Talk:Moazzam Begg/Archive 1

Daily Telegraph
With reference to the comments about the Daily Telegraph at the end of the article. It is not true to say that the Daily Telegraph lost a court case for slander (presumambly the author means libel) against George Galloway for alleging he received bribes from Saddam Hussein.

Although the paper did allege that Galloway profited from the Oil for Food programme these allegations were never tested in court. Instead the case revolved round the so called Reynolds qualified-privilege defence which the Daily Telegraph did eventually lose.

Furthermore on today's BBC website Moazzam Begg's biography states that he did in fact attend two terrorist training camps in Afghanistan which would seem to confirm the allegations by the US authorities.


 * (Don't want to strike your text, but of course it does nothing of the kind. US authorities were alleging he had attended Al Qaida training camps. The camps Begg admits to having visited, and which I'm fairly sure the BBC is referring to as well, were those of small Mujahideen group that had fought the Russians before Begg's time, and were eventually driven from the area by the Taliban.)
 * -- unsigned comment by user 84.177.54.74 -- 06:58, 20 July 2006


 * I don't know if I've seen that article but I may be reverting your change. Philippe Sands also says Begg visited Chechnya.
 * On whether those training camps are technically al-Qaeda, that's a moot point. The War on Terror includes al-Qaeda and all its affiliates.
 * -- Randy2063 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a synopsis of his book. The story given in the book itself (of which I've only read the opening chapters, up to Baghram) is that he flew to Turkey, travelled to the border with Georgia for which he had a visa, and planned to cross illegally into Chechnya (for a while back this wasn't at all hard to do. Not sure if the time is the relevant same one, though.) However, he was turned back at the Georgian border, and eventually delivered the money he'd been bringing to a member of the exiled Chechen government living in Turkey (he gives the name, but I forget.) As Sands' source would appear to be the book, I would assume he was just simplifying. Lewis (and yeah, different IP, but same person as above.)

Oh, and a group expelled by the Taliban can hardly be considered an "al-Qaeda affiliate", now could it? Unless you want to extend that term to the Northern Alliance as well...


 * According to Philippe Sands,
 * Begg ran a Muslim bookshop, which caused the British authorities to put him under surveillance well before 9/11. He provides little illumination as to those aspects of the bookshop that, coupled with his trips to Bosnia and Chechnya to support Muslim causes, raised the interest of the intelligence services. He eventually makes it to Afghanistan with his wife and children during the time of the Taliban regime, for which he is not entirely without empathy.
 * I can see that not necessarily being the same thing, but are you sure that's not his only trip to Chechnya?
 * Anyway, it's a good thing if he didn't make it. I'd hate to think he could have made it worse than it was.
 * Yes, a group expelled by the Taliban can be considered an "al-Qaeda affiliate". It depends on the group.
 * -- Randy2063 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Begg is not exactly an objective source. -- Randy2063 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Links provided are good, the Rest of the concerns below have been adressed. This looks OK until the next news breaks.

OK, if the "full text of the letter belongs at wikisource", then where is the link? This letter really is key to understanding why this guy is newsworthy, it's not a good idea to just remove it entirely. If it's not in the main article, then more quotes therefrom are needed.

I have removed both the loaded words "poignant" and "harrowing", and qualified the unsupported allegation from whence it comes. Thanks for the critique.

Moazzam Begg claims
This article uncritically repeats the claims made by Moazzam Begg and his supporters, which it emotionally describes as "poignant" and "harrowing".

Worse still, the article makes the unsupported allegation of a conspiracy by the United States government to murder detainees.

I have left the offending text intact and added text and links to make the article more informative and balanced. FC 19:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some stuff that looks a little odd
I found this:

"Begg had been part of the british jihadist scene for many years, he was arrsted in 2000 during a raid on the al Ansar bookshop in Birmingham, which he had founded. The bookshop sells Jihadi propaganda videos featuring Osama bin Ladin and other extremists [see their website at www.tibyan.net]"

I've replaced it with the following which I'll explain:

"Moazzam Begg was once arrested in 2000 under British anti-terrorism laws during a raid on the Maktabah Al Ansar bookshop in Birmingham, which he had founded. He was released without charge."

I don't know whether Begg was part of "the British jihadist scene" or if indeed anybody knows what that phrase means. If we know for sure that he was then we should be able to dispel my doubts. Do we? I searched for records of the raid and discovered the full name of the bookstore. I'll assume for now that he did indeed found the bookstore so I didn't remove that. I believe that the grounds on which he was arrested is relevant: it was the old "Prevention of Terrorism" thing. It is almost needless to say that he was not charged. The powers of arrest under the British terrorism acts were (and are) so generous as to make the act of arrest utterly meaningless.

Having spent some years imprisoned in an American oubliette on the island of Cuba, Mr Begg can clearly not be held responsible for the current stock of the shop that he founded. So I removed the reference to the present-day shop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

date
Begg's Combatant Status Review Tribunal was held on November 13, 2005. - surely some mistake, unless he had a time machine? Jooler 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate {accuracy} tag
User:Joaquin Murietta placed an {accuracy} tag on this article. They placed essentially identical tags on half a dozen other articles, without making any serious attmpt to explain why they applied the tag. I believe this is irresponsibile. See the similar tag they applied to the Carolyn Wood article. Wood has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. And the documents the article cites are official US military inquiries, not defense attorney press releases. The lack of care with which this tag was applied is typical, I believe, of the lack of respect the contributor who applied this tag, pays the wikipedia community. -- Geo Swan 03:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

claiming to be a lawful combatant?
As I suggested in Talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal, it may be useful to make a list of any prisoners who've asserted their rights under the Geneva Conventions as a lawful combatant.

That brings up a problem with this article on Moazzam Begg. Did he claim to be a lawful combatant or not? If the answer is yes, then this article is incorrect in passing him off as a mere "teacher and charity worker." If the answer is no, then we need to examine his assertion that he should have been classified as a POW. He can't do that without identifying himself. -- Randy2063 23:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked at one referenced PDF and can see where Moazzam Begg doesn't even claim POW status. This is even noted in the section Moazzam Begg although not clearly enough IMO, as it's somewhat misleading.
 * That brings me back to wondering, are there any detainees that do claim POW status?
 * -- Randy2063 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A Useful Reference
Found this via the site referenced by the last edit. It's got info I haven't seen before.

I don't know if I'll be able to do anything with it yet but I thought I'd drop it here before its free access expires in another day or two. -- Randy2063 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: Both those links are the same.  Here's the other one.  It's not about Begg but it's an interesting piece of agit-prop by another ex-detainee.
 * -- Randy2063 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Known and suspected terrorist associations"?
Re the heading "Known and suspected terrorist associations" above the table - this is extremely vague and not even remotely neutral. "Known" by whom? "Suspected" by whom? Are we talking about associations with suspected terrorists, or suspected associations with terrorists? And is what is a "terrorist association" for that matter? Moreover most of the table entries are just the DoD claiming something and Moazzam Begg denying that claim. This is hardly "knowledge"

Can I suggest we replace this heading with "Allegations of associations to known or suspected terrorists". '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.91.14 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2006 June 19


 * I recognized that was a bad header right after I added it. But I don't think yours works either, as at least two of them were acknowledged by Begg himself.  I had something else in mind.  I'll fix it after I find my notes.
 * -- Randy2063 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for those entries of "DoD claiming something," that's just the reverse of what's been happening on this article for a long time. John Sifton's quote claiming that "Moazzam Begg story is consistent" is really just an opinion from an anti-American advocate.  The DoD's charges at least make more sense than to presume Begg was some innocent who came to Afghanistan as a humble teacher.
 * -- Randy2063 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Randy 2063 your last sentence above troubles me. I beleive in the presumption of innocence.  I think we should "presume Begg was some innocent who came to Afghanistan as a humble teacher" rather than accept unproven allegations against him. After all the DoD have been known to make mistakes and Mr Begg was released without charge.
 * User:195.93.21.70 23:30, 15 July 2006 (unsigned comment)


