Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evidence allowed under coercion

This article claims Khalid pled guilty to the 9/11 attack, and other terrorist attacks. However, this plea actually appears to be invalid according to American and generally Western standards of justice, since as Glenn Greenwald has commented [1], the military courts at Guantanamo don't appear to use the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and do permit evidence obtained under coercion, as well as the chief prosecutor leaving after refusing to use evidence obtained under torture, and having evidence lost and destroyed. This rather makes a mockery of any claims made on this page, and I think the reader should be notified, although I'll have to think about how to put this diplomatically. - Connelly (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe WP needs a special Banner "This article refers to evidence acquired under coercion, you can help WP by acquiring evidence in this matter without using coercion.Geo8rge (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reading it the term alleged should be used more, until there is some sort of trial.

An interesting interview by the man who interrogated (Jose Rodriguez) [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Years of service

Should this phrase be used in relation to terrorists? It gives the impression that they are legitimate military personnel who are serving a nation in my opinion. Is there a better phrase that could be used? 'Years active' perhaps?

edit - Same question applies for the use of the term unit.

Charge 7c - Plaza Bank, Washington

Okay there's a conspiracy theory regarding the Plaza Tower in Seattle Washington. However, there was a 2004 Reuters link that there was an Al-Qaeda plot to hit the tallest building in Washington State which is the Columbia Center. In the Columbia Center article, it states
On June 16, 2004, the 9/11 Commission reported that the original plan for the September 11, 2001 attacks called for the hijacking of ten planes, to be crashed into targets including the "tallest buildings in California and Washington State," which would have been the Columbia Center and the U.S. Bank Tower.
Also in the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Columbia Center is one of the buildings that was planned to be attacked. In the 9/11 Commission, when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed regarding attacks in the United States, it stated
As originally envisioned, the 9/11 plot involved even more extensive attacks than those carried out on September 11. KSM maintains that his initial proposal involved hijacking ten planes to attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. He claims that, in addition to the targets actually hit on 9/11, these hijacked planes were to be crashed into CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and Washington State.
Also KIRO addresses this story. [3]
"Since al-Qaida targeted tall, high-profile targets it may be a reference to the 76-story Columbia Center, the tallest building in Washington."
Now let's go through the list in Charge 7 and compare it to Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
1. Library Tower, California. (Also known as the U.S. Bank Tower)
2. Sears Tower, Chicago, (Sears Tower)
3. Plaza Bank, Washington state. (Could either be Columbia Center or "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza")
4. The Empire State Building, New York City. (Not listed in the article)
So we got 2 spot on charges with 1 confusing, and one that was not known. Even the 9/11 Commission didn't mention this. However they were accurate in stating that Al Qaeda does target high-rise skyscrapers. ViriiK 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The number of alias' Khalid has should be at least fifty instead of 27. The source comes from research done in Rohan Gunaratna's book INSIDE AL QAEDA J. Kubicki Jr. 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkubickijr (talk • contribs) {{{2}}} I thought Wikipedia was only supposed to address factual things? The statement from the Pentagon says "Plaza Bank" - nothing more, nothing less. You are speculating - they clearly state "Plaza Bank".

I created an article on Plaza Bank (which was founded in 2006, he allegedly wanted to bomb it < 2003!!). That's the US administrations fault, not Wikipedias. This page had references to the Plaza Bank website and all. That page suddenly vanished, there isn't even a delete history. Nobody has even out of politeness sent me a message on my talk page so I don't know who deleted it or why.

I MUST SAY I AM DISGUSTED WITH WIKIPEDIA'S ACTIONS ON THIS.

I've edited this article to put the facts back in, and will think about remaking the Plaza Bank article tomorrow unless someone else wants to. HighTouch 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not create facts based on what you observe without citations. If you have a relevant article that addresses this issue. Bring it up. But I reverted your change because you have nothing to support your argument. You relying on your own opinion to prove facts. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh!? Have you not read the full transcript from the US administration where they say "Plaza Bank"? That is the only info about these charges, straight from the horses mouth, which the media have based ALL their reports on. Did you not see that Plaza Bank in Washington is: http://www.plazabankwa.com/ - founded in 2006? Is you duty on Wikipedia to cover-up US government screw-ups, or to write articles based on the available information? HighTouch 07:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However you're still basing your opinion based on your observation that since the Plaza Bank may have been constructed in 2006 but you still have no citations to support this argument. I already brought to you KIRO News which stated that it's most likely in reference to the Columbia Center (Bank of America) or or "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza". Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza is adjacent to Columbia Center here [4]. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the official document says "Plaza Bank" then it is "Plaza Bank" unless the US authorities state they have made a mistake and correct it. Mainstream news channels and "most likely in reference to" don't wash with me. US govt said "Plaza Bank". Unless you have evidence otherwise (i.e. denial or confirmation of error from US govt) then you are IMHO vandalising or removing factual elements from this article. HighTouch 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then find a source to corroborate your argument. Not your opinion. ViriiK 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf - The only official document. Any media discussions are opinion. This document clearly states Plaza BANK. Please stop edit-waring and discuss here HighTouch 07:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You've shown me the transcript which we all know about. But you're creating another issue about Charge 7c which you take issue with. Find me the New York Times, anything that takes issue with Charge 7c and I'll gladly support you. Until then, I'll be keeping it out until it's properly cited. ViriiK 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've called into administrator intervention since you're making this a personal issue. ViriiK 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. My edit was before yours, I'm the new user so you're supposed to welcome me nicely. So why don't we try to be grown up and leave it at my edits until admin arrives?

