Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;

Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 Move to "detention camp"? 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 2.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 2.2 Discussion 3 sensory deprivation? 4 Possible violation of Cuban-American Treaty 5 unbalanced 6 KSM 7 Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees - also, crazy categories here 8 Detainees? No, Prisoners of War 9 Protecting Ollie North's legitimacy 10 Rumsfeld torture law suit

[edit] Move to "detention camp"?

The Oxford English Dictionary says is "Now rare," while detention is common, used by the media, and has a derived use of detention camp, in the war of 1914-18, a camp in which aliens and others were kept under restraint; also applied to other places of incarceration.

In google stats, Wikipedia alone is basically holding up the term

• 896 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment-camp -wikipedia
• 1,070 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment -wikipedia
• 14,800 for Guantanamo-Bay-detainment

vs.

• 15,500 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention-camp -wikipedia
• 77,200 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention -wikipedia
• 81,600 for Guantanamo-Bay-detention

--Carwil 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an alternate title? -- Geo Swan 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detention camp would become the title. Guantánamo Bay detainment camp would redirect, instead of the reverse.--Carwil 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem: this US dictionary mentions 'detainment' = "detention", but also mentions the coined term 'detention camp' = "an institution where juvenile offenders can be held temporarily usually under the supervision of a juvenile court", no other meaning is indicated. Seems inappropriate. — SomeHuman 23 Jan 2007 16:06 (UTC)

Sounds like a minor concern to me, since not all compound phrases are listed in any dictionary, and someone who used that dictionary could read that detention means "Confinement; restraint; custody." We're not going to get universal dictionary coverage, but compare Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (detainment not listed, though detention centre/center shows up) and [1] (no compound phrases, both listed equally). and since "detention camp" is in broad use in the States. It's the preferred term on military websites, though they seem to avoid both (detention camp-14, 1; detainment camp-0, 0 on www.defenselink.mil, NSGtmo.navy.mil). "Detention camp" also dominates in recent news coverage (439 to 11 in recent references at Google News with Guantanamo).

FYI, the OED definition is: "detention camp, in the war of 1914-18, a camp in which aliens and others were kept under restraint; also applied to other places of incarceration". I posted this to "uncontroversial moves", but will remove if this remains a concern for you.--Carwil 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal poll here...

[edit] Requested move

[edit] sensory deprivation?

There is no mention at all of sensory deprivation in this article. There's quite a discussion as to whether or not SD occured at Guantanamo in the discussion of the sensory deprivation article, and this article should have some mention of the allegations, legal or otherwise, concerning such practices. Unfortunately, I'm without sufficient knoweldge to do the ammendments -- any takers? Paralysisordeath 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know SD was used on the flights into Gitmo as well as durring extrordinary rendition but i'll see if i can find a link. I've not heard it used as a torture method but they may have started using it after they had to stop waterboarding. Sensory overload is used, thats the loud white/pink noise. Hypnosadist 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK from the BBC [2]

"Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

I'll add more as i find it, if other people have got stuff please help. Hypnosadist 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible violation of Cuban-American Treaty

While the official position of the Cuban Government is that the treaty itself violates Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties it seems that the use of the land as a detainment camp may violate Article II of the treaty.

The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water,
and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit
the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.

A detention camp doesn't seem to be part of a naval or coaling station, but then again one could argue that it is part of the naval base, I don't know for sure but I figured that it was worth mentioning. Kc4 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting point but what you need is a secondary source (newspaper, HRW, cuban government?)to mention it then it can be included. Hypnosadist 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unbalanced