 * Then how do you feel about unproven allegations against the U.S. military? In my comment I was merely holding Begg's claims to the same standards.
 * More generally, Begg was released without charge because no evidence could be made public that he had committed criminal acts. Presumption of innocence is a matter of criminal law, but what it really means is that the government cannot declare him guilty of a crime without a trial.  This isn't criminal law.  It's war.
 * We do not have to declare Begg to be a "humble teacher" and nothing more. He's obviously much more than that.  If he hangs out with terrorists, collects military hardware, and visits places where terrorists go, then while those facts may not of themselves technically be crimes, the preponderence of evidence becomes more than merely suggestive clues.
 * -- Randy2063 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Randy, can I ask if you think "How do you feel about holding Begg to the same standard as we hold GIs for whom there is strong circumstantial evidence they committed war crimes?" is a fair paraphrase of what you asked 195? I'd like both Guantanamo detainees and rogue GIs held to the same standard.
 * As we both know Damien Corsetti committed, at least, sexual harrassment, and possibly rape, of captives. And his CO did not make him face a court martial.  He got the lightest kind of administrative punishment.
 * I think you know that Lewis Welshofer smothered a captive to death, by wrapping him tightly in a sleeping bag, and sitting on his chest, even though he was covered in bruises, and had several broken ribs. I don't understand why that wasn't considered a war crime.  And I think you know he was docked some pay, and was confined to his barracks for two months.  The guy isn't even sorry.  The guy doesn't even think he did anything wrong.  If he was an al Qaeda or Taliban member, and had smothered an American captive, I think we both know what kind of sentence Americans would expect him to get.  Even if the interrogator who smothered an American was a soldier in Saddam or Ho Chi Minh's army I think we know what kind sentence most Americans would expect him to get.
 * A year ago I read a comment from one of the Guantanamo detainee's lawyers. He said something like, "I am proabably something like the first lawyer in history who was trying to get his client indicted by a grand jury."
 * You and I disagree on how firm the circumstantial evidence against Captain Wood is. But, I think if you agreed with me that the evidence against her was strong, I think you would agree with me that she should be indicted, and she should stand trial.  I don't know if you agree with me that if her trial convicted her of a role in the murders of Dilawar and Habibullah that she should get a longer sentence than Charles Graner and Ivan Frederick.  They humiliated people.  But they didn't kill anyone.  Damien Corsetti should have been charged for his sexual crimes, and if he wsa convicted I don't know why he should have gotten comparable sentences to Graner and Frederick.
 * ''I read an article, a year or so ago, about the (allegedly many) women who had been raped while in US custody. The article claimed that this was an order of magnitude more devastating to an Iraqi woman than it would be to a western woman.  The article claimed that a really astouding number of these women were so shamed they committed suicide after their release.  Even "copping a feel" would have been humiliating.  I've learned, from the Afghani's transcripts, that Afghani's are so uptight about their women that guests don't get to sleep under the same roof as the family.  From the transcripts I gather that most rural Afghanis live in extended families in a walled corral, where the buildings lined a 3 or 4 meter adobe wall, and any guests would have to stay in a separate guesthouse.
 * I think we know that the most guilty captives are in CIA custody, and can never be charged, tried, or convicted, because the CIA tortured them.
 * Personally, I believe that the real secrets that the DoD wants to keep, in most of the detainees cases, are not secrets, that if revealed would put US national security at risk, but rather they merely want to hide from the public was a disastrously incompetent job they have done. In retrospect I don't think there is any question that the FBI was correct, that cruel adversarial interrogation are counterproductive -- worse than useless -- worse than no interrogations at all.  Unreliable intelligence is, I believe, worse than no intelligence.
 * ''You and I both know that the secret capture technique used to capture most Guantanamo detainees didn't involve any national security secrets. They didn't capture them through wiretaps, or monitoring wire transfers.  They were captured when the CIA paid $5000 bounties for any foreigner that was handed over to them -- no questions asked.  This is not a national security secret.  It is just an embarrassment.
 * Absolutely nothing prevented President Bush from treating everyone captured in Afghanistan as a POW. If he had done so he wouldn't have to worry about whether he could keep his recent promise to prevent "killer" from walking the street -- at least until hostilities are over.  If he was tricky, he could have kept treating them as POWs for most of the war, and then pretended, years down the line that the competent tribunal that stripped them of POW status, and allowed them to be court-martialed, was based on new evidence.  I'll grant that some captives may have been captured with the help of techniques that counter-intelligence officials would like to keep secret.  But, as these secrets slip out, or are guessed, the value of keeping those national security "secrets" secret fade.
 * ''For example, the Algerian Six fell under suspicion due to "chatter". One of the men had dozen of phone calls to Afghanistan, during the month following 9-11.  Apparently, from their transcripts, at least one of those phone calls was with a phone in Afghanistan that was suspected to have once been used by Abu Zubaydah.  Well, Afghanistan is a very backward country.  Most areas aren't served by land line phones.  Some areas are served by cell phones.  And, I know from looking up the model of phone one of the detainees had, that put him under suspicion, that there are about 200,000 phones that are dual use -- cell phones in areas served by cell phones, and satellite phones in areas where there is no cell service.
 * ''Being captured carrying a satellite phone, or being accused of being seen with a satellite phone, is one of the allegations against some of the Guantanamo detainees. It is one more of the allegations I think lacks credibility.  If there were only dozens or hundreds or even thousands of satellite phones in Afghanistan then possession of one, if the US claim that there were used to coordinate ambushes was correct, would be a reason to be suspicious of a captive.  But with 200,000 satellite phones, then I think it isn't a very credible allegation.
 * ''With 200,000 phones, and if the Bosnian/Algerian placed dozens of calls to different phones in Afghanistan, that makes it not unlikely that he was going to hit at least one that was borrowed by a known member of al Qaeda.
 * ''Anyhow, now that Abu Zubaydah has been captured, the phone number the Bosnian/Algerian was believed to have called has, realistically, long past the date when it needed to be kept a secret.
 * As I am sure you know, the Bush administration has been shamefully doublefaced about leaks. They showed no hesitation about outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.  But they went ballistic about the New York Times, and several other newspapers writing about their monitoring international funds transfers.  This wasn't even a secret.  As, on other occasions they publically  announced that they were  capturing and monitoring suspects by tracking their funds.


 * Randy, I want to ask you about something you said about Begg in your last comment. I didn't know about the circumstantial evidence that Begg may have been involved in financial shenanigans back in the UK.  And I am grateful to you for drawing it to my attention.  But I don't remember you mentioning weapons before.  Is this something you can tell me where to read about?


 * At the risk of being repetitious, if Bush had let those captives for whom there wasn't enough evidence to strip them of POW status before a competent tribunal continue to be treated as POWs, then Begg would still be out of circulation, and could be kept out of circulation until Afghanistan was peaceful -- another decade most likely.


 * As to risks, and the preponderance of evidence...


 * Have you ever looked at the [RISKS digest? Risks are funny things. And, in general, we don't manage them well. Just look at the stupid, counter-productive, and, if you don't mind me saying so -- hysterical reaction to 9-11.  Making all airline passengers take off their shoes for instance.  I am on the safety committee in the building where I live.  I am one of the volunteers who respond to fire alarms.  Well, the fire plan we had to file with  the fire department says that whenever the alarm goes off we have to go on the P.A. and tell everyone to evacuate the building.  We have to tell them to evacuate even if we know what triggered the alarm.  99% of the alarms are false alarms, or a cooking pot, left on the stove, and not a real fire.  Human nature being what it is we never get more than 20 % of the people leaving.  And sometimes less than 5%.  We have never had a realistic fire alarm.  Human nature being what it is it would not only be more convenient if we told people to stay in their unit, unless we told them specifically to evacuate, but, in general, they would be safer.  The current plan trains people not to respond to the many false alarms.  If we only told them to evacuate when there was a real risk if  we told them to evacuate we would get more than 20% responding.  But the naive instruction that everyone should leave on every alarm is safe for the career of the people who wrote it and the fire officials who approved it.  And I think it is the same for an alarming number of decisions made in the war on terror.


 * Guantanamo has been very costly. I estimated Guantanamo cost $100,000,000?  I recently read an article by a general who visited there, who said it cost $100,000,000 a year to run -- not counting the construction costs, and IIRC, not counting salaries.  You probably came across the recent article where an American newspaper were able to find, with very little effort, the Afghan witnesses that a Tribunal President had ruled were not reasonably available.  Think about it.  $500,000,000.  There was a false economy here.  The USA could have saved millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, if they had spent some money to find the external witnesses the Tribunal Presidents ruled "not reasonably available".


 * I think it might have been that same visiting general who argued that it was safer and cheaper to release the detainees, even those for whom there was some circumstantial evidence that they were friends of Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, and who may have been fighters themselves, except the USA didn't have the evidence, or who, finally may have been radicalized to have become willing to become fighters during their long vacation at Club Gitmo. He argued that it would be cheaper and safety to deal with those who were truly fighters by letting them go, and dispatching them on the battlefield.  He didn't say this, but this would be a lot more pleasant for those who were detained through cases of mistaken identity, or who had been pressganged into the Taliban at gunpoint, to serve as last minute cannon fodder, and who would not become fighters if released.  --  Geo Swan 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two different things here. When I said "I was merely holding Begg's claims to the same standards" I was talking about the standard of proof required to add something to an article.  We can cite allegations by supposedly responsible sources but that doesn't mean they'd meet the burden of proof required to take someone to trial.  Damien Corsetti's CO can't just charge someone because of a suspicion of guilt.  There needs to be some evidence and/or testimony to back it up in his article 32 hearing.


 * Aside from the accused's legal protections, don't forget that the prosecution only gets one shot at this. Imagine if they did charge Corsetti prematurely and lost because the trial was merely a sideshow without ever having a chance at a conviction.  Then imagine if some real evidence turns up later.  That would be irresponsible.


 * I agree that Corsetti did far worse than what had happened at Abu Ghraib, but they had pictures at Abu Ghraib with corroborating testimony.


 * Sabrina Harman is listed in Category:War criminals alongside Adolf Eichmann. Lynndie England is in Category:People convicted of war crimes.  That might make sense if Wikipedia listed thousands upon thousands of war criminals of all levels of severity, including pickpockets, but there are presently only 45, and that would be less than 40 if you exclude some of the gang at Abu Ghraib.  As presently configured, this is a sick joke.


 * When a GI is accused of a crime, he or she is due the protections of the UCMJ. A POW gets the same protection.  That's not a privilege that any army wants to give to its enemies, but we consent to it as part of a bargain.  As such, there's no obligation we should give it to others who are not part of that bargain.


 * I don't think the distinction between POW and "enemy combatant" would have changed very much. Recall that you noted a lawyer describing himself as "the first lawyer in history who was trying to get his client indicted by a grand jury."


 * Lawyers opposed to the U.S. had initially been saying that POW status would have required they be released after the fighting ended in Afghanistan (as seen in this stolen NYT article). Of course, the fighting is still going on now but they were thinking otherwise at the time.  Or, perhaps they'd have been discounting the severity of that fighting.


 * If he was an al Qaeda or Taliban member, and had smothered an American captive, I think we both know what kind of sentence Americans would expect him to get. Even if the interrogator who smothered an American was a soldier in Saddam or Ho Chi Minh's army I think we know what kind sentence most Americans would expect him to get.


 * Where do you get that idea? Wanting and expecting are two different things.  Many Americans would expect such an interrogator to get a promotion from his leader.  There'd certainly be no Wikipedia entry under the category war criminals.


 * In fact, I think we both know that if an American soldier had been smothered to death by al Qaeda, that treatment might be considered the mildest that Americans could expect from the enemies we have. And in that sense, maybe the interrogator's command wouldn't give him that promotion after all.


 * There might be a perfunctory complaint from the ICRC, and Amnesty might quietly issue a report that they bury under everything else, but I doubt that there would be much noise about it outside the U.S. War crimes are committed by the enemy on a daily basis but it's the American ones (like humiliating some thugs) that get the most attention.


 * There's a big one going on right now. Look real close and you'll see that Hezbollah, like many of our enemies, had placed their assets in civilian neighborhoods, basically using innocent Lebanese as human shields.  That's a real war crime that had been in the making for years.  If people really cared they should have been complaining about it long before now.  Perhaps one day Lynndie England will be recognized as the poster girl for the bizarro nature of the so-called "human rights" movement.


 * This ties together with what I had said about not giving POW privileges to those who don't merit them. It's one of the few incentives we can offer to get barbarians to respect the laws of war.  Give it to them for free and they will be less inclined to moderate their ways.  This is why I consider the pre-Hamdan policy as the moral one.  It would have been nice if HRW could have transferred some of their anti-U.S. efforts into promoting the rules of war to the likes of Hezbollah.


 * That said, of course some U.S. troops will commit atrocities. We had several hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq over the years, and some of them will go wrong.  But no other military has a better record than we do.  Ironically, I've heard that the Iraqis' reaction to the Mahmudiyah incident was attenuated by insurgent propaganda having already made it seem as though this happens all the time.


 * I don't know that the U.S. government could have classified something in order to shield the government from embarrassment. The family of one of the Abu Ghraib guards had tried to blackmail the military before they released the pictures, and that didn't stop them from prosecuting the case against them.  In any case, some detainees may indeed be innocent, but I don't think the Algerian Six are among them.


 * I don't agree at all about Valerie Plame. Robert Novak describes the administration's attitude differently, calling them disinterested in that aspect, and it was Novak who sought that information.  You have to admit, one has to wonder why the CIA would send someone like Wilson to Africa, already a known critic of the Bush administration, and then not even requiring him to sign a common non-disclosure agreement.  Someone needed to ask that question.  That certainly doesn't jibe with your notion that the U.S. government classifies things to protect itself from embarrassment.