Your edit fails the rules of wikipedia. We are not supposed to make facts on the spot. The reason why wikipedia is frowned upon in the eyes of the world is because people are able to insert their opinions, false information, and many more. That's why we have Wikipedia:Citing sources which you didn't follow whatsoever. ViriiK 07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's not my opinion! It's from the guys own mouth! Whether he was tortured or not HE SAID IT. You're the one forming opinions saying it might be this or it might be that. HighTouch 07:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that takes issue with Charge 7c? Yes or no? You're the one attacking me on the basis I'm doing this because of supposed "patriotism" based on my biography. ViriiK 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you going on about!? THere's only one source - that is the transcript as released here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf (we've already been through this). Does that document say "Plaza Bank, Washington". YES or NO?

I've already stated this. You as the sole person take issue with the charge. I have provided argument contrary to your opinion such as [5], 9/11 Commission, and even a 2004 Reuters news story. Where is yours? All I see are opinions. ViriiK 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a lie. 201.231.185.144 created it. WLRoss edited it. They go to sleep, you remove their changes, I revert back. That's 2 additional people at least who might have issues with your changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighTouch (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, I would like to remind all parties to this dispute of the WP:3RR. Remember the fact that someone else has violated the 3RR doesn't allow you to violate is as well. Secondly, I have to agree with ViriiK on this one. The addition appears to be Wikipedia:Original Research to me. Unless some other Wikipedia:Reliable source has noted this, it is not up to us to make an issue out of it. Nil Einne 08:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean I can edit the September 11th article then, debunking all the official theories using my own research? Or does this only apply to removing things that make the US government look bad/silly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighTouch (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Um, I don't really know how to answer that since you seem to have completely misunderstood our policies. Wikipedia has a policy that disallows contributors from adding original research to wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Attribution is the correct policy to look at nowadays.). Everything needs a Wikipedia:Reliable source to back it up. If there were a reliable source mentioning the fact that the mention of plans to blow up Plaza Bank doesn't make sense since it didn't exist until 2006, then we could probably mention it in the article. However we cannot make this inference ourselves and put it on wikipedia. BTW, you might want to calm down a bit on the rheoteric. If you do some research on my contribs, even take a look at this page, you may realise I don't particularly like the US government nor do I trust them. However this doesn't mean I want to allow original research in the article either. Nil Einne 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The US statement says "Plaza Bank, Washington", we are agreed on that now I believe. Plaza Bank (Washington) website - http://www.plazabankwa.com/about.asp states "Founded in early 2006, with a vision...."

Now please correct me if I'm wrong - but I was of the understanding that 2006 came after 2003. Was it not correct to state fact in the article? I didn't form my own opinions about why the mistake (or cover up) was there. I simply stated the 2 facts, and the date discrepancy. I can't see how these 3 things can be argued. HighTouch 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this better. If you put together facts in such a way to lead a reader to come to some conclusion, then it may be original research. You don't have to explicitly link the facts. In this case, there are 20 or so targets mentioned in the report I believed. I'm pretty sure we don't mention all of them. This is not surprising since, amongst other things, the transcript is a primary source so we have to take care when using it (again check out Wikipedia:Attribution). Currently, we only mention the ones that have gained the attention of other reliable sources which is probably what we should be doing. The only reason why anyone is mentioning Plaza Bank, as opposed to the other targets or other details that are in the transcript is because it has come to the attention of people that the Plaza Bank which many assume he is referring to was not in fact completed until 2006. Were it not for this fact, it is unlikely we would mention it. For this reason, it is original research for us to mention Plaza Bank at all. If we already mentioned Plaza Bank for whatever reason then potentially (my gut instict, haven't thought about it in depth) it may be okay for us to mention that it wasn't completed until 2006 (this would depend on several factors like whether there was doubt about which Plaza Bank was be referred to). Nil Einne 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this Plaza Bank thing a bit more and have now realised ViriiK has already pointed out a bigger hole in this issue. There appears to be great doubt about what was actually mention by Plaza Bank. Sources [6] appear to believe it may have been a reference to the Columbia centre or something else. Whatever the case, it is clearly OR for us to try and make any claim about whether or not the Plaza Bank existed, given that reliable sources don't agree with that the Plaza Bank referred to is the one your referring to. You might try and argue they're just letting their biases get in the way. Even if this is true, it is not up to us to try and come up with a novel intepretation. That is the very definition of OR. (I should add this whole thing seems a little silly to me. There are many, many problems with the whole KSM thing including the fact he was held in places unknown for 3 years and may have been tortured and the fact that there are very good reasons why he might want to lie or boast. Many sources have in fact questions the veracity of what it is claimed he has said. Most however aren't nitpicking over every single detail but looking at the bigger picture. Even if this whole thing is a hoax, it seems rather unlikely that anyone would make such a major error as to pretend he was trying to blow up something that didn't exist.) Nil Einne 09:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi i can't get the http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf link to work, or even find the site. Is this a USA location access only site? Hypnosadist 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted paragraph was NPOV and while not appropriate for inclusion on it's own merits is appropriate because it is consistant with other false claims and exaggerations KSM made in his confession. Why do we need a reliable source for a known fact? KSM has admitted planning an attack on a building he didn't know existed. I wasn't happy with the original paragraph which is why I added Mohammeds actual words to confirm he did say that building.

