Talk:Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism

Untitled
I corrected the name for detainee 220, who was obviously copied from another listing while the editor forgot to change the name, but I noticed that the date is wrong. I'll fix it later when I have more time if no one else gets to it first. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I misunderstood in order of the list.  Although #220 did blow himself up later, he was evidently on the list back in 2007.  It might be more clear if each list was in the same section as its description. -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Americans Killed?
Is there a reason for putting Americans Killed along with the chart for 2007? It seems like there should only be a column if there was at least some variance, but the answer was always 'No'. I feel like it's a hollow point being made by supporters of letting Gitmo prisoners go.Joker1189 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I think the only American (allegedly) killed by an ex-detainee is the woman visiting the embassy in Yemen last year.
 * Hollow points do have a twisted encyclopedic value, but only if we had a source telling us who thinks this is important.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Americans killed column is farce. We might as well have "Owns Tabby Cat - Yes/No". Delete it. People Killed, maybe - Americans Killed is one sided, and smacks of Master Race style double standards. 76.99.24.228 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They've probably killed a number of people but I doubt we'll get a reliable figure.
 * I seriously doubt that the editor had the intent you describe. I agree with Joker that it was probably someone who doesn't think GTMO is legitimate.
 * I agree the column should go as soon as we're sure there's no source.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that column was in the original DoD table. I don't know why they put it in.  But supporting letting captives go is probably not why.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. It's reproduced here.  I think we should put it back.  It's not especially useful, but it's interesting that they expressed it this way.
 * BTW: This report from the Denbeauxs makes a few good points but it's slanted, and I think they're being deceptive in at least one place.  I'll comment on that later.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Title
The title says RETURNED to battle, which implies that people who were never tried or proven to have been in battle in the first place, were guilty. Maybe it is possible that some of the innocent people locked up in the sweeps and tortured for years without charge decided to JOIN a battle against their tormentors after release, something that is perfectly understandable, after all the US Gov hides behind State Secret Defenses to throw out suits against kidnapping - so what other recourse have they? I would say they are being driven to it by removing all legal means of recourse. I believe using the word RETURNED in the title implies endorsing one side's point of view, that of the US. A Violation of NPOV. Sure some may have been found guilty if they were tried in a justice system, and thus could be described as RETURNED, but as well as NPOV there's another problem - do you seriously think a regime that dispenses with due-process would have released people who were originally part of it? The whole thing smacks of a PR effort by secureorocrats justifying their actions. I question the relevance of this article at all. 76.99.24.228 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has this title because it's based on lists. We already have one "allegedly" in there.
 * You're wrong about thinking in terms of "guilt" or "innocence". This is not a matter of criminal law.
 * They were detained in accordance with the laws of war, which have provisions for detaining people without trial. There may have been some disagreement over whether or not the Geneva Conventions applied, but it was always proper to detain people without trial under those conventions.  To say they must be treated as criminals is the same thing as saying we should abandon the laws of war.
 * You're also mistaken in thinking these detainees were taken in "sweeps". The U.S. had really detained tens of thousands in Afghanistan, most for only a very short time.  They processed them carefully and sent less than 800 to GTMO.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Randy. This article is about released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly went to battle after being released, yet it is named Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle. I propose it be moved to Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly went to battle after release. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is really about the DoD's lists. The lists use the word "returned".
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One possible resolution would be change the article and its title from one about the lists into the topic of Former Guantanamo detainees suspected of aiding and abetting terror after their release.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: Two new sources: here and here; one via Malkin who also links to Long War Journal that does more analysis.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Assumption
Why is this list based on assumption that these people "returned" to terrorism? Maybe they started to be terrorists after being tortured in american detention centres, hard sites etc. From psychological point of view this is very probable 78.131.137.50 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The DIA's position is that they "returned". The wikipedia is not supposed to have a position, according to the policy of writing from a neutral point of view.  The use of the word "alleged" in the title is meant to make clear that the wikipedia recognizes the claims are just the position of one side, and that the wikipedia is not presenting them as facts.