 * I didn't say Moazzam Begg was carrying weapons, although I do think he could have been an arms smuggler. In the previous post, I said he "collects military hardware" and that's appeared in a couple articles.  The NY Times describes the night vision goggles as a "night vision sight".  That would make it part of a weapon, but it was military hardware, regardless.  He also had a flak jacket.


 * In principle, I don't disagree with you on the improper assessment of risk, but we as a society aren't capable of making such rational decisions. We have too many opportunistic lawyers, politicians and activists who will take advantage of the next attack just as they had in 9/11 and New Orleans.


 * That doesn't mean I think closing Guantanamo would now be a good idea. That visiting general you mentioned sounds a lot like what Robp had said, where it would be better to shoot on sight.  I take it as a snarky comment that wouldn't really apply to most of the detainees.  It might have been better to have kept Bagram open.  It certainly would have been cheaper.
 * -- Randy2063 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Torture
I deleted the part in the "Detention in Afghanistan" section that said he was tortured and held in solitary confinment because there was nothing supporting it. The article from the Telegram mentioned he was held in a windowless room, but it makes no mention of him being in solitary. Epsoul 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tribunals WERE NOT courts of law
An anonymouse contributor made an edit with the edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moazzam_Begg&curid=1037278&diff=74059725&oldid=72548691 Begg's Combatant Status Review Tribunal - reword claima about court. evidence claim contradicted by previous sentence.]

The anonymous contributor's justification is refuted Begg's transcript itself. The President of Begg's Tribunal spells out that the Tribunal was not a court of law. Tribunals were not courts of law; the USA never charged Begg with any crimes; Begg was never allowed meaningful access to the evidence against him. -- Geo Swan 04:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed they were courts of anything. Perhaps you should read more carefully. I specificially put in the statement "He was never brought before a US Court of Justice." I was correcting the unencyclopedic scornful wording. And your personal opinion about the meaningfullness of the level of access to the evidence is a far cry from the charge that the US didn't present evidence. 64.163.4.225 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
All of these articles have POV issues. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All of which articles? I am not trying to be funny, it is genuinely unclear to which articles you are referring. greenrd 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

POV: The use of the term ISLAMIST is highly inappropriate here
Without legal evidence to the contrary the use of the term Islamist is highly controversial in a supposedly neutral encyclopedic article and may even be considered libellous. Not only is the term widely considered to be pejorative and insulting, but its very definition is nebulous and the subject of much debate. Unless there is legally verifiable evidence of a court conviction for " Islamist " activities (or admission by the subject himself) then its use in a wikipedia aricle should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.4.99 (talk)


 * Libelous to whom? Islamism a political agenda every bit as important to some as is the pro-life movement.  Perhaps you should look at the excesses of modern culture and give some thought to how others see things.  As Begg himself had said, "That would simply have reciprocated the mistake the US government makes when it assumes all Islamists are hostile."
 * Had it said "Islamofascist" then you might have a point. But David Ignatius is a supporter of Begg and was being truthful after having read his book.  This shouldn't be whitewashed.
 * -- Randy2063 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized the implications of your statement: "Unless there is legally verifiable evidence of a court conviction for " Islamist " activities"
 * Being an Islamist is not a crime any more than would be a fundamentalist Christian's lobbying of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment to allow (or even to impose) prayer in school.
 * -- Randy2063 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As already stated above the word 'Islamist' is a poorly defined but controversial term with highly negative connotations to many, often used for example to describe Muslim individuals accused or convicted of terrorist offences. While you personally may or may not attach such negative associations to this word other individuals certainly do. It is precisely because of the lack of a universally agreed definition and the negative connotations associated with it that the word "Islamist" should be avoided in an encyclopedic article whose aim is neutrality. Especially in cases where the individual concerned has not been found guilty of any offence. One should simply state the facts of the case and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion as to whether or not a particular individual is an 'Islamist'.


 * To call him an Islamist is stating the facts.
 * The article on Islamism concedes there's some discomfort with the word but then it says, "However, the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism" are used often in several publications within Muslim countries to describe domestic and trans-national organizations seeking to implement Islamic law. The English website for Al Jazeera, for example, uses these terms frequently."
 * One thing you may be missing is that there is a serious need for this word. Otherwise you're effectively putting all Muslims into the same general group.  I'd like to think that not every Muslim bookstore sells the products that Begg's did.
 * -- Randy2063 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that water boils at 100 degrees C is a statement of fact, but to state that Bush and Rumsfeld are neocons or that Begg is an Islamist are both opinions. Especially with a term as nebulous and fraught as 'Islamist'. Note that the articles on Bush and Rumsfeld do not begin with the appellation of 'neocon'. And if someone did add it there would be, rightfully so, protests at the non-NPOV of the article. Also note that in the five other British Muslim Guantanamo detainees' (Ruhal Ahmed, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Tarek Dergoul and Jamal Udeen) Wikipedia articles there is no use of the word Islamist either.

As regards your statement re. the bookshop there are several points to note. Firstly, although it is stated elsewhere that Begg was a financial co-founder of the bookshop there is no evidence of his being involved in the direct day-to-day management and personal involvement in the selection of particular items/books in stock. Indeed it is known that throughout much of the mid to late 1990's and early 2000's Begg was outside the UK. And of course he spent nearly 3 years incarcerated in Guantanamo until his release in 2005. Therefore his personal involvement in the management of the bookshop is contentious, to put it mildly.

Secondly, let us assume that Begg had never been imprisoned in Guantanamo AND that he had been the sole proprietor of the bookshop you mention AND he had personally picked all the items stocked by the bookshop. AND that the bookshop was raided by police AND he was found guilty of whatever offence. Even assuming all the above, which of course is the exact opposite of the actual reality, all one could then reliably say (in a neutral encyclopedic article) is that Begg was convicted of 'Offence X' in contravention of 'Law Y'. To illustrate this further: imagine I owned a 'green bookshop' that sold herbal supplements, crystals, books and DVDs on the enviroment. Let's imagine that amongst those books and DVDs were some featuring enviromental groups advocating violent action against polluting corporations. Even if I was found guilty of stocking these items, under whatever law, would that then make me a radical environmental extremist who advocated violence? The day we start labelling people based on their involvement with bookshops stocking unpopular viewpoints will be a dark one indeed. So to summarise, even if Begg had been tried and convicted of stocking X or Y that would hardly be incontrovertible evidence of a particular political or religous affiliation. The fact Begg was not convicted of anything, was not involved in the day-to-day running for many years (if ever) or picking of stock makes the case extremely tenuous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.4.99 (talk)


 * Your neocon example is a good one, but not for the reason you think. As with "Islamist," the word "neocon" also has a precise definition.  And as with "Islamist," the wiki article acknowledges its use beyond that definition.


 * It's hard to call Bush and Rumsfeld neocons because they don't fit the definition. That doesn't mean you can't use the term for genuine neocons, like Paul Wolfowitz, whose wiki article does indeed mention the word.  It would be wrong not to.  Real neocons and Islamists should be called what they are.


 * Begg was responsible for his bookshop in the early days. He may not have worked there while out on his adventures but he was there when they were raided.  Those books, tapes and DVDs weren't just a few odd items they had in stock.  Nor were they a small part of a wide array that just happened to include some controversial items.  Begg may not have picked every item but he joined in the decision on what the store was about.  This is what Begg was about.  He wasn't convicted of stocking controversial books because it wasn't illegal to have those books.


 * This article has a troubled history in that it started as a virtual shrine for Moazzam Begg. If you look into the archives you'll see Begg depicted as some humble teacher who was seeking to help the underpriviledged in Afghanistan when U.S. forces swept him up in some wildly random dragnet.  You'd think he was some kind of human rights champion.  (It's rather funny to think that he probably also has a lot of gay supporters who don't know any better.)  The only hint in the old articles that he might have done something untoward came when the CSRT was linked.


 * There was a good side to this, however, as Begg may have felt that his past was sufficiently buried that he didn't need to address these subjects in his book. But had this information been included from the beginning, Begg might have been compelled to make up a convincing story and we wouldn't have had that glaring omission to point to.


 * I will concede that you do have one good point. We may not have enough to say that all nine of his fellow British GTMO residents are Islamists.  I don't doubt that they are, but I'll agree they shouldn't be called that until it's substantiated.  I may edit this back in without them at some point in the future, and you can argue about it then if you still don't like the phrasing.
 * -- Randy2063 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While the word 'neocon' has a more clearly defined and widely accepted consensus attached to it there is still much disagreement as to its scope and meaning. Witness the discussions in Wikipedia about the word. Despite the greater consensus as to its meaning and scope its use as a title still attracts considerable controversy. The fact, for example, that you don't consider Rumsfeld as a neocon clearly illustrates my point. Whilst you may not believe this to be so I'm sure you'll agree many others are of the firm opinion that Rumsfeld is indeed a neocon. And this is ultimately what it boils down to: a matter of conflicting opinions. And with an even 'looser' definition for a word as nebulous as 'Islamist' the scope for NPOV disagreements is that much greater. How to resolve it in an encyclopedic article? By stating the value-free facts of the case and allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Otherwise we will always have one side or the other questioning the NPOV of the article. As we do here.

I take your point about the article having a 'troubled' history since its inception. Rather than having a hagiography (which doubtless some would want) or a hatchet job (which doubless others would like) we should be striving to produce as neutral and factual account of the subject matter at hand as possible. Thereby giving proponents of opposing camps as little ground for complaint about NPOV issues as is humanly possible. Unfortunately the use of words like 'Islamist' without a clear evidentiary base do nothing to take us towards a NPOV situation. The same can be said for the style, tone and content of the 'Known and suspected terrorist associations' section of the article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.4.99 (talk)


 * Rumsfeld may seem to run with neocons but he isn't a one by definition. He doesn't come from typical neocon origins, and he certainly wasn't following neocon doctrine on the war.  He wanted to leave Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam.  That's not in the ideals of a neocon.


 * I'd say the definition of "Islamist" is more clear. It may seem overly broad because there really are a lot of Islamists.  (FWIW: A poll found that one third of British Muslims would rather live under Sharia law.)


 * I don't take your point on the "Known and suspected terrorist associations" section. Some are known and some are suspected.  They're all referenced.  The suspected ones are important because they're part of the reason Begg was held in GTMO in the first place.  To leave them out would let the naive infer that the U.S. had fewer reasons to keep him locked up.
 * -- Randy2063 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You state: "I'd say the definition of "Islamist" is more clear." This precisely reinforces my earlier point about opinions: while you may believe that to be the case others, myself included, would beg to differ. In such cases people have no choice but agree to disagree. Therefore good practice should dictate that we avoid contentious phraseology as much as possible and maintain the factual and NPOV tone expected of a factual Wikipedia article.