The sources and external links in this page are clearly unbalanced. Adding content that balances this article so the reader may form an independent opinion is encouraged. Tscrum 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unballanced towards whom? Who is not in the links? These are the things we need you to say. Hypnosadist 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources and external links clearly reference more negative items on gitmo than positive ones. For example, I added two references that would likely be construed by a reader to be positive outcomes of gitmo. I am not going to copy the entire list for you here. (I think I saw someone already did?) Read the sources and ask yourself if this would hurt the credibility of gitmo or help it to an unbiased reader. You will find they are clearly biased toward hurting it and therefore unbalanced. Tscrum 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK this is a common misunderstanding of wikipedia wp:NPOV rules, they do not require us to give equal space to both sides of an arguement but to weight the ballance on the basis of notable POV's. Most notable POV's WORLD WIDE are that Gitmo is wrong, with most support being in the USA naturally with Old Europe and Middle East very strongly against. The current article represents that sellections of POV's, I do think you are right that a few more external links fron Notable sources supporting Gitmo would be useful. Hypnosadist 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. Please read the rule you are quoting. It clearly states that one point of view shall NOT be given unfair weight. When 90% of the articles bash gitmo and by the way most all reference various articles all having the same POV and in most cases the same CONTENT, that is wrong. Using your interpretation, should I go add 50 other news sources that all discuss the KSM confession in a positive light? The answer to my rhetorical question is no. I stand by my belief that the sources are unbalanced. Dare I say hijacked by anti US sentiment as you eluded to. If you really wanted to create unbiased sources you would start by removing the redundancies, which would take care of about half of them. Tscrum 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right it is about what is unfair weight. "should I go add 50 other news sources that all discuss the KSM confession in a positive light?" no but Please add a good notable source saying that, as that will make it more ballanced. Just understand that outside america there is very little support for gitmo. Again anything you have from notable sources on the defence of Gitmo's legitamacy would also help. Hypnosadist 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, we've now went full-circle back to my original post. "anything you have from notable sources on the defence of Gitmo's legitamacy would also help"... now this is getting silly. The fact that it's a fully sanctioned United States Naval Base isn't enough to give it legitimacy in your mind? The sources are unbalanced and I will remove the tag when it is cleaned up. I will try to help as I find time. I am finished commenting on this. Tscrum 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KSM

khalid sheik mohammed is not mentioned and i think he should be, since he is a prime al-qaeda and is in gitmo.

[edit] Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees - also, crazy categories here

This is a severe case of WTF - there are literally dozens subcats there. ` It's:[3]

   *
     [+] Alleged Al Wafa associates
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have tried to commit suicide
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been abused in custody
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees involved in the drug trade
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have participated in their CSRT
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose allegations memo was released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have participated in their first ARB hearing
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been present at the riot at Mazari Sharif
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be a member of Jama'at al Tabligh
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose factors memo was released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee whose CSRT determined he was not an enemy combatant
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee named on a suspicious list
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees about whose identity there is some doubt
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees known to have been released
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees who face charges before a military commission
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have traveled to afghanistan for jihad
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they wore a Casio watch
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have stayed in a guest house
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who continued to be held because he led Guantanamo prayer sessions
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have fled the US bombing campaign
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have attended a suspect military training camp
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have responded to a fatwa
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee known to be under eighteen when captured
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose whose behavior in Guantanamo has been described as non-compliant
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees held because they were alleged to have possessed a satellite phone
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to have stayed in a safe house
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they were alleged to have fled through Tora Bora
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees captured on the battlefield
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee held because they were alleged to have fled the US bombing campaign
   *
     [+] Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives whose request for witnesses was denied
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives whose request for exculpatory evidence was denied
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees whose mental health is in question
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be associated with Taliban
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees about whose mental health is in question
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who had a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captives who have reported or experienced religious abuse
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees allegedly an Osama bin Laden bodyguard
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainees alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive whose enemy combatant status was reviewed by a CSRT
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee who expressed confusion during his Tribunal
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive who claims to be a civilian
   *
     [+] Guantanamo captive who claims to be a humanitarian worker
   *
     [+] Guantanamo detainee alleged to be associated with Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin

Holy crap! Someone contact Wiki admins or something, because it's completely ridiculous.

