Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

PT article

This Pakistan Times article is running about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I can't verify the truth or falsity of anything it says, but I'd only like to request that we be humble in our estimates of our ability to know the truth, and diligent in our efforts to document our sources. I have serious doubts about the veracity of any and all of the information in this article, and would like to see every single bit sourced, considering the number of different versions of the story there are out there, and the number of people who have something to gain by promulgating false information. DanKeshet

This, from this story regarding a Sep. 11th raid last year, which may have felled KSM:

The other man, an unidentified Yemeni who fell prey to a police sniper on the building's rooftop, was initially identified by a Karachi police investigator as Khalid Mohammad Sheikh. Latter reports said that Khalid Mohammad Sheikh was being held by the police for his direct role in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and therefore rejected that the idea that the dead man was Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, one of the most wanted man on the FBI list.

...

Most police officials said that they had reason to believe that Khalid Sheikh was still hiding in Karachi and he was "definitely" in touch with some renegade elements of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a banned jihadi organisation.

...

Pakistani security officials privately conceded that Pakistani law-enforcement agencies had no independently authenticated pictures of either Ramzi bin al-Shibah or Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, hence they had no choice but to rely on the press photographs or the pictures provided by the Americans of the most wanted al-Qaeda pair.

So, it's all up for grabs at this point. Graft

Whether or not you agree with his thesis, this dude provides the most complete collection of links on Mohammed I've seen: [1] DanKeshet

Pictures

It would be better if we could get pictures of him that didn't have "LOCATED" splashed across them, which seems a bit out of place in an encyclopedia. Anyone know any sources? --Delirium 19:08, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is an older version of one of the pictures which didn't have the "Located" on them. WhisperToMe 07:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Where is said version? The "LOCATED" thing really sucks. Graft 21:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reverted this Image:Khalidmohammed.jpg to the older version. There's another one that still has a located. Yes, I know it really sucks. If someone can find a pic of him like that without the located, that would be great. WhisperToMe 02:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dudes I've found the funniest picture of him at the bottom... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6486191.stm can we use this one for a laugh? It makes him look like how I feel after a night out!

Playboy lifestyle

Graft asked "Is this stuff about white tuxedos, girlfriends, helicopters and scuba diving really necessary?" Well, I don't know. I think there ought to be some info that he lead a wilder lifestyle than one would expect of a fundamentalist Muslim. As to all that detail, I'm not sure. (I hope to add a lot more terrorism-based info over the next few days, which may balance it out a bit.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's important to cite this as he led a lifestyle that would not be expected from a fundamentalist Muslim. One would hardly expect a womanizing man to be the leader of an Islamist terrorist plot along with another famous terrorist. WhisperToMe 22:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However, I don't think it's necessary to go TOO much into detail. I wouldn't want to know what color bathrobe he wears, etc. Neither do his efforts to impress his girlfriend concern me. In an article about an important figure who has done some things of really earth-shaking importance, such frivolous details really dilute the import. Graft 16:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering how much emphasis the Islamists put on Islamic conduct (covering up women, banning music and alcohol etc.) it is rather interesting that some Islamic extremists have tended to live a frivoluos lifestyle (eg. some of the 9/11 terrorsits). Hypocrasy or doublestandard is always an interesting factor when you are dealing with te religious right, especially if you're are trying to set up a psychological profile of these people. --BirgerLangkjer 13:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

>>>I totally agree. The hypocricy of this man's lifestyle is VERY important to the whole story. It is not sensationalism to report these details. To the contrary, it reveals the true motivations of this murdering criminal. Sadly, the arab-islamic world will (yet again) deny these facts, and instead continue their silent support of their terrorist heros.