As for Rumsfeld's 'neocon-ness' or lack thereof I'm well aware of his career as a political operator since the early seventies. And of the fact that he only later adopted neocon 'garb' during the Bush administration. Some may say that he was never a neocon in the strictly Straussian sense of the word. Others may retort that he subscribed to practically all of the neocon / PNAC agendas. And in that sense if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... it must be a neocon. So you see, all of this is merely more proof of how it's possible to have divergent opinions - and of the need to maintain as strictly factual and NPOV a line as far as possible. Otherwise there will be endless NPOV and neutrality issues as this little example illustrates.

Re. the 'Known and suspected terrorist associations' issue: I think you're missing my point completely on this issue. Which is that Begg is, currently, unindicted and innocent of any charges. The presence of this section may therefore be construed as an attempt at 'guilt by association'. Furthermore there is no factual corroboration to most of the statements beyond a statement that the DoD 'suspects' him of having links. Or beyond stating that he attended the same mosque as Reid - with no further evidence of direct personal links between them. Don't you find it more than a little troubling that merely attending the same mosque (which may have 100's or 1000's of other worshippers) as a suspect is grounds for evidence of 'suspected links to terrorists'? I know I find it extremely troubling. If there is further evidence linking these individuals and showing they had direct personal contact and/or a relationship of some kind then by all means include it in the article. But to base suspicion merely on attendance at the same mosque is NPOV.


 * Sure, you can stretch the definition of neocon, but that's what it takes to fit Rumsfeld into it. The barest definition of "Islamist" is someone who wants to live strictly under Islamic law.  As I just said, a third of British Muslims want to live under Sharia.  Is it a surprise that David Ignatius called him one after reading his book?  It doesn't take any stretching.


 * The issue of terrorist associations isn't simply a matter of guilt by association. We're just showing the associations and suspected associations, and who asserted that suspicion.  You'd have a point if it was some Joe Blow off the street who held the suspicions, but we're talking about the U.S. government in its rationale for holding Begg.  There wouldn't be an article on Begg at all if it wasn't for the fact that the U.S. government had held him.  If there's going to be an article on Begg, shouldn't we know why he was held?


 * Begg is only "innocent" as a matter of criminal law. The Supreme Court didn't say criminal law is applicable for detainees.


 * What you're saying would be better applied to the anti-U.S. quote from John Sifton. His words were legally inconsequential, and his relationship to the case is more as an opportunist.
 * -- Randy2063 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The bookstore today
I clipped away the stuff on this discussion page that was more than 6 months old (just because it was old, no personal agenda).

I think the bookshop Maktabah al-Ansar deserves its own article, not because it was once raided, but because it was twice raided. Anybody here in Birmingham? What's the status of that shop? What does it sell today? Does it still /publish/ stuff? I think its website was maktabah.net (in London) but that has been shut down. AFAIK Begg is no longer involved. LDH 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You could be right. I've collected a little bit of information on the bookshop but not enough to begin an article.
 * BTW: I restored the section you clipped, as it's not supposed to be deleted.  As I understand it, the general principle is to create an archive at some point along the way.
 * -- Randy2063 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The site maktabah.net is back up. It's the same design.  Given that the owner was released, it's probably the same management.  It says they're not taking orders yet but a quick glance shows that their type of inventory hasn't changed.
 * You can see a clip of the jihadi film "21st Century Crusaders" on YouTube.com. The film is said to have a speech by Moazzam Begg but it's not in that short clip.
 * All the clips of Begg that YouTube has elsewhere seem to be in his guise as a "human rights" advocate.
 * -- Randy2063 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Associations with Terrorists"
My feeling is that this phrase suggests being part of an association or having some common aim in relation to terrorism, rather than what is actually listed which is "contacts" with or "connections to" alleged terrorists. The Richard Reid link seems particularly suspect as an "association" since the mosque is the largest in Birmingham and it would be more likely than not that they never "associated". Any objection to changing this? Or any suggestion on how to rewrite it?

Incidentally - it should be noted that Moazzam rejects some of the things that he wrote while in detention as being under coercion. Evidence from interrogations at Gitmo are always going to be somewhat suspect. That's not to say that I doubt the good intentions of those interrogating, but the rights of the inmates were clearly not held in high enough regard.

Interestingly, the school in Afghanistan that Moazzam worked at was a girl's school. This does not indicate an adherence to the Taliban party line! It might be good to include something on this, but I don't have time to do it myself. --Muchado (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "contacts" is probably a better one, so I made the change. The article already says which items Begg now disputes.
 * The point about Richard Reid's mosque would be more applicable to an article on Begg's fellow gangmember Shahid Butt, so I got rid of that one as well. I'll try to remember it in case Butt ever gets his own article.
 * I also changed "terrorists" to "extremists", as the section may be expanded to include others who haven't necessarily been identified as terrorists.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which governments?
Opz, sorry I notice only now that this article was disputed. I hope noone will get upset about the hyperlinks I just inserted trying to make a difference between U.S. and British government. Thanks for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the neutrality tag. It says it was tagged since December.  The only real dispute I see at this point is over whether or not we can call him an Islamist, and there's no mention of that now.  I'll revisit it at another time.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

links to "human rights" organizations
I'm not comfortable with this sentence:


 * ''Begg also acts in an advisory role to leading human rights organisations like Reprieve, Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Peacemaker and Conflicts Forum.

These are the references:
 * http://conflictsforum.org/who-we-are/moazzam-begg/
 * Video: Moazzam Begg read Poems from Guantánamo, Amnesty International, January 23, 2008
 * http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/live/display.php?topic=51
 * http://www.peace-maker.co.uk/MasterClasses.html

With the exception of Conflicts Forum, I don't know that the others are close enough associations to call any of them an "advisory role." Reciting pretentious poetry for a little two-minute Amnesty video, and then sitting for an online interview, is hardly a relationship of any type. We don't have a reference at all for his links to Reprieve. Does anybody know who "Peacemaker" is?

The time to find links between Begg and the "human rights" organizations is now while the links are still online. Otherwise they'll dispute this as soon as the music stops and Begg becomes an unperson.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added better references for those statements regarding AI, Reprieve, and CCR. I also changed the wording a bit, taking out the "advisory role."  All we can really say is that they chose to campaign alongside him.
 * I decided to leave the other fly-by-night "human rights" organization there for now.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Resources Exploitation Training Manual 1983
I have read the book "Enemy Combatant" from start to finish and naturally I was skeptical that anyone should receive such treatment at our hands for simply being a suspect. I was appalled at Moazzem's poor physics but the book was consistent not only with its self but also with the CIA "Human Resources Exploitation Training Manual 1983" and to some extent its predecessor document titled "KUBARK Counterintelligence interrogation July 1963". The difference between the two is important. The 1963 document specifically requires that the interrogators should have a high IQ amongst other qualities and also it provides different methods of arrest for resistant and non resistant sources. The 1883 manual does not require an interrogator to have any special intelligence. Also it advocates rough arrest for all those arrested. This is clearly an amoral policy that the US needs to change.

Moazzem was subjected to an arrest in accordance with the manual, according to his account, though he appears not to know there was a manual, and then further degradation at US hands for the time he was imprisoned. The fact that he has not after release made his way to join the "terrorists", after such treatment is a testimony to his personal strength and integrity and clear evidence that he had no hostile intent in the first place.

I am white British and I grew up with Muslem neighbors and friends and have seen the way that they tried to turn us against them.
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

This is just one example of the kind of material used that is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. If I had been through what he went through I would be radicalized for sure. It is the US under Bush has done more to radicalise people than Usama Bin Laden ever could. When they close Guantanamo I will be able to fly the US flag again. Let us not forget true American values in the light of this departure from them. Get well soon US! 81.141.83.202 (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that particular piece, but I doubt that it's propaganda.
 * As for detainment and interrogation methods, you need to realize that the laws of war apply, and not the civil legal rights afforded to common criminals. It was eased after Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was ruled to apply to this war, but they may still be detained for as long as necessary.  President Obama's attorney general agrees, and said so years ago.  People who support the Geneva Conventions need to live with that.
 * Common Article 3 encourages special agreements that might give detainees more rights, but neither Begg, nor his allies, have made it clear that they wish to pursue this. They could have asked Islamists to start supporting human rights before now but they chose not to.  It is now 2010.  I think it's clear that only one side of this war cares about such things.
 * The interrogation methods he received at Bagram and GTMO were probably not related to CIA programs. A lot of this stuff goes way back.  The British were more harsh during WWII.
 * Begg appears to have been sufficiently radicalized before 9/11 and GTMO.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The bookstore today -- again
Begg's old Birmingham bookshop (presumably under a different owner) has just been closed. The current owner is facing terrorism charges. Begg's lawyer is defending him.

I don't know if Begg is linked to the current owner, but it bears watching. It may yet deserve its own article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Begg is in the news, and an anonymous contributor...
Begg is in the news, and an anonymous contributor has modified the article to include some scurrilous accusations against Begg, without providing any substantiation. I am going to revert all the edit from that contributor. Some of the earlier edits, from the other side, go a bit beyond NPOV, so I am going to modify them too...