Also:

Categories: Cleanup from March 2007 | All pages needing cleanup | Articles lacking sources from June 2006 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with weasel words | Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty | 2002 establishments | Anti-terrorism policy of the United States | Buildings and structures in Cuba | Civil rights abuses | Concentration camps | Detention centres for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States | Guantanamo Bay Naval Base | Human rights abuses | Political repression in the United States | Prisons | Terrorism | Torture in the United States of America

???? --HanzoHattori 06:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can see that you feel a strong concern. But you seem to have forgotten to say why you are concerned.

Why are you registering your concern here, rather than in Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees?

I am leaving the rest of my reply there.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason why the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article is in the category "Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty". --HanzoHattori 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield. Challenge other's contributions all you like, so long as you can comply with wp:civ. Characterizing someone else's contribution as "crazy". is not civil.

Category:Guantanamo detainee reported to have been sold for a bounty ended up on this article through an ordinary mistake, an oversight. Your sarcasm was avoidable, and unnecessarily provocative.

I'd be very interested if you have any civil, specific, reasoned criticisms.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you forgot category "Guantanamo detainee reported to be left handed". --HanzoHattori 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to confine yourself to civil comments, that enhance the wikipedia.

I think if you had read the reply I wrote for you, over in Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees, you would see I had already addressed the concern that some of these categories give the surface appearance of triviality. However, since Guantanamo military intelligence analysts used these allegations that might seem trivial to anyone who has not read the transcripts, these allegations are among those used to justify detaining these men without charge for three years, .

Consider the possession of a Casio F91W watch — it is one of the most popular digital watches ever manufactured. Why do Guantanamo analysts consider possession of this watch a factor indicating the captive is a terrorist?

• They have reports that this model of watch has been used as the timer for time-bombs.
• They have reports that Ahmed Ressam, the Millenium bomber, bought two of these watches just prior to trying to travel to LAX.
• They have reports that one of these $15 watches was given to every graduate of a bomb-making classes, because this is the watch that they practiced on, during the course.

However, realistically, to build a time bomb a potential bomber needs more than a watch that can be turned into a timer. The bomb-builder would need other things, that are harder to get ahold of than a watch that could be bought in any middle east bazaar, or any American strip-mall. I think I can say, without revealing any secrets, that the bomb-builder would need a soldering iron, a volt-meter, and one of those tiny screw drivers. Realistically, possession of a common watch should not trigger suspicion if the owner wasn't also carrying the other items they would need.

Further, from their descriptions, at least four of the captives whose continued detention was justified because they owned a casio watch, were wearing different models. Two guys wore the casio watches with builtin calculators. Two wore the much more expensive, technically cool, Casio Prayer Watch.

I know your sarcasm is triggered because this subject is so emotionally charged, because we all feel less safe, because we all feel there is a chance we might be the victim of a terrorist bomb now. I know some people resent the efforts I make to document how well Guantanamo efforts have been working. That resentment is misplaced. Realistically, what we need in order to enhance our safety is for the decisions about how to allocate our counter-terrorism resources are made in a clear, sober, intelligent, unemotional manner. And, in order to make sober, intelligent, unemotional decisions we need to base those decisions on sober, intelligent, unenmotional intelligence.

If the Guantanamo intelligence gathers give free rein to their emotions, fabricate evidence, count on unreliable or incompetent translators, grant undue credibilty to deceitful stool-pigeon, or to unbelieveable confession extracted using "extended interrogation methods", then they are the ones who are us all at risk.

