Talk:Hisham Bin Al Bin Amor Sliti

Should this article be deleted?
Is this person notable? Is there a neutral point of view? Does the article contain original research? Joaquin Murietta 15:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC) In response to your qusetions: That pretty much sums it up. --Apyule 15:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm pretty sure that he is.
 * 2) Yes.
 * No.

AfD result
&mdash; J I P | Talk 06:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

charges against Sliti?
A couple of changes were made to the article today. While the may improve the readability of the article, I am concerned that they reduce its accuracy and verifiability.

One of the sentences I am concerned about says:
 * "Like other Guantanamo Bay detainees, charges against him have not been revealed."

In the interests of accuracy I think it is important to distinguish between charges, and allegations.

Ten of the detainees have been "charged" -- but not before conventional court of law, or before a military courts martial. The Bush administration announced that a limited number of detainees would be "charged" before special military commissions.

You realize that they can't be charged in US courts? That was the conclusion of the FBI agents assigned to the interrogation unit at Guantanamo Bay. Too many of their rights had been abrogated, they concluded. The FBI has boycotted the interrogations since then.

Many legal experts, at the time, criticized the use of these military commissions, rather than laying charges in ordinary courts of law, or military courts martial. The military commissions are not courts martial. They lack the established precedences and rules of evidence of courts of law and military courts martial.

In 2004 the DoD initiated a new, unprecedented procedure -- the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Geneva Conventions requires the USA to conduct an open review of any enemy captive from whom they wish to strip the Geneva Convention protections of POW status. This open review -- "competent tribunal" is what article 5 of the third Geneva Convention call it, is not particularly onerous. Its purpose is to make sure captors don't round up captives in a totalitarian fashion, and hold them for reasons that have nothing to do with their combatant status, or whether they violated the laws and customs of war.

Those Combatant Status Review Tribunals didn't contain "charges". But they did outline "allegations". Take a look at the Denbeaux study article, which needs a lot of fleshing out, so I encourage you to take a look at the references too. Law students at Seton Hall University did a methodical study of the allegations against the 517 detainees present when the Combatant Status Review Tribunals started. At that time the names had all been redacted from the documents the DoD had voluntarily released. They had also been forced to release many dossiers, or the unclassified portions thereof, under Freedom of Information Act requests. Those documents didn't redact the detainees name.

In theory the DoD was supposed to have released unredacted versions of the allegations on March 3rd.

Anyhow, what the Denbeaux study found was that only 8% of the Guantanamo detainees were accused of being fighters. 55% of the detainees were not tied to hostile acts.

These allegations aren't charges, for any meaningful definition of "charges". Charges, as understood in a court of law, allow a suspect to know the evidence against them. Feel free to take a look at the transcripts of some of those tribunals, and judge for yourself how close the allegations come to being charges. Consider Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari. Three allegations.
 * 1) Traveled to Afghanistan following 9-11. Al Kandari adknowledges this, but he said he traveled there for humanitarian purposes, from the heart-rending pictures of refugees on the evening news.  Not something everyone would do.  But those three human-rights workers who were released a week or so ago did.  And Marla R, the gal who shamed the USA into compiling a count of how many civilian casualties were occuring traveled to Iraq for the same reason Al Kandari claimed.
 * 2) His name was found on another al Qaeda suspects hard drive. Well, his dossier spells his name six different ways.--  How credible is a claim that someone's name is found on a hard drive, when the intelligence officials managing his paperwork can't even spell his name consistently?  Further Al Kandari told them he had played on the National volleyball team.  Even Al Qaeda terrorists might be volleyball fans.
 * 3) The final allegation is that he was captured wearing a Casio F91W digital watch. The allegation says that this is the watch terrorist bombmakers use to make timebombs.  There is something really disturbing about this allegation.  A thirty second google image search for an Casio F91W shows several dozen catalog sites selling this watch.  It is a popular, widely available watch, with a countdown timer and daily alarm.  Otherwise not featureful.  But Al Kandari describes his watch, in detail.  The user chooses from among major cities spread around the world, to tell the watch where they are located -- or alternately they enter the longitude and latitude.  The watch then uses this info the automatically ring out the five times call to prayers a good muslim is supposed to make.  And his watch points to Mecca.  It has a compass, you point its needle to north, and an LCD array points to Mecca.  Actually kind of technically cool.  A few more minutes to figure out that a google search for "Casio prayer watch" will find images of the watch that was most likely his. It costs about five times as much as the F91W.  If Al Kandari had really been charged, by real cops, they would have done a basic sanity test, to double-check whether the evidence was solid.  Really, less than fifteen minutes to demolish this allegation.  Maybe, you are thinking, the Tribunal officers directed someone to check to see whether there was anything to Al Kandari's shock over learning of this allegation?  Nope.  This allegation is repeated in his Administrative Review Board hearing.

Or take a look at the shocking case against Murat Kurnaz. The secret portion of his dossier was accidentally declassified.

In short, there is a really important distinction between charges, real charges, before a real court of law, and allegations which may not have any real substance.

The Administrative Review Board hearings that I mentioned above is another unprecedented procedure. They don't call the accusations "charges" or "allegations". Instead they contain "factors" -- factors in favor of continued detention -- and factors favoring release or repatriation to incarceration in their home country.


 * I see. How should the article be worded? Sarah crane 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hisham Bin Al Bin Amor Sliti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Famericas%2F1773140.stm&date=2008-11-24 with https://web.archive.org/web/20081123204530/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1773140.stm on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1773140.stm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fresearch%2Ffiles%2Freports%2F2008%2F12%2F16%2520detainees%2520wittes%2F1216_detainees_wittes.pdf&date=2012-06-22 to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/12/16%20detainees%20wittes/1216_detainees_wittes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hisham Bin Al Bin Amor Sliti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-11-guantanamo-combatants_N.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184542/http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838 to http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/12/16%20detainees%20wittes/1216_detainees_wittes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060731081044/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_mar05.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_mar05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204202342/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/000101-000200.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/000101-000200.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214105656/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000197-000294.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000197-000294.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123003031.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)