 * And you would be ... ? (Sign your posts.) --OldCommentator (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance
This article appears to be lacking balance, in that it fails to reflect much pertinent material in RSs. Reflecting this article would be a start -- there are many like it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have that little section on Amnesty.
 * The main problem is in the lede. It was kind of a comprise between Begg's supporters and his opponents.  There weren't enough opponents until the recent news.
 * Keep in mind that he had lots of supporters. We must not let any of those names be forgotten.
 * What part don't you like? I can think of some parts that are overly generous toward him, but there is a purpose to them, too.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for us to reflect all RS info that is generous to him (in proportion to its mention in RSs). Not so much anything that is "overly generous". And it appears to me that comments that are negative that appear in RSs (such as the above link) are absent largely from the article (e.g., his comments on the Taliban). Another example -- the section on "Begg's known and suspected contacts with extremists" does not mention Al Awlaki. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the neutrality tag is simply for when you think something else should be covered that isn't in here yet.
 * We used to have it back when the lede called him an Islamist. Someone objected because the only reference for that was the article by David Ignatius.  (It was discussed in Talk:Moazzam Begg.)
 * You should understand that the presence of a neutrality tag can be used by Begg's supporters to suggest that what the article says about him isn't trustworthy. I've seen that happen on a message board (perhaps at HuffPo).
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As used by WP, neutrality "requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." See wp:npov. That's what I had in mind when thinking the tag appropriate -- and btw, I personally almost never tag an article ... preferring to try to fix it (don't have the time at the moment here, and the fix seems a little time-consuming). If others (or I) present the other side of the story that is in the RSs, I'm happy to remove the tag. I do understand that sometimes people misuse the tag, applying it when they don't like the tone of the article, or what the RSs say -- that's just wrong, as long as it fairly reflects what is in the RSs. My assertion is that this article fails to do that. Once fixed, a tag would be innappropriate, whatever editors' personal views might be.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to worry about the tag, as I assume it won't be there for long. You and I seem to share the same view on Begg anyway.
 * I had thought about adding Al Awlaki before. It's going to have to go into a different section.  Abdulmutallab is going to have to be moved to a different section, too.
 * That list of Begg's known and suspected contacts with extremists is really a subsection of Detention in Guantanamo Bay; February 2003-January 2005. Its purpose was to show the government's reason for detaining him.  Begg's associations after Gitmo should go into another section because they weren't part of the government's case.  We can use the same format.  We'll have plenty more before too long.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could probably use a different title at the same time for clarity.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance redux
As part of the balance issue, an editor has deleted pictures of the fellow B commissioned to write a book, who was jailed for terrorism, and the training camp where his name is reported to have been found on a money order. Both are relevant, and the editor's argument that they are already discussed in the article so they don't need a picture makes no sense to me. I also note that, consistent with what I note has been missing from the article -- primarily material that is in RSs but negative -- which I am inserting, these pictures deal with his asserted terrorist ties. I have added two other pictures that deal with his incarceration -- these, the editor has not deleted. He argues POV, but on the face of it POV seems to impacting his effort to censor out these relevant pictures. The pictures are relevant to the article and are significantly related to the article's topic. I look forward to working with the editor to improve the article, and reflect RS balance in it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So could you please start and explain. Why the image of Dhiren Barot is significantly related to the topic of this article? Because he had a book shop and a book of Dhiren Barot was sold there? As i said i do not doubt that these information are relevant to the article and both the money order and book connection should and are covered in the text.
 * I do see a violation of WP:NPOV by adding of the images of an convicted terrorist and a terror camp as it violates WP:NPOV one of our core policies. The images endorse the alleged terror connection and can not be offset by anything. The covering in the text should be sufficient. We have to see this all under the light of BLP. Let's be clear he has never been charged with any terrorist related activities. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV as graphics are very powerful and the images endorse the weak terror connection.
 * Could you please give us the good reasons to include these two images? To show his alleged terror connections? They text is more than biased on that. Why do we need a further highlighting of the alleged terror connections in this biography of an living individual? IQinn (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dhiren Barot's book wasn't merely sold at Begg's bookstore. It was "commissioned and published" by them.  Not only did the original source say that, but Amazon.co.uk shows the bookstore as the publisher.
 * A lot of articles have pictures of more than just the main subject. Omar Khadr is one example.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank's for the book link. So the book was "commissioned and published" by the bookstore Maktabah A1 Ansaar. Is there anything wrong with publishing and selling of the book? Is the book banned in the UK or in any another country? Other convicted terrorists, rapists or mass murder have published books and we do not add images of the authors to the publishers biography. Sure it should be mentioned in the text when there are enough RS that take notice of that. That is the case here it is very clear mentioned in the text no problem with that.


 * But my question was why do we need to add the image of Dhiren Barot? As graphics are very powerful and the image of an convicted terrorist in combination with the image of a terror camp endorse the alleged terror connection could you please explain why this is not a violation of WP:NPOV? Could you please address this point. To endorse the alleged terror connection is troublesome under WP:NPOV and even more troublesome under our rules for biographies of living people.


 * I agree with you a lot of articles have pictures. But i do not think that this is a reason or justification for the inclusion of these two images that clearly violate our core BLP and WP:NPOV policies. IQinn (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not as though he published a book on gardening, and then surprised everyone when he turned into a terrorist. The book is about war, terrorism, killing people, and how good they are.
 * We're not saying there's a connection to Barot's plots. We're just saying there were connections to a extremists.
 * I think your point would be applicable if we showed pictures of the buildings Barot wanted to blow up.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank's for your answer but i think your are leaving out to answer the core questions. 1) Why do we need to add the image of Dhiren Barot and that of the terror camp? Showing the image of an convicted terrorist in combination with the image of the Afghan terror camp endorse the alleged terror connection. Could you please also explain 2) Why the endorsement of the alleged terror connection is not a violation of WP:NPOV? Mr. Begg has never been charged with any terrorist activities. To endorse the alleged terror connection by showing images of an convicted terrorist and a terror camp does not increase the quality of the article and is troublesome under WP:NPOV and even more troublesome under our rules for biographies of living people. IQinn (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't "need to" add anything. That's not the test. They are, however, significantly related to the topic of the article, and covered in more than one RS, and therefore appropriate. Had not RS covered the issues of this fellow and this training camp in relation to Begg, they would not have been appropriate for the text and photos. The article covers not just what Begg is convicted of, but what RSs say he is accused of and linked to. It is POV to delete photos relating to that, as you have done, while inserting or failing to delete photos that tell the other side of the story -- which as pointed out above you have done as well. We strive here for balance, and a reporting of what is in the RSs, and not to reflect one side of the story and delete the other.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is for sure not for my POV to remove this two images. And the article is not out of balance without theses images. They are removed for violating WP:NPOV and BLP policies. It is your POV to add these images by violating WP:NPOV and BLP policies. So far you fail to answer my questions and to deliver compelling counter arguments to the arguments i have given. Could you please answer my two questions and address the given arguments in my prior comment? IQinn (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Already answered.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not answered at all. Please do so the questions are clear defined. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you again to continue the discussion and to answer my clear defined questions concerning the content issue and to discuss the relevant arguments. Otherwise i need to bring this issue to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. IQinn (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Header title
There is a header that now reads "Post-release assertions of Begg's ties to terrorism". That header describes the contents of that section. An editor has sought to change it to "Allegations continue despite he was never charged with any offence". The section has nothing to to w/him being charged with an offense or not -- it doesn't delve into that. The suggested header would be as innappropriate as one that said "Allegations continue, just as he was told by the Tribunal, and don't even touch upon him being arrested for fraud and other things in his early years." The header should describe what is in the section, not this editor's synth or POV. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So far it just looks like your POV. No big problem with that we all have one and i mostly agree with that what you write here. But the title needs to meet WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE what your personal chosen title does not.
 * The from me proposed title is neutral and fits in the story. Sure it may needs some further tweak. But i strongly believe that your title violates the give policies as the title endorses the alleged terrorist connection what is problematic as this is a BLP. Please further change the title or address the WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE arguments. IQinn (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The title doesn't "endorse" the assertions. It "reflects" what is in the RSs. It doesn't say he is a terrorist. It refers to "assertions of his ties to terrorism". Which is precisely what they are. That is the content of the section, which is a reflection of what is in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. First of all a lot in the section are not assertions but simply allegations. A collection (yes each single allegation has RS) but you have put the whole section together by violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE because you are leaving out the opposite viewpoint and the reader is presented with a biased collection of WP:RS ("asserted") alleged ties to terrorism. The endorsement of this view is problematic and the section or title needs to be fixed. IQinn (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm dumbfounded trying to figure out your statement that these "are not assertions but simply allegations". I can't even begin to guess what you intend to say there. In any event, as worded, it makes no sense to me. Second, these statements are related, concern the same subject, and therefore are properly together. Third, the section clearly states that MB denies the truth of his confession, and says it was given under duress.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You may look up the definition of assertion and allegation in the dictionary if you do not know the meaning.
 * Secondly, sure the collected statements are related. But the section leaves out the opposite viewpoint and the reader is presented with a biased section. You said your title "reflects" what is in the section. But your title does not show any sign of representing the opposite view? The title is biased as the whole section is biased. If you say that the section would not leave out the opposite view than the title also should not leave out the opposite view. IQinn (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only difference between assertion and allegation seems to be that the second is often used to mean legal action is being taken. But that implies the U.S. or U.K. government is prosecuting a case. Suspicion as an enemy combatant is not the same thing as being charged with a crime. We shouldn't imply that he could be charged, nor should we imply that his not being charged is relevant. He was detained for a valid reason.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not get charged for being a terrorist? All relevant countries i know and where most of our readers come from have terrorism laws and do charge people for terrorism.
 * The section deals with "suspicion as an enemy combatant"? The title now says "Post-release assertions of Begg's ties to terrorism".
 * The section is a collection of quotes and statements that portray him as a terrorist. That's fine no proof but all WP:RS but we can not ignore WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE specially in a BLP. The title and section can not leave out the opposite view because that violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE. He has never been charged with any terrorist related activities nor any other wrongdoing. This opposite view should be present in the title.


 * The article doesn't say he's a terrorist. It says there are assertions of ties to terrorism, and there are indeed assertions of ties to terrorism.  People don't necessarily get charged for ties to terrorism, although it would be enough to hold him in Gitmo.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Randy. Allegation is more generally used in a court case, and in fact is the stronger word--which, given IQ's edits on this article, I'm surprised IQ would militate for. Second, a govt can assert that someone has ties to terrorism, and choose not to prosecute them for it, for a myriad of reasons. The fact that they don't prosecute the person, but choose rather to incarcerate them as an enemy combatant, or strip them of their right to travel (as the U.K. has done here), does not mean that statements to the effect that they assert the person has ties to terrorism should not be reflected. This section simply discusses assertions of his ties to terrorism. That is reflected in the title. The RSs don't have to prove that he is a terrorist. Only support -- as they do here -- the fact that RSs reflect the verifiable assertions that he has ties to terrorism, and who those assertions were made by. Agree w/Randy, once again, that it is wholly irrelevant whether he has been charged as a terrorist. I hope that this won't turn into yet another interminable discussion. One last point -- I have a dictionary, and English is my first language. IQ--was just wondering, spurred by your comment, what your first language is?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
 * People do get charged for ties to terrorism in legal courts in many countries around the world when there is valid evidence and it would also be enough to charge him in Gitmo if there would be enough evidence.
 * I agree with you it says there are assertions of ties to terrorism. I never disputed that. But the title and section leaves out the opposite view and that violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE. He has never been charged with any terrorist related activities nor any other wrongdoing. This opposite view should be present in the title. IQinn (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I didn't say there's enough to charge him in Gitmo, although it appeared that there was. I said there's enough to hold him in Gitmo.  Too many people had gotten confused by the "released without charge" nonsense applied to these detainees, and were seduced into believing that they should not have been held, or that they've somehow been exonerated by their release.
 * The title leaves out the opposite view because there isn't much there. He admits to supporting terrorist groups.  He appears in the "21st Century Crusaders" DVD ("Jews"="brothers of pigs and monkeys").
 * Would you be happier if we said "ties to extremism" instead of "ties to terrorism"? I can't speak for Epeefleche, but it would be fine by me.  It might open the door to listing more extremists who aren't necessarily terrorists (yet).
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all i do not share your personal opinion that it appears that there would have been enough to charge Mr. Begg in Guantanamo. If there would have been than i am sure he would have been charged but despite many years of investigation there was nothing and he has never been charged with anything.