• Did they give free rein to their emotions? I think Jeanette Arocho-Burkart's smearing of her menses on her interrogation subject's face was a sign of the unprofessionalism of the Guantanamo interrogators.
• Did they fabricate evidence. Yeah. I am afraid so. Or at least stretched the captive's statements far beyond the bounds of reason. For instance, one captive faced the allegation that he saw Osama bin Laden five times. What really happened. His interrogators kept continually asking him how many times he had seen OBL. He kept telling them the truth, that he wasn't a terrorist, and had never gone for jihad training, and had never seen OBL. One time, out of frustration and boredom, he responded, "Yeah, I saw him five times, three times on CNN, and twice on Al Jazeera."
• The Guantanamo translators were notoriously unreliable. One teenage boy faced the allegation that he was an al Qaeda financier. Why? His dialect of Arabic differed from his translator's version of Arabic. The word his translator used for money was pronounced the same as the word for tomatoes in the boy's dialect. He wanted to be cooperative, so when his translator asked him, "where else would you go for tomatoes?" he listed every fruit and vegetable stall in his local bazaar. He named so many vegetable stalls that his interrogator wrote it up as an intelligence coup. He had broken an al Qaeda financier, who had given him numerous leads to al Qaeda funders — the vendors at those vegetable stalls.
• The captive's lawyers have determined that there are a very small number of captives who have denounced all the others. One captive denounced 270 other captives. There is a captive the guards and interrogators call "pimp-daddy"'. He openly bragged to his Tribunal about how much he enjoyed denouncing the other captives. He said he hated all the other captives. He hated life outside, because he had a micropenis (I am not making this up.) and he would be happy staying at Guantanamo, and continuing to denounce as many fellow captives as he could. Then there is Mohamed al-Kahtani, one of the 20th hijackers. He was deprived of sleep, given force-feeding, enemas, and IVs, so he could be interrogated 20 hours a day. By the time they "broke" him, he was hallucinating. An FBI observer recorded that al-Kahtani was sitting in the corner, gibbering, and hearing voices. Well after he "broke", al-Kahtani denounced 30 captives as OBL bodyguards. Sure enough, when you go through the allegations against the captives, you will read, time after time, "A senior al qaida operative identified the detainee as an OBL bodyguard."
• Here is another example. Over half a dozen captives face allegations that they were rounded up following a skirmish outside the village of Lejay, on February 10, 2003. These are among the very few captives who were actually captured by Americans. And they are among the very few captives who could be said to have been captured on the battlefield. After the skirmish the Americans rounded up all the local men, about 70 local men. They picked a dozen to send to HQ, and let the rest go free. Unfortunately two of the men Baridad and Rahmatullah, had names similar to senior Taliban leaders. Several of the other guys captured that day face the allegation that they were captured at the same time as the senior Taliban leaders because they were captured with men who had names similar to senior Taliban leaders.

The analysis efforts in Guantanamo clearly had no meaningful sanity checks. This puts us all at risk, because it pollutes the pool of intelligence with a lot of crap. This is not just a waste of money (over a million bucks per captive). The childishness, lack of professionalism, lack of seriousness, misplaced malice, have made all of us less safe, because our decision-making about how to allocate our counter-terrorism resources will be based on false premises. We will allocated it where it will be wasted, and we won't allocate enough where we need it.

WP:OR and WP:RS prevent putting this in article space. But, what I think can be put is the raw information of what the Guantanamo analysts used to justify continued detention — even if it doesn't pass your sanity check, or my sanity check. These seemingly trivial allegations passed whatever passed for a sanity check down in Guantanamo, and that makes them notable.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr

Lists, man. LISTS, not 40+ (!!!) sub-categories - all this would be probably on just few lists (maybe even one). I recall there's even a wiki rule on this somewhere here around. And so one person can be in several at once, right? It's absolutely enough for him to be in the category of either current Gitmo dets, or a released Gds (soon probably also executed ones, like Sheikh Mohammed guy). --HanzoHattori 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat my request that you make a greater effort to comply with wp:civ.

Yes, lists are great. I love lists too. I have already started about two dozen articles each built around a list, including:

• Casio F91W
• Khaldan training camp
• Derunta training camp
• Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat is tied to terrorism
• charities accused of ties to terrorism
• witnesses requested by Guantanamo captives

When I started them I thought each of those categories could have an article built around a list built on top of it. And, if no one starts them first, I will do so.