There is this mention from a reliable source but whatever he may have meant it is not what he actually said and it is POV to explain his statement away by substituting other buildings until there is an official explanation of the error. The fact that answers so far have been "no comment" is worrying and another reason for inclusion until disproved.

'Plaza Bank' in Washington on al-Qaida list

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thursday, March 15, 2007

SEATTLE -- A document released by the Pentagon says the "Plaza Bank" in Washington was on al-Qaida's list of targets.

Since al-Qaida targeted tall, high-profile targets it may be a reference to the 76-story Columbia Center, the tallest building in Washington.

The document is the censored transcript of the closed-door tribunal at Guantanamo Bay for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (HAH'-leed shayk moh-HAH'-med). It says he confessed to planning Nine Eleven and 30 other plots.

Another downtown Seattle bank is the "Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza."

Seattle F-B-I agent Ray Lauer says he could not comment on what Mohammed might have meant or whether the F-B-I was previously warned to take any special precautions involving such a bank. Wayne 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"including six months of torture at Guantanamo Bay"

Where is the source for this? Is it me or does that scream POV? ViriiK 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is undeniable that torture as defined by the Geneva Convention is common in Gitmo as it was admitted in the Senate Armed Forces Committee report in 2005 but it is legal under current US law (if the torture leaves no permanent physical injuries) because Gitmo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Convention, (however there have been 3 confirmed fatalities due to legal "approved" torture). Source: ABC Nov 2005.

According to the CIA KSM was tortured from March 2003 to at least mid 2004 (multiple CIA sources including the CIA IG John Helgerwon.) Source: New York Times Nov 2005. However it was in a secret location in eastern Europe and there is no info on what was done after he arrived in Gitmo apart from HRW reports so any mention of there should include the word "alledged" to comply with NPOV. Wayne 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, the article should not state, as a fact, that KSM was tortured—it is too prone to trigger revert wars, among other reasons. But, where, in heaven's name, did you get the idea that the Guantanamo captives are not covered by the Geneva Conventions? -- Geo Swan 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You misread my post. I said the word "alledged" should be used when torture is mentioned (the last line).

As for your question. I provided the source for that paragraph (ABC Nov 2005). Here is another.

Quote from the Chicago Tribune July 14 2005:

"Despite the harshness of these tactics, it is not clear that they violated any law...the Bush administration has said the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to the Guantanamo detainees, saying they are suspected terrorists rather than prisoners of war."

The Geneva Convention in it's entirety did not apply at all from Jan 2002 to June 29 2006 when the Supreme Court (Hamden Vs Rumsfeld) ruled that denying the Convention to detainees was illegal. In August 2006 the US War Crimes Act draft amendment was released to permit "physical, mental, or sexual violence" (banned by the Geneva Convention) as long as the methods used do not cause permanent physical injury. The draft also exempted civilian interrogators from liability. I'm unsure if this has been ratified since then. Wayne 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying that the Guantanamo captives are not covered by the Geneva Conventions simply because President Bush says they are not covered? Heck. I already knew Bush and his crowd said that his detainee policy is legal.

Surely you have a better argument that the USA complied with the Geneva Conventions than that President Bush assured you the USA was in compliance? He assured the world that Saddam possessed a vast arsenal of WMD that was ready for immediate use.

The Bush administration tried to skate over the clear meaning of article five of the third Geneva Conventions. They tried to claim the USA wasn't obliged to convene "competent tribunals" to consider whether the captives were civilian refugees, or lawful combatants entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because "they didn't have any doubt".

What Article five says is that captors are obliged to convene a competent tribunal "should doubt arise" over their proper status. That was what Rasul v. Bush was about. The assertion that they didn't need to convene competent tribunals, because they didn't have any doubts even the General who was hand-picked to have authority over the Guantanamo military commissions stated that it was his legal opinion that doubt existed over the status of any captive who claimed he wasn't a combatant, or claimed he qualified for POW status.

The Bush administration is flouting the Rasul v. Bush ruling. The SCOTUS ruled that the USA had to convene a venue where the captives could learn the allegations against them. The SCOTUS recommended that the DoD design a procedure modeled after the Tribunals described in AR-190-8. I went to AR-190-8, and read what it had to say about how Tribunals should be conducted, and the authority the officers who convened an AR-190-8 tribunal had.

The officers who convene an AR-190-8 Tribunal have the authority to:

• determine that the captive actually is a lawful combatant, who is entitled to the protections of POW status.
• determine that the captive is not any kind of combatant, after all, is a civilian refugee, who should be classified as a Geneva Convention "protected person", who should be freed immediately, or if that is not possible, because it is not safe, because that would put him or her in the middle of a battlefield, he or she should be sent to a humanely run refugee camp.
• determine that the captive has done something that is a breach of article four of the third Geneva Convention, so they should be stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

You will hear a lot of BS from the Bush administration, and their apologists, that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals fulfilled the USA's obligations to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But this assertion is clearly demolished if one reads Moazzam Begg's Tribunal documents. The President of his Tribunal, and OARDEC's legal advisor, explicitly state that the Tribunals are not authorized to consider whether the captives qualify for POW status.

Article five says that, until a captive had had a "competent tribunal"—one like those described in AR-190-8—not one like the CSRTs, which determines that the captive is not entitled to the protections of POW status, all captives must be accorded all the protections of POW status.