 * I do not share your opinion that "released without charge" is nonsense. The US authority works effortlessly and responsibly. All prisoner are suspects and every prisoner had been investigated more than carefully you can be sure that they do not release anybody without charging him if there would be something to charge him for.
 * Prisoners were and are charged and prosecuted in military court in Guantanamo. Other Guantanamo prisoner have been charged in civilian court.


 * I think to just change the title from terrorism to extremism does not solve the problem of leaving out the opposite view.


 * Thank you for admitting that the title leaves out the opposite view. Mr. Begg could have been charged in Guantanamo or he could have been charged after his release in the UK if some of the listed allegations in the section would be true and could be proofed. So we should not leave out the opposite view that he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

I'll let my fellow editor speak to whether you are shoving words into his mouth. The way I see it, the consensus is that the title is fine. Just as we don't have to change the title "Possible POW status" to say "Possible POW status, but possibly not POW status", we don't have to change the title of this section. We're wasting each other's valuable time. I'm sure there are RSs we all wish to explore review to further improve this article. I will say this -- the article is far better and more accurate than it was two weeks ago. Thanks to all who have worked to improve it.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but there is no consensus yet and consensus is not established by voting. Sure the article has improved. But that is no justification for a biased section title that violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE. The  title leaves out the opposite view as i have explain in my prior reply. Please address the given arguments with serious compelling counter arguments so that we can make progress. I would like to ask you also to answer the two questions in the section before. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't just my opinion that Begg would have been charged. Begg was supposed to be in the first group to be tried by military commission.  He was released because of political pressure.  The U.K. left was biting at Blair's heels, and President Bush was willing to do him a favor.  That was a mistake, of course, but that happens in wartime.
 * BTW: That link was lost in the reorganization.  I don't know if it was a mistake, or simply not considered RS but we can find a replacement.
 * The section title leaves out the opposing view because there isn't any worth mentioning. It says "assertions of Begg's ties to terrorism."  I'd think that even Begg himself would agree that people are making those assertions.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As i said i do not share your personal opinion that there would be anything to charge him and that he would have not been charged because of political pressure. All allegations with no credible evidence that would stand in court. Really even the UK government would like to see him charged, prosecuted and put in prison. Me too if there would be any wrongdoing. But despite intense investigation from many US and UK government agencies No evidence of wrongdoing was found that would be sufficient to charge him of anything.
 * Mr. Begg has frequently pointed out that he has never been charged of any wrongdoing in response to that kind of allegations that has been listed in the section we are speaking about. So i strongly dispute that there would not be an opposite view.
 * As "never been charged" is the opposite view i see compelling arguments to change the tile in that direction to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE. It would be irresponsible to present a biased version to our readers that leaves out the opposite view. IQinn (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely w/Randy, for reasons discussed at length above. Iq's failure to listen to others and insistence in repeating ad nauseum his own view here has made this discussion interminable, and detracts from the project. I note, as I have before, that unlike others his edits have nearly always been to support one side of the equation. This article was a complete mess before now, with much negative material hidden, and puffery that completely lacked RS support included. The length of the above discussion which is no more than a fillibuster by a lone editor strikes me as a waste of time, and I suggest we not waste any more time. A cup of tea to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lengths of discussion is simply result of Epee's failure to keep focused on the topic. And repeatedly posting comments that do not address the topic or given detailed argumentation about the section title - that's filibustering. And you even waste our time now with ad hominem arguments. Nobody doubts that you have improved issues in the article. But that does not give you any rights. Please address the given arguments that address the problem with the biased title or leave the discussion up to other editors. Thank you IQinn (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not my personal opinion. Even though he could have been held without charge until the end of the conflict (assuming anyone cares about the Geneva Conventions), I have given you a link to show they wanted to prosecute him.
 * If you've got a source that supports the notion that there were no assertions that he supported terrorism, then let's see it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Still more on the bookstore
I'm putting more details on the bookstore here just in case we ever start an article on it. Previous thoughts on the bookstore are at Archive 1.

The Sunday Mercury says Hassan Abujihaad was first introduced to terrorism there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: Looks at their old website are still available at Archive.org.