Bullshit. When I sleep with random women in night and act religious in the morning, then it is called hypocrisy. Sleeping with women when I was 18 and being religious (and admitting it was wrong) when I am 40 is not hypocrisy but change of mind. If you don't agree to it, call it brainwashing, when you do, call it revelation. Calling it hypocrisy is pure and simple FUD. The contribution of anonymous above is one example.--Scheibenzahl 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this whole discussion seems to be assuming something which isn't proven. There is no evidence that I can find that Khalid beliefs any of his previous actions were in fact wrong by his current moral standard whatever that may be, whether for himself or for anyone else. The reality is, no one really know's what Khalid believes or what he wants (or wanted) to achieve. While there are obviously a number of Islamic 'fundamentalists' who do believe his actions were very wrong, the motives of terrorists like Khalid are never particularly clear. While some people like to claim, all terrorists who are Muslims want to impose some sort of deluded 'Islamic' ideal world where men and women are allowed no contact unless they're husband and wive and all women must cover up etc there is no real evidence for this. In fact the evidence suggests they're motives are often widely variable and a complex combination of factors. Nil Einne 16:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In "admitting it was wrong" I meant "it" to refer to sleeping with women.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

The remarks about the CIA torturing him as part of his interrogation are conspiratorial and are slightly ancedotal, furthermore, the subjective remarks about his excessive and indolent lifestyle are not verified. They seem to paint a negative picture of the person

>>god forbid we should paint a negative picture of him. At what point do you people stop being 'encyclopedians', and start to remember that you are talking about a person who would gladly slit your mother's throat.

I am removing the "Neutrality" tag solely because this suggestion was unsigned. If you wish to question the neutrality of the article, you must sign your comment. Xoloz 07:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Some CIA agents have acknowledged they tortured him. I'm suprised the american public aren't demanded he be put on trial in New York and be excenuted for mass-murder, instead of being detained incommunicado and indefinently in some securect CIA or Pakistanni gulag. Bush did promise to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 "to justice" after all, way back in 2001 (it seems so long ago). He hasn't even used those kangaroo courts he invented yet, presumably for this very purpose. Kingal86 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, most countries not only do not use torture, they do not allow evidence from torture to be used in their courts. The military commission differ from real courts of law in that the Bush administration wants them to be allowed to use evidence from torture and abusive interrogation. There is a very strong likelihood that Guantanamo detainees would have to be released if the Bush administration tried to try them in a real court. That is why the FBI interrogators refused to participate in their interrogations. -- Geo Swan 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Simply the fact that you call the current military tribunal "kangaroo courts" shows that you are truly ignorant of the subject. I work for the Criminal Investigations Task Force, which was created by President Bush for the sole purpose of capturing, investigating, and prosecuting these criminals. Let me be perfectly clear that these tribunal uphold the American Judicial Standards to the greatest of their ability, they are taken seriously, and they are legitimate. There are special circumstances to these tribunals because a lot of the information being used comes from intelligence sources that we can't use in open courts due to it's nature. The public should also remember that these are NOT U.S Citizens and as such they don't deserve even half the rights we actually give them as Americans. It is the case that any testimony given during torture will NOT BE ADMISSIBLE in the military tribunals, i can't stress that enough. KSM openly admits that he was the mastermind because he's a true extremist and faithful to his cause. Kermitbuns 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You proved yourself wrong when you said: "The public should also remember that these are NOT U.S Citizens and as such they don't deserve even half the rights we actually give them as Americans." It tells me that you are lying and have no idea whatsoever of any international laws. Go read some book before opening up your mouth and showing us who you are.--Scheibenzahl 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I personally find the views of Kermitbuns disgusting, this whole issue seems to be getting off topic so I suggest we end discussion here Nil Einne 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to start an argument, but my point is that these military tribunals as defined by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, are not by any means Kangaroo courts. I am personally responsible for the release of at least 4 out of no less than 33 detainees who didn't have significant evidence to support charges against them. These courts are the real deal, we are taking them VERY seriously, and they are getting as fair a trial as can be had in this situation. I am extremely familiar with the international laws relating to the detainees at GTMO and maybe you should do some reading on the subject. These men are not part of any organized government and are therefore ineligible to participate in a combat against an armed, uniformed, military force. They are called Unprivileged Belligerents and are NOT lawful combatants regardless of your political points of view. Read the law.Kermitbuns 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality: 1: is the Pakistani-Kuwaiti mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York.