 * Could some or all of those alleged to have "returned" to terrorism have been innocent bystanders, captured in error, and radicalized by their experiences in US custody? It is an interesting idea.  But our coverage of that interpretation has to be limited by the extent verifiable, reliable and authoritative sources make it.  The wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Most MSM articles have either taken the DIA allegations at face value, or embroidered them.  One of the most challenging aspects of working on the wikipedia is covering material when all the good sources take a point of view the opposite of what one personally holds.


 * When this article was started practically very few good sources had speculated on the possibility some of these men had become radicalized after their capture. Additional good sources have appeared since then.  Please, if you come across a good source that speculates on radicalization in custody, please incorporate that in the article, or bring it to the talk page so others can incorporate it in the article.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with 78.131.137.50. The DIA and a lot of other sources in the article are primary sources.


 * It is just against all rules of Wikipedia just to repeat the claims of primary sources. (No. I do not misunderstand WP:VERIFY)


 * The secondary sources (specialty the NYT) make clear that most of the men mention in this article have never been charged with terrorism or other crime, and no credible evidence against them had been publicly reported at the time of their release from Guantanamo.


 * So that the premise in the title "returned to terrorism" is not supported by the secondary sources.


 * I suggest to rename the article so that the title is not misleading. IQinn (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My proposition is "Pentagon's list of Guantanamo captives who resorted to terrorism after being released"78.131.137.50 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Iqinn, if we were to cover who had been nominated for the Academy Award, or the Golden Globe awards, it would be perfectly appropriate to use the nominating organizations as a reference, for whom had been listed as nominees. It is the same here, the DIA is a perfectly appropriate source to use for whom the DIA listed as suspected or confirmed of returning to the fight.


 * You state the NYTimes made clear: "...that most of the men mentioned in this article have never been charged with terrorism or other crime, and no credible evidence against them had been publicly reported at the time of their release from Guantanamo." This would be an excellent argument for renaming the article -- if it had been entitled something like: Former Guantanamo captives who faced terrorism charges after their release.


 * How credible the list would be, if the full list were published, is not relevant. Verifiability, not truth.  When the motion picture academy awards an Oscar commentators on that sort of thing share their opinions on whether or not the Academy made a mistake, and should have awarded that Oscar to someone else.  If the comments of third party experts were unanimous, we would not take down the list of nominees, on the grounds that the Academy's list was a primary source, and all our secondary sources said the nominees didn't deserve Oscars.  Unanimity would be unlikely in third party experts published comments on the Oscars, and unanimity doesn't exist in the published comments of informed commentators on these former Guantanamo captives either.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon's assertions into question."Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism," said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.


 * http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Ms Daskal is an authoritative source, suitable to be regarded as a reliable source on human rights issues. I agree with her that the Pentagon's assertions should be viewed with skepticism.  And fair and neutral quotations, paraphrases and summaries of her writing could provide that skeptical view, in the body of the article.  I disagree that the skepticism she expressed should cause us to change the title.  Verifiability, not truth.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

responsible use of tags
Somebody recently added a misleading tag to the article. That tag, when instantiated, tells readers to look to the talk page to learn why it was added.

But no explanation for the tag was added. Since this wasn't done this was not a responsible use of that tag, so I've removed it. Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you stop your bad faith attack against me. To add this tag to the article was very responsible. As the title is misleading and i have added to the discussion about it on this talk page at the same time. It would not be a problem to figure that out if you would not have assumed bad faith. IQinn (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never accused you of bad faith. Rather, when I comment on your good faith/bad faith, I have characterized your efforts as good faith efforts, with which I have concerns.  In return I would appreciate you reciprocate, and show greater respect to my good faith efforts.


 * As the tag placer I still think you are under an obligation to clearly and explicitly state what you regard as "misleading".