None of the captives have had a competent tribunal, one that satisfies the USA's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. So, all of the captives should have been accorded all the protections of POW status. That means no torture. It also means no humiliation. It means no sleep deprivation. It means no "dietary manipulation". It means that captives must not be compelled to answer any questions beyond, "name, rank and serial number".

As for the article four, for captives, who were combatants, to be considered lawful combatants, they have to:

• carry arms openly.
• wear a fixed, distinctive marking, visibile from a distance (generally paraphrased as they have to wear a uniform... but it doesn't actually say they have to wear a uniform...)
• answer to officers, who are responsible for their actions, who answer up a chain of command.
• finally, they can't violate the laws and customs of war—ie, no atrocities, no summary battlefield executions, no raping, looting, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

I read a transcript of a debate Alberto Gonzalez had on PBS with a senior law professor who was a habeas corpus lawyer for a Guantanamo captive.

• Gonzales acknowledged that practically everyone in Afghanistan carries an AK-47, so he was willing to acknowledge that the "carrying arms openly" factor didn't apply.
• However Gonzales argued that the other factors did apply.
  • Gonzales's argued that it was well-known that the Taliban were just a mob. I direct your attention to the second allegation that Khirullah Khairkhwa faced.
    • "Detainee was appointed the governor of Herat Providence 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."
    • Hello! Gonzales claim that the Taliban was "a mob" is diametrically opposed to the interpretation of military intelligence analysts who drafted this allegation. Is there any question that what they described, fully complies with the obligation that lawful combatants answer to officers, who answer for them, up a chain of command? Now Khairkhwa says he was only responsible for the Police, that the military forces were a separate command, who answered to Mullah Omar. That doesn't matter. Whether they answered to Khairkhwa, who answered to Omar, or they answered to a General officer, who answered to Omar, they answered up a chain of command, to Omar.
  • Gonzales argues that the Taliban didn't wear a uniform. However some of the Guantanamo captives were detained, in part, because they had been issued with what the Guantanamo military analysts called a "Taliban uniform".
  • Gonzales argued that it was well known that the Taliban routinely committed atrocities. This is unjust. No one is suggesting that all American GIs are war criminals because Steve Green and his pals invaded that teenage girl's home, killed her family, then raped, and murdered her. No one is suggesting that all American GIs are war criminals because of the killings at Haditha. A lot of the captives association with the Taliban was completely involuntary. After decades of warfare Afghanistan has a terrible need for skilled people. Even being able to read and write could get you conscripted into their civil service. Their armed services were filled with conscripts recruited at gunpoint. To hold an involuntary conscript responsible for an atrocity committed by someone else, when they weren't even present, is extremely unjust. I strongly suspect that only captives who actually committed the atrocity, or the officers responsible for their behavior, can be stripped of lawful combatant status for that atrocity.

I think the Supreme Court clearly intended that the Tribunals the DoD come up with were in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, that they intended that the Tribunals were authorized to recognize which captives were actually civilians the USA was obliged to free immediately, and recognize which qualified for the protections of POW status. That is why the told the DoD to model their Tribunals after the AR-190-8 Tribunals. I suspect that the only reason they didn't tell the DoD they had to use AR-190-8 Tribunals was as a concession to the executive branch's claim that they needed a procedure that allowed them to preserve "national security" secrets.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

rm unsupported speculation

An anonmymous ID [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed&diff=151296879&oldid=150516288 strongly implied that Ali Khan had been trained by al Qaeda to lie about his sons torture. This allegation is both speculative, and unsourced.

Various Bush administration and DoD spokesmen have defended the conduct of captives jailer and interrogators against accusations of abuse and torture by claiming that captives taken during the the war on terror have been training to lie about torture. Sometimes they cite a captured document called the Manchester Manual. Apologists for US personall accused of torture claim this manual instructs its readers to lie about torture, if captured.

My reading of the two relevant chapters of the manual are that the manual does not instruct its readers to lie about torture. The manual was written during the late 1990s. Its intended audience were fundamentalists whose likely captors were countries known to make routine use of torture. Rather than instruct its readers to lie about torture, it tries to prepare them for the inevitable torture they will experience, and to prepare them to make their reports of torture credible.

The manual counsels its readers, if captured, to do everything they possibly could, if captured, to get a full medical examination, prior to their interrogation. This medical examination would provide a baseline, so they could prove that the scars inflicted by torture were not due to a pre-existing condition. This is complely the opposite strategy for captives to take if they were going to lie about torture, because that early medical examination would undermine lies about torture.

The anonymous IP contributor didn't cite any references for the implication that Ali Khan was trained by al Qaeda. I am extremely skeptical that Ali Khan ever received any al Qaeda training. Ali Khan lives in the USA, but he is not a US citizen. He is a legal resident, with political refugee status. If any US security officials had any credible proof that Ali Khan had possessed a copy of the Machester Manual I strongly suspect he would be stripped of his right to reside in the USA.

