neither neutral or accurate. Please go check what you wrote: You didn't write: "Gordon England's memo that laid out the details of how Tribunals should operate said..." In the article you baldly asserted that the Tribunals actually did what you acknowledge here on the talk page were merely the rules, which you seem prepared to acknowledge here, may not have been followed. Well, that is simply not neutral.

I am going to repeat my request that you show you respect your readers, by confining your comment to this section of my reply to below this signature. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "respect for readers" is deeply appreciated. I would ask that your esepect readers by creating neutral articles that impart facts rather than political views. The rules of procedure for the carryonmg out of CSRT's are clearly stated. if it is your contention that those rules may not have been followed, by all means, point it out. As it stands, your version merely relates a POV peice that not only fails to descrive what a CSRT actually "is", but also manages to bring into its sway an entirely irrelevant SCOTUS opinion. My version actually comes from a source, describes what the process is, and states facts, yours fails to achieve any of these things. Tell me, which is more encyclopedic?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns that my contributions lapse from neutrality?

We have to reach a compromise.

If you continue to have a concern that my wording lapsed from neutrality then, rather than simply asserting that I lapse from neutrality, as if it were an obvious fact, take the time to offer a civil meaningful explanation of what triggered your concern. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My Response

See Ibid. It's all right there, and I am not going to re-respond in an endless cycle to quench your thirst for explanations already provided. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight Change

See [1]. I used the quote from the source. "Returned to fight" is inaccurate, and confusing when placed in quotes.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this excision for several reasons.

First, I believe the good faith contributor has misunderstood WP:VER. We can't be concerned when material does not seem credible to us, when that material is verifiable from authoritative WP:RS.

Second, the edit summary claims:

"You say: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" Your source for that is the NYT article. Have a look at it. It has been edited and does not verify this anymore. WP:BOP WP:GRAPEVINE"

However one of the NYTimes article said, and still says: al Sharakh, Abdulhadi Abdallah Ibrahim -- Sept. 5, 2007 -- Saudi Arabia -- Suspected.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: You are using one source to lay the foundation for another source, Geo Swan. Note that the other source says "suspected", not a confirmation that the subject has returned to the fight. Moreover, one source does not support this position on its own, meaning you are "reading" into the source what yoy want it to say. I would suggest you ditch the NYT source at #12, and stick with #13, with the caveat it be changed to "suspected".--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. There is no misunderstanding of WP:VER. I have removed the information here because the cited source does not unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.

The article says: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" This is not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. It should be removed under WP:BOP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Further explanation (from WP:NPF):

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth."

That means the section needs multiple, highly reliable sources. What is not the case in it's current form. Secondly, that the DoD simply "suspect" him is not relevant to his notability.

Another concern: The NYT "misreported" the material that is in the section. It is troublesome to use it without making this very clear and only to use the misreported part without mentioning the content of the appended Editors' Note).

Finally, I have cited WP:GRAPEVINE. Because it clearly says that such material should be removed and not re-inserted until controversies have been solved. Iqinn (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cut that out, Geo -- this is a BLP. Without a confirmation that he has committed terrorist acts after his release, it stays out. Clear? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed re-engaged to engaged. I have two further requests 1) I would like to remove the Wikisource as it also says re-engaged. 2) Changing or removing the link at the bottom. "returned to the battle" to something that does not implies he was a terrorist before he was detained what is not clear. Is that ok with you? Iqinn (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT this edit, which has the edit summary: "Report of behavior after release: re-engage implies he was a terrorist before what is not clear. The NYT's has corrected that in there editors note."

Sorry, changing "re-engaged" to "engaged" is editorializing. Our source says "reengaged". Your unreferenced personal opinion, my unreferenced personal opinion, or anyone else's unreferenced personal opinion are irrelevant. Please re-read WP:VER. I know you told me you already re-read it. But this is a fundamental point. We aim for "verifiability, not truth". That officials assert they suspect him of "reengaging" in terrorism is verifiable. It is possible to find WP:RS, informed commentators, who have written about their doubts in the official

WRT your assertion that: "The NYT's [sic] has corrected that in there [sic] editors [sic] note." Here is the ombudsman's note. While I am sure your comment was written in good faith, it contains two extremely serious errors.

First, the NYTimes can not "correct" official DoD documents. The DoD document says what it says. The DoD document says the former captives are suspected (or confirmed) of "reengaging in terrorism".