 * If your only justification for the misleading tag was that you didn't like the title, then may I ask why you didn't stop with the tag that raised your concern about the title? Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You removed the {misleading} tag and left a message here with the header: "responsible use of tags".


 * In this message, yes you said you believe it was a good faith edit but you describe the use in the same sentence as not responsible.


 * "Responsible use of" is most frequently use in phrases like:


 * "Responsible use of drugs" - "Irresponsible use of drugs"
 * "Responsible use of fireworks" "Irresponsible use of fireworks"
 * "Responsible use of land mines" "Irresponsible use of land mines"
 * "Responsible Use of Gene Technology" "Irresponsible Use of Gene Technology"
 * "Responsible use of alcohol", Irresponsible use of alcohol"
 * "Responsible use of guns","Irresponsible use of guns"


 * I do not believe it is helpful nor necessary to start an discussion over responsible or irresponsibly use of tags.


 * A friendly message like: "Could you pleas provide me with the rational for the {misleading} tag" would have been enough.


 * I hope you now understand my concerns and i would suggest you may change the wording in the future. Possible? IQinn (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

rough work
From Fox News:

Confirmed cases

 * 1) Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri
 * 2) Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi
 * 3) Abdullah Saleh Ali al-Ajmi
 * 4) Ibrahim bin Shakaran
 * 5) Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz
 * 6) Ibrahim Shafir Sen
 * 7) Ravil Shafeyavich Gumarov
 * 8) Timur Ravilich Ishmurat
 * 9) Said Mohammed Alim Shah Abdullah Mehsud
 * 10) Mohammed Ismail
 * 11) Yousef Muhammed Yaaqoub
 * 12) Abdullah Majid al-Naimi
 * 13) Majid Abdullah Lahiq al Joudi
 * 14) Zahir Shah
 * 15) Shah Mohammed

Suspected Cases

 * 1) Ruslan Anatolivich Odijev
 * 2) Sabi Jahn Abdul Ghafour
 * 3) Mohammed Nayim Farouq
 * 4) Abdullah Kafkas
 * 5) Almasm Rabilavich Sharipov
 * 6) Abdullah Ghofoor
 * 7) Saad Madhi Saad Hawash al Azmi
 * 8) Isa Khan
 * 9) Muhibullah
 * 10) Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadan
 * 11) Abd al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim al-Sharikh
 * 12) Abdullah Gulam Rasoul
 * 13) Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil

From the New America Foundation
In July 2009 the New America Foundation published their analysis of the DoD figures. The noted that some of the DoD releases had categorized former captives as recidivists merely for monnenting unfavorably about their stay in Guantanamo they drafted a third list -- of individuals known to have been critical. The wrote:

rough work -- the Fox News gallery of "Gitmo grads"
Fox News recently published an annotated photo gallery, entitled "Gitmo grads". Interestingly, it cites the wikipedia as one of its sources -- but in a way that seems to me to be quite questionable. I am going to record the info for each of the eight pages of the photo gallery here, while we discuss how to cover this material.

Since 2008?
What you have is only part of the story. What's happened since? You skew things with this "returned to combat." The real question would be who was released or removed and what happened to them since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041015202916/http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E2B743AD-19BE-4C63-9228B3E9427A6C70&title=Taleban%20Leader%20Killed%20in%20Afghanistan%20was%20in%20Guantanamo%20Bay%20Prison to http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E2B743AD-19BE-4C63-9228B3E9427A6C70&title=Taleban%20Leader%20Killed%20in%20Afghanistan%20was%20in%20Guantanamo%20Bay%20Prison