2:He began to support terrorist actions against the U.S. starting with a small role supporting the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.. I personally don't like this kind of jurist impossibilities. Onyx

if we aint torrtured him yet I think we better start cause Lord knows he deserves it Neutrality: The filename for the mugshot of KSM is "Party animal.jpg". Isn't this a bit biased? --- Rocco

I'm glad to see that this issue has been raised already, but quite disappointed that it hasn't been addressed since. The accusations regarding KSM's lifestyle in the Philippines (& elsewhere) are quite severe in the context of his religious practice. I can't say that I think KSM wouldn't do such a thing based on most "fundamentalist" religious figures, as these people tend to live quite differently than they preach across ALL religions -- but the point is, this needs to be cited. There needs to be some sort of official account to which this article refers to make such assertions about KSM. Regrettably, I am not an expert that would be able to search for an appropriate work, so I hope someone around here is. Experia 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any verifiable proof that "KSM" ever worked for the CIA, that part should be left out. (MJF)

The neutrality of the article is a joke. To state that he confessed "quite likely under threat of and under pain of torture" is a totally unsubstantiated and prejudicial statement.

Quote Kermitbuns: "These men are not part of any organized government and are therefore ineligible to participate in a combat against an armed, uniformed, military force. They are called Unprivileged Belligerents and are NOT lawful combatants regardless of your political points of view. Read the law."

I have trouble with this statement. The Taliban are part of an organised government but are they not being tried in the same military courts as "Unpriviledged Beligerents"? If KSM is only charged with terrorist acts then he should be tried in a criminal court not a military court. Using a military court seems to me to be solely to increase the chance of conviction which is basically what a Kangaroo court does. Wayne 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your position as stated Wayne, however, since it is a war crime to conduct attacks as an unprivileged belligerent it is tried through military war crimes courts (tribunals) as is the precedent established through history for war crimes (with exception to Nuremberg's trials). Literally these guys are being tried by the very same court system (with exceptions only for classified evidence protection) that our own troops are convicted through for the crimes they commit in Iraq. In terms of the Taliban, it is arguable whether or not they were a legitimate government, but lets assume for discussion that they are considered a government, In which case they would only be protected under Laws of Armed Conflict if they wore uniforms in combat. International law explicitly states that it's illegal to engage in armed conflict with a uniformed military force when you are not an official, uniformed, force yourself. So even if they are a legitimate government (certainly not the case right now though) they don't fight according to the laws of war as established by international law and are therefore considered unprivileged belligerents. Kermitbuns 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous reply. In every documentary on the Taliban shown here before 9/11 the black turban/robe was always said to be their uniform. Now the US claims it is not. They shouldn't change the rules to get the result they want. I personally feel the world is better without the Taliban, my concern is that we get rid of them the "right" way without lowering our standards to the same level as the terrorists that attack us. This of course is related to the terrorists themselves. KSM although an evil person is being scapegoated for political reasons and to get closure. He may deserve what he gets but by blaming him for everything (and torturing him to admit it) we risk never catching those who bear most responsibility. This is the reason it is important to have NPOV when doing these articals and that means including legitimate criticisms that unfortunately are often routinely deleted in WP because they are not the official view or the view of the editors. I respect your position and obviously you are following what you believe is right but polls show the world believes Nuremburgh is preferable to Gitmo and tribunals and WP articals should reflect that. Wayne 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The user that inserted the quote about the CIA "happily" transmitting his photograph is a severe attack on neutrality and is a blatant POV edit. This comment isn't even worthy of being in the article, let alone as the photo caption. I haven't any ideas on how to fix this, but this definitely needs to be fixed.Don'tDrinkTheKoolAid (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Court

Can we have some info on why he hasn't been taken to court etc like other suspects?