The allegations against Majid Khan contained many allegations that his father and other relatives had denounced him as a terrorist. His father Ali Khan and his other relatives denies this allegation. Majid Khan wanted to call upon the testimony of his relatives, to dispute those allegations. His relatives were told that travel to Guantanamo would count as leaving the USA, and they were warned that if they did testify on Majid Khan's behalf, they could not count on being readmitted to the USA. If Ali Khan na the other relatives faced deportation for flying to Guantanamo to testify on Majid Khan's behalf then it is completely unreasonable to suggest that the USA would tolerate Ali Khan receiving al Qaeda training.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged terrorist activities" or just "Terrorist activities"

I think it's best to include the word "alleged" in the heading because:

• The guy is still alive (as far as we know) so the special libel considerations are applicable.
• The long list of possible activities is unrealistic - he could not possibly have been involved, let alone the driving force, behind all these attacks and attempted attacks.
• Anyway, it makes no difference if it says "alleged" - readers understand that the word is necessary and make up their own mind.

--RenniePet (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The acts are NOT alleged. Mohammed has admitted to being the mastermind behind 9/11 and has already said that he will happily plead guilty at his trial. I would fix it, but it appears the Powers that Be are solidly left of center and would just revert it...as what happened with my edit about the "happily transmitted mugshot" that violates Wiki POV and bias guidelines.198.189.58.254 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually from my understanding he is now intending to plead Not Guilty in order to be allowed to argue his case. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "the Powers that Be are solidly left of center and would just revert it", you mean they insist on accuracy and reliable sourcing, I think you are selling the "right of center" folks short - some of them insist on accuracy, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a reliable source. Wikipedia shouldn't trust that his words are the truth about anything. "Alleged" is the appropriate term to use here. Wildbear (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Guantanamo: Lack of photographic evidence

No photo or video appears to have been released of Mohammed from his military trial, only artists' impressions. From a search of Google Images, the latest photos appear to be from his arrest in Pakistan in 2003.

I remember that in a video from Guantanamo a year or so ago, supposedly of Mohammed, a man was seen bowing and praying, but his face was not visible. ...

Frank Freeman (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Trial and execution

• I guess that the trial would take place in Guantanamo itself, but what about the execution and the execution technique. Would they use lethal injection ? Where would it take place ? Hektor (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dude, they haven't even started the trial, let alone convict him. Having said that, I guess it would be lethal injection if he ever gets executed. F (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First clause

Shouldn't the first clause read inter alias not inter alia? I thought the choice alia/alios/alias depended on the gender of the noun being referred to and name was f hence alias is alias for other (name) but its 25 years since I did Latin? Inter alia is among other things (alia is neuter) but not among other names? --BozMo talk 09:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many aliases?

Contradiction whithin the article; the opening paragraph claims that Khalid Mohammed has "more than fifty" aliases, while the infobox claims "as many as twenty-seven." Which is it? 216.235.8.118 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Role of Children

The paragraph referencing source 46 says that fears for his children may well have played more of a role in his confession than his own torture. I read the article quoted, and to me it says almost the opposite; that it could have been a factor, but that he told far more than was needed to protect a family member. Anyone agree/disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verloren (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Information about his September 2008 trial should be added. Badagnani (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos

The photos on the page appear to be of Saddam Hussein, not KSM. I don't have time to fix this now, as I'm working on a report for school, but the first one sure looks like Saddam to me, and the second one may be of him too.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I did a reverse image lookup and they are legitimately pictures of KSM according to countless news websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.208.186 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You might not have seen the originals, but I'm pretty sure that's the same picture that appeared on the front pages when Saddam Hussein was captured...no matter what your reverse image lookup says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.148.154 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The current photo with a headdress certainly looks like Osama bin-Laden , not KSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.219 (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Mr Mohammed the world record holder?

183 water tortures seems like it might be the most officailly recognized.

he doesn't deserve to be on any world record, he's a freaking terrorist and deserves to be tortured and water-boarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning38 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • WP articles often quote such statistics, for example Eddie Bunker was the youngest prisoner at SQ ever.Geo8rge (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

interrogations yielded information to stop plots?

Karl Rove and a number of other Republican luminaries have stated on Fox News and elsewhere that waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation techniques" applied to KSM yielded information that helped prevent the attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and there are reports that the CIA has confirmed this: http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

However, George Bush stated that that attack was thwarted in 2002, while this article states that KSM wasn't arrested until March 1, 2003. Is the arrest date wrong, or are Karl Rove, the CIA, et. al. lying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.197.230 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Barring a time machine, the time line just doesn't make sense. The argument being put forth is essentially that after the first plot was foiled, some AQ members still thought it was a good idea. One of the more prominent members of this group was later caught, which could have conceivably been because of the waterboarding of KSM, but

“To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,”
said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with
departmental guidelines. http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/nation/na-terror

PantsB (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That George W. Bush, and his officials, claimed this or other plots were real, and were thwarted, is verifiable. Whether this plot, or other plots, were actually real, is not verifiable. Our coverage of the claims that torture saved lives has to be written from a neutral point of view. Which means we absolutely have call these unsubstantiated claims what they are -- claims. Geo Swan (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

explanation

Someone added acute accents to every instance of "Guantanamo".

I reverted it.

We had a long discussion, several years ago, as to when accents should be used. The consensus was that Spanish place names should have the accent, and English place names should not. So the article on the Cuban town has the accent, while the Naval Base does not.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy

This guy looks just like Ron Jeremy. Or is it just me? Anyone else think so? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.78.94 (talk • contribs)

Lol. Now that you mention it. Geo Swan (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New images

Those new pics look really scary, even apart from what the man has likely done. He looks like a ghost rising out of that misty white mantle, a fiend with blazing eyes and a huge black beard. If they weren't genuine you'd think they were fantasy depictions of "The Terrorist". /Strausszek (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And they hardly bear any resemblance to the man depicted in the post-capture photographs. SS451 (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• The two of you may agree the July 2009 Red Cross pictures are scary, because you think the pictures actually look scary. Please be aware that many commentators found these photos disturbing for the opposite reason -- they thought he looked avuncular, like a smiling friendly favorite uncle. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh?