Have you devoted much mental energy to thinking about the allegations against the captives? Not that you have any obligation to do so — except that you are commenting, and making judgements about them. From my dialogs with earlier correspondents it has struck me that the more the correspondent seems to have accepted the Bush administration spokesmen accounts of the identity of the captives, at face value, the more likely they are to think the captives aren't notable, and they don't merit coverage in the wikipedia.

When examined, in detail, the transcripts from their Tribunals don't support the Bush administration line.

If you have a serious interest in contributing to the wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo, and related issues, I would strongly encourage you to read some transcripts for yourself. If you are one of those people who has accepted the accounts from the Bush administration at face value, I think you will find you are in for a surprise. -- Geo Swan 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BUSH LINE lol, Wikipedia:Overcategorization kthxbye. --HanzoHattori 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detainees? No, Prisoners of War

Since July 11, 2006, the US administration has reluctantly shifted their policy on Geneva Conventions after a Supreme Court decision (see this Washington Post article) (and this BBC article). Geneva Conventions do apply at GITMO This means GITMO is not a "detention camp" but a Prisoner of War Camp. This also means the captives are not "detainees", but Prisoners of War. The word "detainee" is not defined under the Geneva Conventions[4] As a matter of fact, their confinement in GITMO is another game that is being played to try to circumvent the law. GITMO is foreign property that has been leased by the United States and therefore it is the current administration's hope that laws don't apply there. This whole "detainee" schtick allows Bush and his fellow criminals can get away with bypassing due process of law and torturing Prisoners of War. The US newspapers continue the detainee propaganda although the Supreme Court has decided they are indeed Prisoners of War under Geneva. Please include the other POV in the article now.Kgrr 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Ollie North's legitimacy

One of the wikipedians working on this article excised some material that touched on Ollie North, on the basis of a perceived POV.

I left them a note four days ago, suggesting they consider rewriting passages like that on, not excision. After waiting a couple of days, and seeing them busy engaging in discussions here, but no rewrite, I rewrote the passage myself.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in your reference does it cite what you posted, and I quote you "However the only schooling the three children held in Camp Iguana ever received was the lessons they received at the camp. North's account that a released child from Camp Iguana was killed in combat, weeks after his release is at odds with the accounts of the journalists who interviewed the childrean[sic] in the weeks after their release." Without a reference this does not meet WP standards and should be removed. Please cite the reference or remove the POV. Further, defining Mullah is redundant. Please link to its wiki page directly on the first use of the word and remove the redundant definition. You may construe this as my protecting the legitimacy of North, I construe it as protecting the legitamacy of wikipedia. Tscrum 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) Their illiteracy was well documented in the Camp Iguana article, and the individual articles about the three boys.

I think you and I have different definitions of POV.

Explaining Mullah would usually not be necessary. I think it is necessary here, because of North's error. He is clearly mistaken that any of the boys was killed in the weeks following their release, because the Guardian interviews all three of them over four months later. And he was clearly mistaken to call children with one year of schooling "mullah". I picked North's account of "Mullah Shahzada" because it was the one most clearly an invention. All the references are questionable. His was just the most questionable.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay so let's say you are correct and he said Mullah in error. What does that have to with anything? How does that establish the need for a mention in an encyclopedia? Are you suggesting that your reference is more right than another reference? I am trying to understand this, but really am not. I do not see how your addition adds anything to the section. Maybe it belongs somewhere else? Tscrum 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do North's errors have to do with this article? You force me to repeat myself. I'll state it in different words.