I can't think of any sources to quote off the top of my head, but I believe his trial will be held after military intelligence has investigated all of his info ,so as not to compromise their operations and spook terrorists at-large. Roland Deschain 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ZbinLaden?

From the article: "He has also been known as the alias Michael Zbinladen the connection to the bin laden family is rooted in Iran." I removed this sentence as it is jumbled. Is there truth in this? Rmhermen 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that the 9/11 Commission annotations included a lot of "Taken from the interrogatino of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" notes, indicating that he was captured at that time, and it was freely admitted that he was being interrogated. Some parts of the commission use him as more than 90% of their references. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text from intro

Mostly duplicated but storing here while I try to rework it: "The 9/11 Commission Report states that "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The report also calls him a "terrorist entrepreneur" who — though he had engaged in planning terrorist attacks since his first such plot in 1994 — did not join al-Qaeda until late 1998 or early 1999. He also reportedly helped finance his nephew Ramzi Yousef's 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired with him to create the foiled Operation Bojinka plot.

Recent word has surfaced that he was one of the head conspirators in a 2002 West Coast Plot to attack the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, this time taking recruits from al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian wing, Jemaah Islamiyah, to avoid suspicion." Kaisershatner 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally killed Daniel Pearl?

I know that KSM was behind the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, but I keep hearing (and reading) from various sources that KSM himself wielded the knife and beheaded him. This wouldn't be unprecedented, as al-Zarqawi certainly took gruesome relish in slowly sawing off the heads of hostages, but it seems odd that the mastermind of 9/11 would trouble himself with such a "minor" task. Does anyone know if he personally participated in the kidnap/murder plot?

P.S.- Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not some loony conspiracy-nut; I'm just wondering if there's any info on his level of participation. Roland Deschain 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He personally admits to it. You can find it in his tribunal hearing transcript at www.defenselink.mil. Kermitbuns 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

KSM admitted to personally beheading Pearl but the video of the execution shows he was present but did not do it himself (according to the CIA). Wayne 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Capture pic

I've readded the "Party animal" picture; after all it is one of the most famous pictures of him. Though I do agree that the image should be renamed... --Bletch 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've never quite understood why people want the picture removed because of the file title. Calling him a "party animal" in the article may be POV, but that has nothing to do with the name of the image file. There's no reason, for example, that we couldn't have an image for the goatse article because the image is titled "hello.jpg" instead of "neutralimageofmanstretchinganus.jpg." The title is irrelevant. Roland Deschain 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO it is very unprofessional (and just downright silly) that the picture is titled "Party_animal.jpg". It makes Wikipedia look bad; imagine some news article saying "Those amateurs at Wikipedia dubbed KSM a party animal!" Also, imagine if George W. Bush had a picture with the filename "DumbyaLookingDumb.jpg", or White people with "Crackers.jpg". The case of Goatse.cx is a slightly different case, because the picture in question achieved notoriety as "the Hello.jpg picture from www.goatse.cx", so it does have a legit reason to use that name. None of this can be construed as an excuse to not have the picture; I came to the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed article and was very surprised when I didn't see the picture. --Bletch
    • Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We Have Your Sons