Second, Clark Hoyt's ombudsman's note does not apologize for reporting that the the DoD document said the former captives "reengaged in terrorism". Hoyt's note apologizes to the NYT's readers for failing to exercise more skepticism in its report that the DoD document said the former captives "reengaged in terrorism". It seems to me that Hoyt was suggesting Bumiller's editors should have chosen a more equivocal headline than “1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds.” Hoyt acknowledged that senior NYT's editors regretted that the headline and first paragraph had used a “1 in 20” ratio, not “1 in 7”. Hoyt acknowledged that those senior NYT's editors regretted they hadn't based the headline, and first paragraph solely on those former captives the Pentagon said they had "confirmed" had reengaged in terrorism.

If the May 20th NYTimes had fully measured up to the journalistic standards Hoyt acknowledges it should have measured up to; if it had used a headline like “Pentagon says 1 in 20 Detainees Rejoined Jihad”; if its first paragraph had reported the challenges of skeptics earlier; our references to their article would be just what it was prior to your first excision.

Please understand that Hoyt's note says something very different from what you have repeatedly claimed it said. I am not challenging your good faith, I am not challenging that you were reporting what you really believe Hoyt said. But I do believe you were very seriously mistaken.

The NYT reported that a DoD document leaked to them asserted these men were suspected of "reengaging in terrorism". Subsequently the DoD published a document that said the these men were suspected of terrorism. Neither the DoD or the NYTimes has withdrawn their assertion, so our coverage has to report that the DoD asserted they suspected these men of "reengaging in terrorism".

Now back on July 12th, when you first raised your concern, I tried to initiate a dialogue with you on a compromise that addressed those concerns. You were unwilling to discuss my suggested compromise, or explain in any meaningful detail why you found it unacceptable. I call on you now to work towards a compromise.

I continue to believe, as I wrote on July 12th, that the controversies over the original May 20 article should be covered, in detail, just once, not in each captives' article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, our secondary source the NYT's says "engaged in terrorism or militant activity since their release". And i am fully aware of the policies you have mention and i have show that i am more than willing to discuss. Let's do it step by step.

• The DoD, our primary source says "reengaged in terrorism". Not the most trustful source but you are right it says what it says.

• Can we include anything of the primary source into the BLP here. No, because these are serious allegations and this biography is about a living relative unknown individual. We have very strict rules what can be included in their biography. WP:NPF

• But one editor really really wants to add these allegations to the biography. Is there a way? Yes, if we only include the facts that have been checked by multiply highly reliable secondary sources and that are continuously supported by these sources. Also we have to leave out anything that comes from primary sources.

• The NYT's corrected (itself). They have edited the article and it says "engaged"[2] and it has appended a Note to that article that clearly states there position on that.

  "Editors' Note: June 5, 2009 The article said that the Pentagon had found about one in seven of former Guantánamo prisoners had "returned to terrorism or other militant activity," or as the headline put it, had "rejoined jihad." Those phrases accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention. Because that premise remains unproved, the day the article appeared in the newspaper, editors changed the headline and the first paragraph on the Times Web site to refer to prisoners the report said had engaged in terrorism or militant activity since their release."[3]

• The NYT's has made it's position clear that the premise that all former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention is unproven and most likely wrong. By changing the wording in the article to "engage" and attaching this note to it.

• To change the wording in our section here form "re-engaged" to "engaged" was right. I am working towards consensus. I have suggested above two things that i want to change and that could bring us there. Can i perform these two changes? Iqinn (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

question...

I'd like to ask the contributor who excised the first NYTimes source for a further explanation for the excision. While the article doesn't specifically name him, it sets the context for the second reference. It helps readers understand how he came to be listed. I think this is important.

I'd also like to discuss the edit that followed it. May I request an explanation for changing the section heading from "Pentagon claim he has "engaged in terrorism or militant activity" after release" to "Report of behavior after release".

I am concerned that the new heading obfuscates what the section is about, making it harder to readers to find what they want. I have no problem discussing a compromise wording, but I can't suggest a compromise wording if they don't know what the objections to the original wording. "Behavior after release" could be about a very broad range of topics. A heading like that could cover a section that talked about him applying to be a contestant on his countries version of "American idol". Or it could say he was suing the US government, or that he had converted to Christianity. If there were multiple things he was reported to have done following his repatriation, by all means have a section with that heading, but then follow it with a named subsection about the Pentagon claims, and further sections about the game show, or other notable activity. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan, SarekOfVulcan has tried to fix a serious BLP problem. You may further improve it from there instead of simply keep reverting back and to demand page long explanations. I would not have said anything. But you have done that many times before whenever somebody has tried to edit an article written by you or Sherurcij. Iqinn (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the discussion continues in the section above. Iqinn (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)