Interestingly enough, their post-9/11 page linked to another jihad-site that includes Osama bin Laden's 1996 fatwa against the U.S.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For a person never convicted of a crime, Begg's article seems overly full of allegations, assertions, claims, etc., about wrongful or supposedly wrongful actions on his part. There were references to the British law suit, so I added that the Government gave financial settlements to Begg and others in November after these references, because of their claims that British officials were indirectly involved in actions that lead to torture or abuse by US officials. There were two mentions of Begg claiming to have seen detainees beaten to death, as though this was just something he came up with. One had a cross reference to the Dilawar article, but I added a short statement about the investigation after the other. Diane1976 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Diane. Welcome to wikipedia.  At wp, we follow the RS sources.  Having read much of whats out there, the balance seems roughly lined up with the balance of reporting in the RSs.  Sometimes, people accused of a crime have a great deal of coverage relative to the accusation.  Think -- OJ Simpson.  Such is also the case here.  To the extent that the article make sure such discussion is accurate, that is a good thing all-around. As Begg continue his advocacy work, that part should lengthen -- at the beginning, the only thing that he was notable for (and, in fact, a large reason that he is considered notable even today) was his detention relative to the allegations.  Have yet to look at your adds, but certainly your add of the British settlement sounds like a helpful one.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may add, this article exists only because Begg had been held at Guantanamo. Matters of criminal law such as guilt or innocence have nothing to do with his detention.  If this articles wants to say that he was detained then we need to explain why that was.
 * He was held under the laws of war. There was a time, just a few years ago, when critics of Guantanamo were still claiming to care about the Geneva Conventions.  Well, that's what we're talking about.
 * It's quite true that the real deaths of two detainees is what Begg was referring to. Although he claims to have heard them, there is no proof that he did.  People who still wish to believe what he says may do so, but that should be up to them.
 * As for "torture," I don't think it's been established that Begg was ever tortured. Badly treated, perhaps, but not tortured.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Begg does claim to have been tortured while in CIA custody before going to Guantanamo.  Whether or not the British government buys that, I haven't checked the court's ruling.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy. Thanks. The British government settled out of court and I think they made that decision after a court decided they had to provide information considered secret. But, the government also set up a Public Inquiry which will look into whether or not, or to what extent, any British officials may have been more directly involved, and it hasn't reported yet. It will probably give more details but I don't know if they will distinguish between torture, abuse or mistreatment, since all are quite clearly prohibited under Geneva (Common Article 3) which the US Supreme Court decided should apply to the Gtmo prisoners. I understand the US held people like Begg because it had suspicions about them, and, in some cases, either continued to hold them or released them, for political reasons. Unlike OJ, Begg has never been charged with anything but he and others live under a permanent cloud of supicion they can never challenge or hope to dispell because there is no official accusation or process. I don't think the point of the Wikipedia article should be to continually add to the cloud. Maybe the article should just indicate the US neither charged nor cleared him because of such and such suspicions, and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The British courts have the five techniques as a baseline. I don't know that the CIA went beyond that level with Begg.  It doesn't mean that U.S. law would read the same way, of course, or that the techniques are close enough, but it's worth looking at.  It's interesting that the EU and UK courts disagreed there.
 * As you said, the CIA had Begg long before the Supreme Court decided that Common Article 3 applies. (It's worth noting that the lower court said it didn't apply.)  Whatever one thinks about American treatment of detainees prior to that time, the entire ordeal rightfully goes into the history books for people to judge on their own.  People can judge the CIA's actions for themselves.
 * The same goes for U.S. suspicions about Begg. Readers can judge that for themselves as long as we put "allegedly" in the right places.  And better a cloud of suspicion than the halo his supporters tried to mount over his head.
 * But it was never a permanent cloud of suspicion. The haze withered away over the last six years as we could see what Begg has said and done since then.  While the vast majority of Afghans want peace and prosperity, Begg and his followers support the fighting.  Begg makes quite clear on his own what side of the war he is on.
 * The best he could do was to claim he believes the fight shouldn't be against civilians (which doesn't seem to mean sparing Afghan cops, and it's curious that his friendship with Awlaki continued well after the London bombings). The CIA and DoD claims are getting to be only a minor part of the story.
 * My point is that the spirit of those suspicions have held up rather well. The passage of time and Wikileaks have only made Begg look worse.  Moreover, they're all reliable sources.  If the New York Times can write about this stuff then there's no reason we can't.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of primary sources / disputed
Most of the information about Shaker Aamer that have been recently added are based on the interpretation of primary source material. Including serious allegation that are problematic under WP:BLP. Multiple secondary sources are needed for verification of these type of information. If nobody adds secondary sources shortly than i am going to remove this information. See also: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84 Cheers! - IQinn (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree about removing the allegations under WP:BLP. As with the CSRT issue that came up, there's a fundamental question of primary/secondary source i.e. is the document linked to Aamer a primary source or a secondary source. I would argue that the GTMO files released this week are at heart much closer to secondary sources than the CSRTs, and that is because they themselves provide all their sourcing. They are not primary in and of themselves, but are written after the fact and collecting together numerous other primary sources, practically the definition of a secondary source. As for Aamer, the allegations against him will of course not have been reproduced in other places, seeing as they were kept in secret files marked NoForn so they weren't even given to other foreign governments. The allegations against him are of course simply allegations, but that fact does not itself mean they should not be included. If we were to strictly follow WP:BLP sourcing requirements than the JTF-GTMO doc would be arguably acceptable but the multiple articles written on Aamer in the last week would definitely be acceptable, all of which repeat the claims. It's also very easy to compile a full list of those who are alleging that Shaker Aamer fought at Tora Bora and was closely linked to Al-Qaeda, all from the JTF-GTMO document. As follows, he is named as such by: Saudi intelligence (who specifically link him to OBL), Abu Zubaydah (who calls him a member of AQ), Moazzam Begg (who calls him a recruiter for AQ), Abdul Hakim Bukhary (who states that he was an interpreter for OBL), Yasim Muhammed Basardah (who says he was an important officer and close assoc. of OBL at Tora Bora), Tariq al-Sawah (who states that he was a member of AQ), Abdallah Yahya Yusif Al Shibli (who states he was part of a UK-based AQ cell), Humud Dakhil Humud Sa'id Al Jad'an (who states he saw him meet OBL at Tora Bora), Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif (who states he met him on the front lines in Afghanistan). Now, there's a very good argument to made that none of that is admissible due to the conditions the information was gotten under (duress, possible torture, waterboarding, etc...), but the allegations themselves are noteworthy, and the amount of supporting information from different detainees. The JTF-GTMO doc also contains information supposedly given by Aamer himself. The Begg/Aamer visit of James McClintock in 1998 is in the section labeled "Detainee's Account of Events", which means Aamer himself said it, and not under duress (the doc was made in 2007, the CSRTs show that by then all the detainees had been given a chance to give their story completely and argue for their own innocence. See Begg's CSRT to see his full statements of his conduct provided). The other visit, to Ireland in 2000, comes from statements Begg gave to interrogators, so the truth value is suspect. However, to back up Aamer's contacts both to Ireland and to extremists, it is noted in the JTF-GTMO doc on page 9-10 that in 1998 when police raided an apartment in Ireland, Aamer was there, along with a Libyan man who called Aamer a veteran mujaheddin and an "extremist active throughout Europe." At the same apartment with Aamer was a Bosnian war commander named Zubayr al-Haili, who was subsequently captured in 2002 and identified as one of AQ's "top 25". All of this is sourced, though the sources themselves are still secret and not publicly available. All of this information makes the JTF-GTMO document fundamentally unlike the CSRT, which didn't provide a single attribution. Razzmatazzle (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It sees to be clear that you do not understand the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary source, WP:PRIMARY. These documents are written by the JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. They are with no doubt primary sources when it comes to the biographies of the Guantanamo detainees.
 * People need an incredible amount of background information to draw conclusions form primary source documents and we as a general rule do not even allow experts to directly publish conclusions they draw from primary source material. We call that WP:OR. According to what you write above i even doubt that you are an expert in this topic area. We could filibuster about that but it is irrelevant anyway. We assume that experts are able to publish his/her findings in secondary or tertiary sources what allows us to be certain that the drawn conclusions are not false. We here at Wikipedia do not publish original research. In case of biographies WP:BLP like this one here we take it even more serious and demand multiple secondary sources for the verification of negative information about a living person. We take this very serious and there is no discussion about this. So please provide the necessary secondary sources or if you can't than the information will be removed.
 * I guess that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. Or did you edit Wikipedia before under another user name? IQinn (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we would call these all primary sources. Not everything written by GTMO is a primary source.  A base newspaper being an obvious example.
 * A primary source is "source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied." In this case, that would be something that Begg wrote, or the notes taken by an observer at the scene.  The memo signed by Admiral Buzby, the base commander, was neither written by Begg nor by his interrogator.  It's written in summary form in the third person.  Buzby probably wasn't even in GTMO at the time Begg was interrogated.
 * It might be a different story if Buzby was writing about the manner of interrogation, but here's he's writing about Begg from what must have been a variety of original sources.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Randy2063 gets at the heart of the distinction I was trying to make. The latest Wikileaks releases are not easily dismissed as primary sources, though I will admit that I am unfamiliar to the exact distinction Wikipedia makes between primary and secondary sources (yes, I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles), and am instead relying upon the standards I use in my professional life. The fact remains that I don't think the 2007 report on Aamer is necessarily a primary source. It itself is a compilation of different primary source testimonies made several years after the fact. Some of the information is over five years old. Wikipedia itself, in the WP:OR article says of secondary sources that they "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Under that definition, the 2007 document is clearly a secondary source.
 * You make the assertion earlier that I was "draw[ing] conclusions from primary source documents", but I would argue that no conclusion was made. The section on Aamer's alleged connections to Begg simply state the existence and nature of the allegations, without making either an assertion to the truth value of the statement or making any conclusion about the process in general. If you feel the language was improperly biased or implied a conclusion, then by all means bring that to my attention or correct it yourself to make the language clearer. While I of course did make conclusions in my argument here on the talk page, that sort of thing would of course be inappropriate for the main article.
 * I think the compromise solution might be to put a separate paragraph in, referencing material used against him while at Guantanamo. This would be like those on other GTMO detainee's pages, summarizing up the American evidence against each person. If the Summary of Evidence memos on every other detainee's page (but not on Begg's, for some reason) is acceptable as long as it is couched in as neutral terms as possible, then surely this document is as well, as long as proper attribution is given. Razzmatazzle (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Summary of Evidence memo is gone because IQinn has been dumping those. I disagree with the reason.  I wouldn't call them primary sources either.
 * That's a shame, too. This article was a shrine to Moazzam Begg some years ago.  The CSRT and ARB reports at that time were the only inkling the reader could see that Begg wasn't some sort of humanitarian.  Before it was added, the reader was left with no real idea why Begg was being held.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Randy this is article is surely not a shrine to Moazzam Begg. :)) It borders hate speech. Mr. Begg has never been charged let alone convicted of any crime. Leave him alone. Why are you so full of hatred? Look now he is even doing the job of the Americans. :)) Moazzam Begg: The Ex-Gitmo Prisoner Now Doing the United States' Work The Atlantic, November 30, 2010
 * Randy the "evidence" memo is gone because they are primary sources and not suitable in writing biographies Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84. When will you ever respect community consensus and WP:BLP? IQinn (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I said it was a shrine at that time. Take a look at the article history in 2006.  Other than the CSRT information, one would think he was one of those proverbial goat herders in the wrong place at the wrong time and sold by bounty hunters for the "$5,000" that they're all claiming they were sold for.  The other stuff was added after I dug up some newspaper articles on his nefarious past.
 * Yeah, I know about that "Doing the United States' Work" memo. It's pretty funny, and it's partially true.  Moazzam Begg is trying to do a sales job to the hapless Europeans who used to feign outrage over Guantanamo but now can't find room for all these "innocent" detainees.  Maybe next he'll start selling some bonds for us now that the Chinese aren't buying so many anymore.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And i spoke about the current version what is clearly borders "hate speech". I guess the Europeans would continue to take prisoners when the U.S who created the mess in the first place would take at least one of the innocent men. You may have not heard about that many of them were indeed innocent. Not only in the eyes of independent observers and judges but in the eyes of JTF-GTMO itself and there seems to be nothing funny here. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's "hate speech" then you should point it out more explicitly.
 * I've only read of a handful of truly "innocent" men. I may feel sorry for conscripts but they aren't innocent.  It's a shame that truly innocent men might be captured but it happens when enemy forces refuse to identify themselves as such.
 * The U.S. did not "create" this problem. The Taliban, al Qaeda, and their many supporters and apologists did.
 * The U.S. does detain enemy combatants under the laws of war. That should satisfy anyone who supports the Geneva Conventions.
 * If there is any evidence that Moazzam Begg supports the Geneva Conventions when Islamists attack or capture somebody, then it should be added to this article. I have yet to see it.  So far, we only have a half-hearted and inadequate statement to a western reporter that innocents should not be targeted.  Even if he means it, that's not nearly enough.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Shaker Aamer and many other are still detained in the Guantanamo prison and guess who is responsible in running the prison: JTF-GTMO, Admiral Buzby. Let's make a fictional story and let's say Shaker Aamer had been tortured or he had seen that other prisoner were mistreated by one of Admiral Buzby's people who run the camp. There would be an incentive for these people to let's say simply misunderstand the underlying documents and to write a negative report that insures that he be kept in Guantanamo. Not very likely but nobody can definitely rule that out or can definitely rule out that anybody involved in writing the summaries did not have any contact with the prisoners or were even involved in the interrogations. We can not definitely rule that out. These people are to close to the persons involved.
 * 2) We also can not definitely rule out that anybody involved in preparing this document was also involved in creating or preparing the underlying documents. (close to the information)
 * 3) Shaker Aamer and others are and were imprisoned while Admiral Buzby and his stuff run the camp. It all happens in the same period or at least we can not definitely rule out that all the information does not originates from the same period.
 * 4) JTF-GTMO was involved in extraction the underlying informations from the prisoners and it created most of the ideas how to connect this information. They are very close to the ideas as most of the stories if and how the prisoners were related were created by JTF-GTMO.
 * A primary source is source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied. Clearly a primary source.
 * Even you may disagree with some of my points the sheer evidence is so overwhelming that, no offences, i suggest we spare us your usual filibuster discussion and may simply go the next step of conflict resolution in case you still disagree. I do not think that long discussion with you in the past have been shown very productive and i can not remember when you ever left your own POV behind no matter how much evidence people showed you. IQinn (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, if you want to go through definitions line by line and say how they apply, then I can two can play that game. Before I do, I want to mention that there is no hard and fast line on the distinction between primary and secondary sources. For example, if I am an academic writing a book about the battle of Gettysburg, a newspaper article written by a New York Times reporter the day after the battle would be considered a secondary source. If I was writing a book about newspaper coverage of the battle of Gettysburg, that exact same article would be considered a primary source.
 * Now, to go through the definition of secondary source line by line, with an explanation of why each applies. The full definition given by the link you provided is "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them"
 * 1) The document that we are discussing is a second-hand account of the information about Shaker Aamer. The document was written by analysts, not interrogators (this is proved by the numerous "analysts' remarks" sprinkled throughout Mr. Aamer's file and numerous other detainee's files, and the citations to other evidence).
 * 2) The document is one step removed from an event, if the event we are talking about is the interrogation of Shaker Aamer and other GTMO detainees. If the article was an article on the Guantanamo Bay prison, then this would be a primary source without a doubt. But it is not.
 * 3) The document relies on primary sources for its material, in this case the primary sources being the interrogations cited in the document.
 * 4) The document often makes analytic or evaluative claims about the primary sources. Section 6 of the document (page 5) is labeled "Evaluation of the detainee's statement", while section 7b (pages 5-13), the "Reasons for continued detention", contains analytic analysis of a collection of interrogations.
 * As I mentioned before, if the article were about the legality of Guantanamo Bay practices, the processes that detainees undergo, or US intelligence practices, then it would without a doubt be a primary source. But that is not what we are talking about here. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources does not ban all use of citation of primary sources, but states specifically on the WP:Primary page that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The current section on Aamer fits that perfect. It does not require a single bit of "interpretation." It states the nature of the allegations and where they come from and maintains objectivity on their truth value.
 * Finally, to suggest that this article borders on hate speech is laughable. Mr. Begg is a public figure and as such details of allegations against him are newsworthy. Charlie Sheen's never been convicted of taking cocaine but if I were to write on his Wikipedia page that he was "alleged to have take cocaine" no one would blink an eyelash. Razzmatazzle (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say that a primary sources such as the source here--if indeed it is a primary source, which is not clearly the case--having been reliably published, may be used in Wikipedia with care to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. I would hope that all here would agree with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a primary source as the CSRT summaries and it is unreasonable to expect any educated person without specialist knowledge and background information to verify the information in these documents. It would also require a complete attribution to the source for each statement what was not done here, to keep NPOV and in line with WP:BLP. We would also need to add additional information to each statement. Statements of other prisoners could have been extracted while they were water boarded or while they were subject to sleep deprivation or put on a boat out of sea in a simulated execution... you know, all that stuff. We also would need to include that as we now know a lot of that what other prisoners said about other prisoners was simply false and many of is simply crap as many of the habeas corpus cases where judges had a close look at the underlying informations have shown. We would need to make sure that our reader would know about all this so they would not be mislead and to keep it NPOV and to keep it in line with WP:BLP. What a mess. 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need to explain why the U.S. government believes these things as long as we state clearly that a U.S. government department believes it. It's not as though there is doubt that the U.S. believes it.  That's no different than what we'd get from a news article.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as as reader I have a lot more confidence in a "primary source", i.e. some official document, than a journalist's interpretation, especially given that so many so-called journalists are pushing one point of view or another and have little regard for journalistic standards. A good reference, to me, might be the original source such as a court decision or a government document, combined with a good analysis by an objective journalist, because you can compare them. BTW, the beliefs of the US government change over time, and even vary at a given time depending on what department is speaking. I notice, for example, that after the US government offered a plea bargain and eventual release to a detainee, old Wikileaks reports going back years were presented in the media as some sort of proof the person should never be released.