According to a report which I found on the internet here : http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871928.html , the Americans are holding this man's sons. Is this true ? Does anyone know anything about this ? Robert2957 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt the article is true, but you have to read it carefully. According to the article, the CIA is holding Mohammed's sons (aged 7 and 9) for questioning, but is "handling them with kid gloves" (i.e. treating them well). There's nothing wrong with holding them for questioning. They are probably also telling Mohammed that if he does not cooperate, his sons will be hurt or killed. That's a questionable interrogation technique. I don't know if that's legal or not. But there's no indication that the CIA actually will hurt the children, or even that they will hold them indefinitely. If they end up holding the children indefinitely, then I'll be concerned. But I suspect they're just making empty threats to try to induce Mohammed to talk. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with holding kids for questioning for, what, three years now, solely because their father happens to be a terrorist? I dunno about you, but that seems EXTREMELY wrong, to me. The sins of the father are not visited to the seventh generation in any modern legal system that I know of. Keeping people locked up in a cell is hurting them, especially if they are kids. Graft 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was written 3 years ago, and reported that the children had been recently taken in for questioning. If they are still being held, then yes, that's a problem. I'd love to hear an update to this story. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This month a reporter asked the same question. The children are still in the US but officials will not comment on wether they are still in custody or not. I did a search after reading this and found an artical written after KSM's capture where the CIA said the children would be held until he broke. Wayne 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali Khan's recent affidavit states that his son, Mohammed Khan, was told by the Pakistani guards where he was being held in 2003, that KSM's sons were being deprived of food and water, and were having ants and other creatures put on their body, to scare them into cooperating. Geo Swan 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Time in USA

I have seen many references to him being educated in the US. Does anyone know when or where? Agrimace 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) agrimace

• He was educated at least at Chowan University. Roland Deschain 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed confesses

Heads up! BBC World reported about three minutes ago that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has confessed to a multitude of murders, including plotting 9/11. Data should be hitting news websites within minutes. From what I can see, this might take quite a bit of work to integrate to the article properly. --Kizor 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I doubt him, but a confession isn't tantamount to guilt. For all we know, he could be confessing to doing more than he really did in order to draw heat away from other guilty parties. Just something to keep in mind.... Calbaer 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe he wanted to save his kids or maybe finally caved & told people what they wanted to hear after 3? years of torture. Who knows? I agree, when editing the article we have to remember that a confession isn't tantamount to guilt, especially in a case when the conditions leading up to the confession are in great doubt Nil Einne 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the verbatim transcript of his tribunal hearing where he stated multiple times that while he'd be tortured in the past he was under absolutely no duress during this tribunal and he attests that everything he's saying is true. I'd be happy to give it to anyone who wants a copy. I think you can also find it at defenselink.mil.Kermitbuns 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that a false extraction was extracted by torture. There was a time when a confession given to the Americans could have been taken reasonably seriously, but now that the U.S. is run by advocates of torture, confessions announced by the Americans are on a par with those announced by tin-pot dictatorships. 82.18.125.110 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the transcript: [2] I find it seriously dubious. First of all that one man could possibly be responsible for all of what's listed, and second that it was a voluntary confession. Graft 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Credible sources are coming out saying KSM is admitting to "organising from A-Z" incidents he had little part in and is also exagerating much of what he has done. I've added a couple of paragraphs with cites to give a more balanced (NPOV) view of the charges. Wayne 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a though....if KSM is confessing to "planning, organising and financing" almost every terrorist attack for the last 15 years.....does that mean Osama bin Laden really is innocent? lmao Wayne 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy

I think a reference to Ron Jeremy should be made in the article; comments in the news have been made on the similarities of the picture of his arrest and Ron Jeremy.VincentG 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Too subjective. Peter Grey 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar?

In March 2007, at a Guantánamo Bay hearing, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing [2] in Guantanamo Bay, from which defense lawyers and media reporters were barred, that he confessed to masterminding the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks that were foiled.[2]

Any one to take on this sentence? My English is not too good so I am not editing it myself. Moreover, I couldn't understand what this means either.--Scheibenzahl 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to that sentence to try to make it a little clearer. Hopefully, it helps clear up what was being said. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And I turned the sentence around to remove the need for the passive tense which contributed to the confusion. Bazza 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead!

...apologies to fans of My Chemical Romance ;)

I recall talk radio personality Alex Jones mentioning KSM as being *dead*, as reported by mainstream media at least 2 or 3 times over the past 5 years! Does anyone else recall this, and if so do you have any external site links that might back up that claim? Maybe I'm getting KSM's name mixed up with another alleged "mastermind" who had been targeted by the U.S. during the early months of the Iraq invasion... Looks like Jones' site has a recent mention of KSM here: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/150307ultimatepatsy.htm --199.214.24.194 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Speculation

Thanks to whomever removed this line:

"If such allegations of torture have actually been made and are eventually proven, this could bring discredit to his detainment and any future conviction."