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 one external links on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929123416/http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902 to http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080629233101/http://thestar.com.my:80/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/15/worldupdates/2007-05-15T100333Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-298215-1&sec=Worldupdates to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/15/worldupdates/2007-05-15T100333Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-298215-1&sec=Worldupdates
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930184034/http://www.dod.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150121074507/http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_27321900/recidivism-rate-guantanamo-detainees-dispute to http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_27321900/recidivism-rate-guantanamo-detainees-dispute
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505052721/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/01/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Guantanamo-Bomber.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/01/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Guantanamo-Bomber.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310152315/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/05/08/news/briefs.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/news/briefs.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080709112647/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf to http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714065404/http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/kyrgyzstan/hypermail/200103/0052.html to http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/kyrgyzstan/hypermail/200103/0052.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070629172140/http://www.afpc.org/article-pakistan1.shtml to http://www.afpc.org/article-pakistan1.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060428061109/http://sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/13/MNGNH509FC1.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/13/MNGNH509FC1.DTL
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090316102827/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96RM5GG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96RM5GG0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090130090803/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716184758/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009021829601 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009021829601
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090708190840/http://www.mcclatchydc.com:80/washington/story/71434.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/washington/story/71434.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080730234204/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/den052008.pdf to http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/den052008.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5fDMm4nq2 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXaWnBcGiGl6Bw5_Vaddh_Ig-wKg

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5eg4R8YdL to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iv6J77Kd-3UaF2UVo-2bmBepx9eQ

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality? What a joke
I'm sorry but this article is a joke reagarding neutrality. Claims made by (in one case unpublished) US military/intell sources are credited as fact in WP voice, I've fixed the most blatant case in the lead, but this applies throughout. As someone points out above 'returned to terrorism' implies they were initially engaged in it. Even where individuals may have engaged in anti-US activity (legitimate or otherwise) after release, it doesn't appear to occur to US military that some of these people may have been radicalised by illegal and cruel internment (anyone who looks at the history of 'The Troubles' in N. Ireland will know that this was the outcome of early over-zealous internment there). The US sources seem not to be interested in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate military or other activity. To oppose the US policy, by word or deed, is 'terrorist or militant activity'.