1. Bush administration spokesmen repeatedly state that captives have "returned to the battlefield".
2. Only three names have been discussed. Abdullah Mehsud, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, and Mullah Shahzada.
3. Those three names are not on the official list. Readers who have read the Bush administration position that senior members of the Taliban managed to trick their interrogators into thinking they were simple, innocent, villagers, who could safely be released, only to, "return to the battlefield", deserve to know that this story could not possibly be true. If it were true, these men would be listed on the full official list of all the captives, which the DoD was forced to release on May 15, 2006. They are just not there. Maybe they were in Guantanamo, but in CIA custody? What we can be sure about is that they weren't confused with simple villagers.
4. Without regard to whether they were or weren't held in CIA custody in Guantanamo, Abdullah Mehsud and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar were real individuals.
5. But readers who are wondering if there is any truth, whatsoever, to the accounts of a "Mullah Shahzada" also tricked his way out of Guantanamo, only to return to the battelfield, and then be KIA, deserve to know that there is no credible evidence that "Mullah Shahzada" was anything more than a fiction. Yes, Guantanamo did contain a guy named Shahzada, Haji Shahzada. But he wasn't released until some time in 2005. Long after most account said "Mullah Shahzada" had already been killed.
6. Shahzada, the real Shahzada, was one of the 38 captives who convinced their Combatant Status Review Tribunal he had never been an "enemy combatant".
7. I read Shahzada's transcript, and those of two of the men captured with him. The real Shahzada was captured the day after a dinner party, where his other two guests were a Tajik and an Uzbek. The Taliban hated Tajiks and Uzbeks. The Taliban prohibited a long list of things — including kite-flying, movies, shaving, and cock-fighting. Shahzada and one of the other two guys he was captured with were fans of cock-fighting. Shahzada and the other guy, Abdullah Khan, were fans of dog-fighting -- also prohibitied by the Taliban. Of the many accounts of "Mullah Shahzada" death, one, the one published by a newspaper in Red China, had him dying after Haji Shahzada, the real Shahzada, was released. But, his involvement with people the Taliban hated, and his involvement with activities the Taliban prohibited, make me think it was very unlikely he chose to start fighting the Americans.
8. All of the invented accounts of "Mullah Shahzada" are inconsistent with the DoD's official lists of captives. I could have listed all of them, every one I could find, and countered it with the verifiable, authoritative explanations why it was not credible. Instead I picked North's account, because his was the least credible, because it had more wrong with it than the others.

Do you understand now?

This not about North. It is about the credibility of the claims that Mullah Shahzada, a Taliban leader who had tricked his way out of Guantanamo. I picked the least credible account. North's.

Am I suggesting my references are "more right" than North's reference? Yes, of course. Did you do me the courtesy to actually check my references?

North's version	other journalists	officially acknowledged by DoD
"Mullah Shahzada" was a child, held in Camp Iguana	Only three children were held in Camp Iguana. None of them was named "Mullah Shahzada".
North's account, like the other reports who wrote about "Mullah Shahzada", claimed he was a Guantanamo captive.		There is no record of a Guantanamo captive named "Mullah Shahzada". The official Guantanamo lists put the captive's honorific titles as if they were first names — their spreadsheet, or whatever they used to record the names, did not grok individuals who only had a single name. Many Afghans don't have a first name, or last name, they only had a single name. Shahzada, the real Shahzada, being an example.
Mullah Shahzada was KIA weeks after his release from Camp Iguana. The boys were release on January 29, 2004 So, by North's account, "Mullah Shahzada" was KIA in mid February 2004.	The three boys were interviewed, live, and in person, by multiple journalists, as late as four and a half months following the boys release. I believe live and in person interviews trump North's uninformed speculation.	Haji Shahzada, the real Shahzada went through a Combatant Status Review Tribunal The first ones were held in August 2004, and the last in January 2005. If he had his CSRT in Guantanamo, in late 2004, how could he have been killed in early 2004.
"Mullah" means "educated man".	All the interviews with the boys state the boys were illiterate when the arrived in Guantanamo	Various DoD spokesmen have also reiterated when the boys arrived in Guantanamo they were illiterate. The schooling that was provided to the three boys was one of the very few good news stories from Guantanamo. This is why they kept repeating it.

If you are going to keep discussing these issues, can I ask that you take a minute to check other people's references, before you dispute them, OK?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumsfeld torture law suit

It has just been thrown out of court yet the court says torture happens. [5] Hypnosadist 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)