Is it usual in Wikipedia to include honorific titles such as Sheikh in the titles of bio articles? --Chonak (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian site about this Islamic

This site: [Jornal do Brasil] talks about this Islamic.Agre22 (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Picture caption (POV/bias issue)

In the picture showing Sheikh Mohammed shortly after capture (looking sincerely disheveled and groggy), the caption given is a quote from an al-Qaeda sympathizer accusing the CIA of "happily" spreading the photo. I fixed this recently, but the edit was promptly reverted by what I'm assuming is a far-left Wikipedian. This CANNOT be allowed to stand. The idea of using a POV quote as an actual caption for a photo goes against everything that WP supposedly stands for. I've said my piece. Now I'm off to the George W. Bush page to insert a Michael Moore quote about how Bush looks like a "chimp" under his photograph.Don'tDrinkTheKoolAid (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Khali Shaikh Muhammad" spelling - reliable source?

Is there a reliable source available for the revised spelling of the article title, "Khali Shaikh Muhammad"? I performed a Google search, and most of the results appear to trace back to this Wikipedia article. If the article is going to use this title, it should provide some solid referencing for the title from outside of Wikipedia itself. Wildbear (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Same for me. I can not find reliable sources or reason why the article should have this spelling version as it's title. I suggest to move the article to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. IQinn (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I support that move. Go ahead and be bold. ClovisPt (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no dissent, article moved to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Wildbear (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Initials/Name

Surely his initials KSM should be placed in the lede?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider seeing the topic for the first time, it struck me as strange to have his initials used. When I saw "interrogating KSM" in a news article, I thought they meant the airline or corporation or something. It almost feels like an effort to dehumanize him. I am a native English-speaking reader, and U.S. citizen, and have no problem reading his full name, or any problem with him being waterboarded, when he has a name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Why was his photo the one from his capture? This guy is horrific, no doubt, but this is also Wikipedia with standards even in regard to criminals, terrorists, and I think his main picture should be something else, not the one from his capture. That can be shown near the part where his capture is revealed in his biography. Einlanzer (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero respect for this guy, c'mon don't be a retard. 62.45.141.90 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

None of us are in a position to make such a claim. Wikipedia is meant to be as neutral as possible, and I agree on the decision to change the photo. Terrorist or not, the public should have a fair view of the situation, instead of glancing at a picture which almost immediately depicts him as a disgraceful human being. If there is another picture in the public domain, I'll be doing it myself. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 14:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the photo showing him dishevelled. I searched the talk page but couldn't find why the old photo that had been previously replaced was used again? And what happened to the replacement one from Ericleb01? I couldn't find that either. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That photo fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I've restored the other one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria but must confess don't really understand all that. Can anyone explain it in simple language please. As I understand it the photo was taken by the International Red Cross and sent to his family/relatives who then released it for public distribution. How is there then any copyright infringement by using it here? It has purposely been put in the public domain by the family.

And secondly, as I understand it, to use the dishevelled, red-eyed 'capture' photo would bean infringement of WP:BLP and WP:MUG which states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the burden is on you to show that we can use it. I am pretty tired of seeing the other picture; maybe there's a third choice, that's in the public domain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any recent 'third' option. Only much earlier photos exist in the public domain. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to include those earlier public domain photos in any case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need though? What benefit to the article would it serve? Is your reasoning along the lines that this current photo shows him in a too flattering light (i.e he doesn't look sinister enough in the photo;_)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I hardly think giving him the Sheik-crazy-eyes treatment is flattering. As far as my likes go, I like the one you uploaded better than sweaty-and-disheveled, which I'm sick of seeing anyway. I'm not convinced it's fair use, but I'm waiting to see what others think. Other pictures would be good so people could see how he looked at other times in his life. It is a biography after all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Funny thing about underground militants -- they don't let pictures be taken of them.
• Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy lists 10 criteria, which all have to be met. Rather than vaguely hinting that the image may not meet the criteria have you considered explicitly state which criteria you think the image may not meet? Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that the earlier images really are in the public domain, or, at least, that they are demonstrably in the public domain. (Similarly, I am not convinced the Abu Ghraib images are clearly in the public domain.) Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"...have you considered explicitly state which criteria you think the image may not meet?" No. The burden is on the person who wants to include the image. Neither am I an expert on image policy. And I prefer this one to the other, for whatever that's worth. Presumably if free images are available someone will find them and add them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• You say you are not an expert on image policy? Okay, we list 10 criteria in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, and we have a {{non-free fair use rationale}} template, which is supposed to summarize why the uploader thought the image satisfied those criteria.

  If you suspect you have a valid concern that a non-free image doesn't satisfy the criteria for fair use, I suggest the responsible thing to do would be to read the rationale on the image's description page. Once that rationale template has been filled out, why shouldn't it then become the responsibility of the challenger to try to be specific about their concerns? Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

is there second death penalty

in such strong cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

still unclear; in heed is a text:

He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission

When he was murder by this commission and where (probably in some top secret prison) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

List of confessions

All of these plots can also be referred to as 'Second Oplan Bojinka'.