I'm busy elsewhere and don't have the time to fix this. It is perhaps slightly PoV to be saying this, but one of the complaints of some ex-detainees and their families was that they were never allowed to know what they were accused of, by whom and on what evidence (which in some cases they would be in a position to absolutely and definitively refute, had they known what it was), this article is partially repeating that injustice and possibly violating BLP. If we want a list of US military/intell claims, let's at least make it clear that this is what it is, then we'' all know how much credit to give to the claims. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. 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 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070712formergtmo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527135201/http://news.orb6.com/stories/latimests/20041022/releaseddetaineesjoinfight.php to http://news.orb6.com/stories/latimests/20041022/releaseddetaineesjoinfight.php
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.pravda.ru%2Frussia%2Fpolitics%2F09-08-2003%2F3507-guantanamo-0&date=2008-07-27 with http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.pravda.ru%2Frussia%2Fpolitics%2F09-08-2003%2F3507-guantanamo-0&date=2008-07-26 on http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/09-08-2003/3507-guantanamo-0
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iht.com%2Farticles%2F2006%2F05%2F08%2Fnews%2Fbriefs.php+&date=2008-07-27 with https://web.archive.org/web/20070310152315/http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/news/briefs.php on http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/news/briefs.php
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Fnews%2Fd20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf&date=2008-07-26 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080709112647/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf on http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/382/12191_Taliban.html
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fccrjustice.org%2Fourcases%2Fcurrent-cases%2Fcelikgogus-v.-rumsfeld&date=2008-07-31 with http://www.webcitation.org/5ZiuNjYkn?url=http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/celikgogus-v.-rumsfeld on http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/celikgogus-v.-rumsfeld
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231095924/http://www.refuseandresist.org:80/war/art.php?aid=1404 to http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=1404
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fap%2Farticle%2FALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96RM5GG0&date=2009-03-12 with https://web.archive.org/web/20090316102827/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96RM5GG0 on https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96RM5GG0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXaWnBcGiGl6Bw5_Vaddh_Ig-wKg
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gulf-daily-news.com%2FStory.asp%3FArticle%3D236251%26Sn%3DBNEW%26IssueID%3D31252&date=2008-11-28 with https://web.archive.org/web/20081201001401/http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/story.asp?Article=236251&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31252 on http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=236251&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31252
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gulf-daily-news.com%2FStory.asp%3FArticle%3D236389%26Sn%3DBNEW%26IssueID%3D31254&date=2008-11-30 with https://web.archive.org/web/20081202182045/http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/story.asp?Article=236389&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31254 on http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=236389&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31254
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesun.co.uk%2Fsol%2Fhomepage%2Fnews%2Farticle2171955.ece&date=2009-01-26 with http://www.webcitation.org/5e6yo9ZpZ?url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2171955.ece on http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2171955.ece
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstrackindia.com%2Fnewsdetails%2F64928&date=2009-01-26 with http://www.webcitation.org/5e6xyWXBU?url=http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/64928 on http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/64928
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fafp%2Farticle%2FALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q&date=2009-01-26 with https://web.archive.org/web/20090130090803/https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q on https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iv6J77Kd-3UaF2UVo-2bmBepx9eQ
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FlatestCrisis%2FidUSLH126343&date=2009-02-18 with http://www.webcitation.org/5egTpszhr?url=http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH126343 on http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH126343
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arabnews.com%2F%3Fpage%3D1%26section%3D0%26article%3D119342%26d%3D18%26m%3D2%26y%3D2009%26pix%3Dkingdom.jpg%26category%3DKingdom&date=2009-02-18 with https://web.archive.org/web/20090311201755/http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=119342&d=18&m=2&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom on http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=119342&d=18&m=2&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saudigazette.com.sa%2Findex.cfm%3Fmethod%3Dhome.regcon%26contentID%3D2009021829601&date=2009-02-18 with https://web.archive.org/web/20110716184758/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009021829601 on http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009021829601
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforeignaffairs.house.gov%2F110%2Fden052008.pdf&date=2008-07-29 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080730234204/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/den052008.pdf on http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/den052008.pdf
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.shu.edu%2Fcenter_policyresearch%2Freports%2Furban_legend_final_63008.pdf&date=2008-07-29 with http://www.webcitation.org/5ZgHBEqxI?url=http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_63008.pdf on http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_63008.pdf
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.shu.edu%2Fnews%2Fmeaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf&date=2008-07-29 with http://www.webcitation.org/5ZgHZtgQa?url=http://law.shu.edu/news/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf on http://law.shu.edu/news/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fterror%2F20070515-1543-guantanamo-formerprisoners.html&date=2008-07-30 with http://www.webcitation.org/5ZgzDfSSJ?url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20070515-1543-guantanamo-formerprisoners.html on http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20070515-1543-guantanamo-formerprisoners.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) 21:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple unreferenced tables
It looks to me like we currently have a sort of running record of all the names that were known in any one year. That might be interesting, but it's unsourced, so it's not useful. The multiple, different format, lists are also primarily responsible for the confusing tag. I'm intending to consolidate it into one single list.

Something like:
 * ISN
 * 1) Name (as given by DoD)
 * 2) First official notification of return to combat
 * 3) Status
 * 4) Citizenship
 * 5) Gitmo Internment
 * 6) Release
 * 7) Notes (inc. aliases)

Something like that. Bromley86 (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it, perhaps it's better to generate a list over on List of Guantanamo Bay detainees before looking at this one in detail. Bromley86 (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203165207/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGEUR460032006 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGEUR460032006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081130023537/http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2006&c=RUS to http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2006&c=RUS
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/GTMO-Reengagement-Summary-for-March-2017-Release.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) 15:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

General Updates
I made a series of updates -- and added corresponding explanations -- to reflect current statistics on reengagement published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Scott.roehm (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)scott.roehm