You are writing factual articles here, people, not opinion pieces! Please leave the opinions and speculations out.

Except we don't have all the facts. There are unanswered questions about his interrogations and the skepticism surrounding the "confession" is real and notable. Nonetheless, a reference to a reliable source would certainly be in order for that kind of statement. Peter Grey 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source you guys need, from the BBC [3].

But Amnesty International urged caution in assessing Mr Mohammed's statements, which it said were made without any of the normal legal safeguards."Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 'confession' was not made in a court of law but in a secret screening process that bars lawyers," said Amnesty UK spokesman Mike Blakemore."Before his six months at Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apparently held in a totally secret CIA-run prison for three-and-a-half years where he alleges torture."

Hope that helps i'm too tired to edit now. Hypnosadist 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that we don't have all the facts, but these fatwas from HRW and AI add nothing to what we know. Often somebody at HRW reads in a newspaper that So-and-so might have been tortured, whereupon HRW says that So-and-so might have been tortured. Such speculation in newspapers is as irrelevant as it is predictable, and the subsequent hearsay from HRW is even less noteworthy.

LDH 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read many Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports. I have never seen a report that was based only on what they read in a newspaper. They have always attempted to contact the victims of torture, their lawyers, and the government officials of the country involved. If you go to their websites, you can see for yourself.

They conduct extensive investigations based on interviews with eyewitnesses, meeting courtroom standards of evidence.

Can you cite a statement by AI or HRW in which they claim torture based only on a newspaper account? If not, you should retract your claim. Nbauman 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LDH you are wrong for several reasons. 1)NPOV is about the inclusion of all notable POV's (its a common mistake). 2)This is a notable POV and represents the liberal/european view of this situation that his time in secret detention as well as Gitmo makes this confession dubious. Every news story in the UK covering this confession included comment by either AI of a someone who was a Gitmo Detainee such as Moazzam Begg. Hypnosadist 07:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Why is it that we see the same two recycled pictures of him in literally every form of media? Are there any more recent ones than just these two?

shzephyr07 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

27 Aliases

"additionally known by as many as twenty-seven aliases[1]) "

Does this kind of statement need citations? I mean, this bit of information must have come from somewhere, I'd just be interested to know where. Thanks! --203.10.224.60 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scrambled Dates?

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Arabic: خالد شيخ محمد; also transliterated as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al., and additionally known by as many as twenty-seven aliases[1]) (b. March 1, 1964, or April 14, 1965)"

"He joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 75 and returned to Pakistan soon after, studied in the United States for several years, and left for Afghanistan in the 1950s where he and his brothers fought against the Soviet Union during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."

209.99.30.179 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)John Moore209.99.30.179 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Age

Born in 1965 ? - He looks like he is about 55 to 60 years old from photos

Three years of toture will do that to anyone, my friend. Bigbrisco 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a recent picture of him? Wait a second. That picture was taken the day he was captured. So I'm going to pull out my magic wand and conjure up a picture that shows his current face. Now while on the subject, I've met people that either look too young or look too old even though their age did not reflect it. ViriiK 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Only other picture I'm aware of is this (scroll to the bottom). Don't know when it taken. --Aude (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still cant get the primary source for this article

I still can't get http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf or even find defenselink.mil. As this is the most important source on this article could some one please see if therte is a mirror available. Hypnosadist 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with your country. Anyways the BBC has a copy of the transcript here. [4]. Cheers. ViriiK 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I live in the UK (wtf!). Do you think we should replace the defence.mil link with the BBC link in the article as it should be up perminently (as well as every where) with the beeb. Hypnosadist 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)