This is research unsupported by refs and request it should be deleted. "Can be" by whom??

92.14.230.191 (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Report says KSM killed Pearl

Here's a source:

• CNN Wire Staff. "Report: Senior al Qaeda leader personally beheaded Daniel Pearl." CNN. January 20, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks release of Guantanamo Bay files

There is a lot of information regarding this person released on Wikileaks recently, that could be added to this article.

http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/prisoner/10024.html Terrorist96 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But be careful with primary sources. That needs to be interpreted in context. It would be better to use only the information that come from secondary sources that have analysed these documents. There are already some. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports. IQinn (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Photograph Revisited

I understand why the image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his capture was removed, but there are some fairly neutral images floating around, and I think we should consider discovering their copyright status - I imagine that many are products of the US Government, which makes them available to Wikipedia to use. For example:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/72215

This series was taken at "Gitmo". I don't know by whom, but looking at a Google Image Search for this guy revials quite a few images that most would consider "unbiased", and surly at least *some* are products of government employees... 76.22.32.86 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• In 2009, the International Committee of the Red Cross -- which has the responsibility of monitoring whether belligerents comply with the Geneva Conventions, won permission from the camp authorities to take pictures of the captives -- for the captives' families. I believe they won permission to take pictures of all the captives. Who owns the IP rights to the images? I dunno. The way I see it:
  1. The images were "works for hire", and the rights belong to the ICRC.
  2. The images were not "works for hire", and the IP rights belong to the ICRC employee who took them.
  3. Alternately, when the images were given to the captives' families the ICRC, or the photographer, also signed over the IP rights to the family.

Some commentators marveled at how some of the captives were able to relax and joke around so that the images were playful.

• If the ICRC took images of all the captives to send to those who were corresponding with their families, then only something like five percent of those images have been republished.
• Images of about 200 captives were published in late April 2011, when they were embedded in the detainee assessment briefs. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

If it's not already mentioned in the article, please consider adding the following if you think it improves the article:

Author Laurie Mylroie, writing in the conservative political magazine The American Spectator in 2006, argues that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his family are the primary architects of 9/11 and similar attacks, and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's association with bin Laden is secondary and that al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the attack is after the fact and opportunistic. In an opposing point of view, former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing in Time magazine in 2007, asserts that George W. Bush Administration's publicizing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims of responsibility for 9/11 and numerous other acts was a mendacious attempt to claim that all of the significant actors in 9/11 had been caught.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked those references, and I think the summary you have written above is a fair and neutrally written summary of those articles. I encourage you to go ahead and add it to the article. Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Fbi gov ksm.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Fbi gov ksm.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request is contested: in addition to being sourced directly from an FBI server, this image is credited to the FBI by multiple reliable sources, including NPR here: "These undated Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) handout photos of suspected al-Qaida commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were marked with the word "Located" after Mohammed's arrest on March 1, 2003, in Pakistan", and sfgate.com (aka The San Francisco Chronicle) here "FBI photo via Associated Press". Is more attribution to the FBI needed? Wildbear (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship

About Kuwait's law on citizenship, it says something like this [7] "Children of foreigners born in Kuwait don’t have rights of local citizenship and automatically assume the nationality of the parents." This is how most Asian countries deal with citizenships. His parents were Pakistanis so he wouldn't be able to obtain Kuwaiti citizenship or nationality. Also, this makes it very clear that he didn't have Kuwait's citizenship. Many many Indians, Pakistanis and others live in Kuwait or other Arab nations but are not allowed citizenship.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Before discussing citizenship based on the notion he was born in Kuwait, it is important to confirm facts regarding his birth. The article was lacking in references, so I just made this edit citing two different dates of birth and locations. I removed the June 6, 1965 date. Someone might want to re-add that if there's reliable sources to support that. Also, since his location of birth is in dispute, I changed "Kuwait-born" to "Kuwait-raised", as the fact that he was raised in Kuwait appears to be firmly established.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPN

In case anyone's interested, there's a discussion about KSM at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age sixteen.

In regards to this edit,[8] you can cite Perfect Soldiers. I'm not sure how to figure out the page number on my Kindle app. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's at location 1970 out of 6998. I asked on the Computer Reference desk if there's a way to figure out the page number. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Mcdermott, Terry (2006-08-01). Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It. Harper Paperbacks., page 111 Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A citation template for Kindle editions might be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Using "Daily Fokus" as a reliable and unbiased source

"Bosnia, 1995" section quotes an article by Adnkronos news agency, which in turn quotes "Sarajevo paper Daily Fokus".
No such paper exists, nor did it exist at the time of the Adnkronos article.

There is however a daily paper called "Fokus", in Banja Luka.
A paper whose reliability can be at best described as questionable, described by Transparency International as "very close to the leading structures in this entity [Republika Srpska]", "very judgmental and biased in reporting" and of reporting with "obvious bias".

Which is something one should take in account when quoting news sources from Bosnia in general - as many others are listed as biased in the Transparency International report mentioned. 92.36.173.90 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I was shocked to see how some information was misrepresented.

According to The Biography Channel, U.S. Federal government, Human Rights Watch, and others, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born in Balochistan, Pakistan.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

I took the time to correct this,

--Moses Horwitz (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Arrested?