Diane1976 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article seems to be heavily one-sided. Most of it is based on pentagon/CIA/FBI *allegations*. Similar criticism of bias applies to the section about Amnesty controversy.

The person mentioned is living in UK as a free citizen and has not been charged with any wrong doing, therefore the emphasis of the article seems undue. Moreover, the person has sued the UK government and the UK government has settled out of court with the person. However the tone of the article puts more emphasis on allegations in such a way that implies the person was guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.223.122 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
I'm interested in the wp policy supporting this deletion. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy used to be respect for the Geneva Conventions -- although Begg does not himself support it.
 * This kind of stuff needs to be watched for and corrected. There is an erroneous belief that detainees are being held under criminal law, and that the civilian legal system should apply.  That kind of thinking should have been thrown out the window, if not immediately, then when the U.S. Supreme Court (which takes international law into account) ruled that Common Article 3 applies.
 * Even President Obama, who ran on closing Guantanamo, acknowledged in his plan that it is fully legal to hold detainees under the laws of war. Add last month's op-ed by Senators Feinstein and Durbin to the mix.  While they claimed to believe Guantanamo should be closed, their plan for doing so also included "detention under international law until the end of hostilities."
 * Note that the above change to WP dropped references to CNN, and added references to Al Jazeera.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Begg has been in the news.
Begg has now (25 Feb 2014) been arrested in UK for terrorism-related offenses. This is reported by mainstream news (eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26335261) so is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpullar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

After Bin Ladens death: 'Barack Obama is dead': A sick joke from Moazzam Begg's Cageprisoners group The truth about Moazzam Begg The Washington Post’s Jihadist Op-Ed Contributor WaPo op-ed contributor and former Gitmo detainee posts photoshopped dead Obama pic on his website And he's been denied entry into Canada. Ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee to try to come to Canada again after rejection


 * So what? IQinn (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would presume that the editor who left that post, w/the diffs to various articles, is suggesting in a collaborative and friendly manner that we his fellow editors might consider those articles to determine if we think there is anything in them that we might find sufficiently notable to reflect in the Begg article. Which was kind of him.  Thanks!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be right and we will know when he/she tells us but it seems to me that he/she did not read the article carefully as most of it has been added already. So what shall we add to the article? That he was denied entry to Canada because his plane might needed to touch down in the U.S. in case of an emergency? IQinn (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee Iqinn, surprisingly enough you missed the point. Epeefleche seems to have gotten it at first glance. As for most of this being reported on the page already? You wouldn't be trying to mischaracterize, would you?V7-sport (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee V7-sport, surprisingly you missed the point. Well, so tell us what has not been added so it can be added. As i said most of it has already been added. So what? IQinn (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's all raise the civility level. V7 was seeking to be helpful and collaborative, no reason to be brusque and bait.  And no need to respond to the baiting.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right so let's come to the content issue. Anything you want to add to the article from these news articles? IQinn (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I put the Bin Laden death op ed in the Cageprisoners article when it came out. I didn't see a way to add it to this one.
 * I've been looking at the bit about Begg not being able to fly to Canada but decided to hold back. Michelle Shephard had written an article about this where she refers to him as a "human rights activist."  It was tempting to position that beside his support for "the inalienable right of the people to fight 'foreign occupation'" (=jihad) but decided it's a bit much.
 * I've also come across this one on Shaker Aamer recently that mentions Begg. It came out last year, but I don't recall seeing it before.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg a Political Prisoner Again
The following article by Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004, was published today on the Information Clearing House website. I am drawing this item to Wikipedians attention in order to encourage a balanced approach in this Wikipedia article; I quote the article in full. I don't need to comment further, as Craig says it all.

February 26, 2014 Information Clearing House

"I first met Moazzam Begg in 2005 when he came to support my campaign in Blackburn against Jack Straw. I was immediately struck by how gentle he is. For somebody who has been through Guantanamo Bay and suffered torture and injustice, he is free of bitterness and rancour to a degree I find quite astonishing. It is an extraordinary spiritual quality, comparable to that of Nelson Mandela. He does not hate. That impression has only been reinforced every time I see him, and comes over well in his book.

What the British state did to me for opposing their torture programme was bad enough, but nothing to what Moazzam suffered. Yet he is much less embittered than I am.

The fall of Libya further revealed the terrible truth about the extraordinary rendition programme and undeniable evidence of British complicity in torture. This included of course the appalling case of the Belhadj family, orchestrated by criminal torturers Jack Straw and Sir Mark Allen. As Assad’s Syria was even more involved than Libya in the extraordinary rendition programme as a supplier of torture for the UK and US intelligence services, Moazzam sensibly concluded that evidence may now be available there to be recovered from the chaos. He has been to Syria to that end.

Last week my friend Ray McGovern called on Moazzam and discussed Syria. Ray briefed me on the conversation, and Moazzam’s take was one of great regret at the bloodshed and despair at the ferocity of inter-Muslim rifts. It was the opposite of violent partisanship to support one side.

Moazzam Begg has not been arrested for terrorism in Syria. He has been arrested to stop him digging for further evidence of complicity in torture by senior politicians and civil servants in the UK."


 * Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

Rif Winfield (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Begg is not a political prisoner. Real political prisoners are imprisoned because they're working against the political structures of the regimes that hold them.  Begg is clearly taking a side in these wars, not trying to change the British form of government.  There is no one who cares about human rights who also supports the Taliban.
 * If it really worked the way these conspiracy theories suggest, the U.S. would never have released Binyam Mohamed.
 * FWIW: Worthington finally has a piece out. It's interesting how he often acts like he barely knows the guy.  I don't think that'll save him in the end.
 * Information Clearing House is not a legit site. Do you have a link?  They probably swiped the article from another source.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Information Clearing House is a well-known, highly reputable and entirely legitimate website that has existed for many years, dealing predominantly with human rights issues, and supported entirely by voluntary donations. Many distinguished writers have contributed regularly to it over a number of years. The link to this article is http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37766.htm
 * I make it clear that I am not taking sides in this issue, but just ensuring that counter-arguments are heard in the interest of balance. That is the true value of Wikipedia. Regards.(talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't oppose listing counter-arguments. I'm just questioning the source.
 * While I do imagine that most of its contributors would approve of their work being republished on ICH, I don't think it's always necessarily always with their permission. I see an article there by Reuters that I doubt they've paid for.  There's also one by the Russian government's Russia Today that's attributed only by the letters RT.  I don't think ICH writes anything on their own, other than asking for money.
 * I found this item is also here on Murray's blog. That's probably where they snagged it.  When we get around to listing supporters, we should probably use his website rather than ICH.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully concur that if we reference this article in the Wikipedia article, then it should be attributed to Craig Murray's own website. I do know that ICH commissions articles itself, but doubtless the same articles appear on a number of sites - that's the way of the world - if you're a writer and want to circulate something (and often it'll be unpaid!), then as an author you want to put the same composition/information in a number of websites. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ICH says it's "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media."
 * It may well be that some articles are taken with permission, or possibly even commissioned, but there's no way to tell which ones.
 * In any case, Begg isn't a political prisoner. The story that he was on the hunt for evidence of British complicity in torture doesn't pass the laugh test.
 * I mentioned once somewhere online, clumsily phrased, that he doesn't oppose torture if it's not done by Americans or our allies. He popped in to correct me on that, saying that he did oppose torture when Assad and Gaddafi did it.  While that's certainly true, it should go without saying that Assad and Gaddafi are/were both enemies of Al Qaeda.
 * Cageprisoners also writes about human rights in Saudi Arabia. Not surprisingly, the Saudi government is also an enemy of Al Qaeda.  The pattern is pretty clear.
 * It's only a matter of time before the music stops.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Need more details on the charges
Begg is charged with supporting terrorism, but the sources I've seen don't specify which groups they're linking him to.

The Gatestone Institute (run by notable people, but definitely biased against the jihad) is linking others to Begg, and then saying that those others are linked to ISIS.

I'm not suggesting that's anywhere close to being sufficient for a source, but merely that this is the closest I've found. Naturally, Cageprisoners and Begg's other supporters would be telling us if Begg was supporting the secular rebels, and they're not. The only other options are Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Clearly, the British government must have something more clear. I've never seen the full set of charges. Does anybody know of a link?

BTW: Former detainee Omar Deghayes has nephews who went to fight in Syria, one wounded and another killed. We don't know which faction they were fighting for either. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We're getting more detail: Ex-Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg denies terror charges
 * According to the source, he's accused of attending a terrorism training camp in Syria, providing or using documents with the titles "Camp 1, Camp 2, Tactical Training Schedule, Camp Rules, and Fitness Training Schedule (training exercises)," and providing a generator to the jihadis.
 * It could seem minor if one doesn't think about it, in that he's not giving them weapons. Cageprisoners will try to pretend it's perfectly innocent.  But it's pretty serious.  It sounds like he was effectively running a SERE school for the jihadis.
 * This should go into the article. I'll look at it this weekend if no one else does.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All rather academic now, as the charges have been dropped, and Begg is due to be released from remand later today. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits made to Lead Section
The lead section can use some minor changes to improve the quality of the article:
 * Remove the following statement: Referring to the War in Afghanistan, he said he completely supported the inalienable right of the people to fight "foreign occupation".
 * The statement does not appear to meet Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines for the lead section (e.g.: does not summarize the article, is not proven to be an important point, is not a prominent controversy, etc.)


 * Summarize the 2014 arrest charges into several concise sentences

Please share any feedback if you disagree or have an alternative proposal. Djrun (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Moazzam Begg. 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.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/04/02/moazzem-begg-i-saw-a-prisoner-beaten-to-death-100252-20707080/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305140238/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/18/nbenef18.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/18/nbenef18.xml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=13217058_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-New-City-terror-link-name_page.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=25056
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18298
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/04/terrorism.world
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maktabah.net/ViewProduct.asp?ProductID=1134
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renditionthegame.com/
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.maktabah.net with https://web.archive.org/web/20110528092940/http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/prisoner/558.html on http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/prisoner/558.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)