How are you "arrested by the CIA and ISI?" Can anyone explain how one would be arrested by the CIA abroad, that is outside of the US? Is the term arrested appropriate for the situation? He was taken into custody by the CIA and ISI, or more like he is being held by the CIA and ISI on war crimes? Is this a military tribunal? Forgive my ignorance but the term arrested is wrong. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also in the introduction paragraph it should be noted that he "confessed" only after extensive illegal torturing, where it has been noted that torturing does not yield accurate information.

"Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence." -

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

"Torture interrogation does not yield reliable information. The popular belief that “torture works” conflicts with effective non-abusive methodologies of interrogation and with fundamental tenets of psychology."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10781910701665550#.UZaM_XDR1SU

"I explore three principal models of how torture interrogation leads to truth: the animal instinct model, the cognitive failure model, and the data processing model. These models show why torture interrogation fails overall as a counterterrorist tactic. They also expose the processes that lead from a precision torture interrogation program to breakdowns in key institutions—health care, biomedical research, police, judiciary, and military. The breakdowns evolve from institutional dynamics that are independent of the original moral rationale."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-004-0011-y

68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Remove detailed listing of "confessed" crimes and note questions about validity of confession under torture. Also, not convicted of these - cannot be classified as criminal.Parkwells (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No info.

There is no info about if the pre.trial finish or not, and no info about a possible trial …

Also a lot of people was killed in New york, the CIA have a suspect, but the CIA don't take the suspect to the court… and the article have no info about how this can be possible…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.41.148 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep factual/cleanup

Keep to the facts rather than speculation. Do not include contemporary conflicting press accounts (reported capture in 2002). Deleted unsourced quotation. Move material on Siddiqui to her article - out of place as her trial was in 2010.Parkwells (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

In the section listing "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith" please change the word "trails" to "trials". The mistake is in the first sentence of the section. 140.185.55.86 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

Please add the following text to the end of the current section: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Suleiman Abu Ghaith. This text reflects the events and disposition of Abu Ghaith's attorney's request to have Mohammed testify.

Mohammed instead drafted a 14 page statement response to 451 interrogatories submitted by Cohen. In the response, Mohammad called Abu Ghaith, a “pious man” and “spellbinding speaker” who, to the best of his knowledge, did not play any military role in Al-Qaeda operations and had no military training. Mohammed argued that Western foreign policy has been hypocritical in that it allowed for the rise of the Mujahideen in the Soviet War, but that Western media has since branded the Mujahideen “terrorists” or “foreign fighters.” He further claimed that the Taliban’s strict Islamic rule had restored security to Afghanistan in the 1990’s. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that neither Mohammad’s statement nor testimony were relevant to Abu Ghaith’s trial, and thus inadmissible.

KDEFA (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries

In this edit an IP contributor excised almost 2K bytes with the edit summary "please. this is far below the notability requirements for this article. dont pollute this encyclopedia with tabloid trivia"

It is absolutely essential for the integrity of the project that contributors use articles's talk pages, or other fora like noticeboards, for discussing complicated or controversial issues. Placing the explanation for an edit solely in the edit summary itself should be reserved for simple or non-controversial edits.

When overly bold contributors make complicated or complex edits that they explain only in their edit summaries it represents a serious trigger to start edit warring, when a party who disagrees, with a revert, and their own brief, inadequate edit summary.

Discussions that occur solely on the talk page are much easier to read that discussion that take place largely or solely through edit summaries. Worse, the discussions that take place in edit summaries cna usually only be decoded through a time consuming stepping through and also examining the diff that shows the associated edit.

The IP addrss contributor is clearly not a newbie. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050301232732/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org:80/context.jsp?item=a96qatar to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a96qatar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110507031820/http://newstabulous.com:80/al-qaeda-hid-bomb-in-europe-wikileaks-releases-secret-files/9722/ to http://newstabulous.com/al-qaeda-hid-bomb-in-europe-wikileaks-releases-secret-files/9722/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204115106/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/723593.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/723593.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150614211901/http://www.nuclearheadlines.com/wikileaks-reveals-al-qaeda-thug-khalid-shaikh-mohammed-vowed-nuclear/ to http://www.nuclearheadlines.com/wikileaks-reveals-al-qaeda-thug-khalid-shaikh-mohammed-vowed-nuclear/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402021114/http://today.reuters.com:80/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-03-19T104004Z_01_ISL185_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-PEARL.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071207235804/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/BA2B7119-DF1D-427E-857E-5C44E3479F2A.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA2B7119-DF1D-427E-857E-5C44E3479F2A.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501061504/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/afp/20110425/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksguantanamowikileakssheikh_20110425184242 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110425/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksguantanamowikileakssheikh_20110425184242

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100112042143/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9BULOQO0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9BULOQO0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110516094433/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224587.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224587.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090913053322/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-mohammed_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4be29f6.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-mohammed_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4be29f6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Arabic: خالد شيخ محمد, Khālid Shaykh Muḥammad‎‎)... is an international terrorist held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba for acts of terrorism including the mass murder of civilians."

Can anyone explain (1) why Arabic transliteration when the guy had nothing to do with Arabic language? (2) what is an "international terrorist" (even though he is of Pakistani nationality), (3) why "terrorist" in violation of WP:TERRORIST, (4) why "held for" when Guantanamo is not a punitive institution, and (5) why suggesting he has committed anything before he has been proven guilty by a court, in violation of WP:BLPCRIME? Thanks. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)