Talk:Omar Khadr/Archive 1

Medic?
I have some problems with this part:


 * Most press accounts of the skirmish say that Khadr killed a "medic", implying that he had attacked a noncombatant after giving his surrender, but although Sgt. Christopher Speer had been trained in a medic, he was actually leading the squad combing the compound after they believed all occupants had been killed.


 * After pretending to surrender, Khadr threw a grenade, which killed Sgt. Speer, and injured 3 other members of the squad. Omar was shot three times, and left nearly blind in one eye.

First of all, the medic thing needs to be rewritten or possibly excised. It is not Wikipedia's job to expose media bias; it's also not so clear to to me that saying one killed a medic implies having surrendered.

Anyway, the facts are unclear in the article. Did Khadr surrender or didn't he? I see there have been discussed before, at User_talk:Khanada. What was the consensus? --Saforrest 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you read the link to the article entitled "The Good Son"? Khadr emerged from hiding, threw a grenade, then took several rounds to the chest.  Khadr was gravely wounded, lying on the ground, pleading with the Americans to kill him.  That doesn't sound like surrender to me.


 * No, it is not wikipedia's job to expose media bias. But, realistically, if the article doesn't address the inaccurate media accounts, the article is likely to face continual "corrections" by editors who have only read the inaccurate accounts, who want to add the killed a medic meme.


 * I have encountered many people who have accused Khadr of murdering a "noncombatant" because he killed a "medic", based on these inaccurate news reports.


 * I was surprised to learn that medics are no longer non-combatants in the current US forces. Apparently they aren't.  The Geneva Convention sets out protections for medics who are non-combatants.  For military chaplains too.  If you remember those old World War II movies those medics had a Red Cross on their helmet, and wore Red Cross armbands.  Knowingly shooting at those medics would be a war crime in and of itself, even if you missed.  Military vehicles or vessels, with an RC lozenge on them, are similarly supposed to be protected, because they are supposed to be unarmed, and not carrying military supplies.  See the article on the RFA Argus, which the Brits referred to as "a primary casualty receiving ship", rather than a "Hospital ship", because she carries weapons.


 * People who know what a medic is from old movies, or from their Nation's Armed Forces, where a medic is a non-combatant, are going to think -- as I did until I looked into it -- that if he got close enough to a medic to attack him, he must have pretended to surrender first. --  Geo Swan 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Misleading image
There is a serious problems with that photo. It's an obvious attempt to make him look like he's still a child. Other images found online show him to be considerably older than that little kid. The image page says it's probably a "family-provided image". They're not an impartial source. This is propaganda. Either the age must be clarified, or that photo should be removed. -- Randy2063 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's worse than I thought. Here's one that's much more recent.  Note that he appears much, much older there, and even so, it still says it was "taken before he was imprisoned."
 * It's propaganda of the worst sort.
 * -- Randy2063 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The photo should be the one you linked to. This one seems appropriate. Jeff 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to pick my battles nowadays. But since its been brought up...
 * I have questions as to whether the photo of Omar at 7 or 8 or 9, or however old he is really can be: "...presumed to be used with the permission of the family." -- They cooperated with the documentary "Son of Al Qaeda". But that was two years ago.  And that went really badly for them.
 * I don't know the source of the older photo. Is it a DoD mug-shot?  A passport photo?  How old is he in it?  Hard to say.  Maybe he is as young as 14.  He was 14 on 9-11.  He was captured a bit more than a month before his sixteenth birthday.
 * I understand contributors concern that a photo of Omar when he is an angelic looking child risks expressing bias and generating sympathy. So, would a current photo risk appearing to express bias if it showed that he lost the sight in one eye?  He lost the sight in one eye during the skirmish when he was captured.  Maybe this photo is a post-capture photo, and whatever injury caused the loss of sight doesn't show?  I think I read a description that said he was over six feet tall now.
 * Perhaps we shouldn't use either photo?
 * I think I may have read an article that used the younger photo that said he was eight when it was taken. If so that would probably date back to the time when his father Ahmed was in the Pakistani prison.  Ahmed was imprisoned by the Pakistanis because they suspected he had been involved in financing a bombing in Pakistan.  Some months later Chretien, the Canadian Prime Minister, and an entourage from the Canadian Press Corps, were visiting Pakistan.  Ahmed's wife, Omar's mother managed to buttonhole Chretien, together with her young family, and appealed to him for help.  He was a Canadian.  She was a Canadian.  Their children were all Canadians.  She told Chretien, on National TV, that her husband was an innocent charity worker, caught up in an awful misunderstanding, or case of mistaken identity.  His incarceration has left their children destitute.
 * If my guess that this photo dates back to this first incident then it is almost certainly a copyrighted photo from some newspaper or televisions network's photo archive -- not one released by the family
 * Maybe it would qualify for "fair use" anyhow. I must confess "fair use" still confuses me.  --  Geo Swan 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I had missed the updates to this one.
 * That other photo looks like an uncropped version of the other one that was described as being from before he was captured. I agree that a current photo might also be misleading.  In that sense, I'm pulling the image.  It might be reasonable to replace it with the other one but I think then it should explain when it was taken.
 * I hadn't known about Jean Chretien interceding to get Khadr's father released. Omar not might have found a better life anyway, but it's possible he'd have been somewhere else.
 * And I agree that "fair use" is confusing. As I understand it, it's applied to a small excerpt of an article, or to thumbnail images that don't compromise the value of the paid-for original.  Part of the confusion is that sites like truthout.org and commondreams.org claim fair use when they copy entire articles.  I'm pretty sure that's illegal but I haven't seen them sued over it.
 * -- Randy2063 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You and I are agreed that neither of the two photos can be presumed to be free enough to used here -- and, if they were, the caption should state when it was taken. --  Geo Swan 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Both photos are one and the same, the one used in WP is only stretched width wise and so looks softer, as for his age at the time, he was 14, and yes it is a passport photo. As for any recent photos, other then the sketch, his family does not have any, so there isn't any misleading in the matter. (Zaynab Khadr 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC))


 * The article used to use a photo that I think dated back to when members of the press took pictures of the children when their father Ahmed Said Khadr was in Pakistani custody in 1995. I felt sure that the assertions that this image was provided by his family was merely wishful thinking.  That picture has since been deleted from the wikipedia.  But he really did look like he is about 7 or 8 years old in it.


 * The wikipedia tries to be pretty firm about making sure images are only made available that is really properly liscensed. The liscensing information on the current image says Omar's mother handed out copies of this picture.  If his family really wants this image to be released, then I don't have any problem with the wikipedia using it.  If his family didn't really release it to the public domain, or under another free liscense, then I think it should go.  Some people might think that this anecdotal report that his mother handed out copies constitutes enough proof that the image is in the public domain.  I don't agree.


 * Ideally it would be best to have both a current picture of him, and a picture of him from around the time of his capture.


 * I don't think we should use any family image whose liscense is in doubt.


 * I uploaded this sketch to the commons. It was published in The Wire (JTF-GTMO) -- without any visible attribution.  Maybe the sketch itself has a signature, from an artist who was not an employee of the DoD.  If so the Public Affairs Officer who edits The Wire should have explicitly credited the author.  It the sketch artist is a DoD employee then the sketch would automatically be in the public domain.  Has anyone seen this image used elsewhere, credited to someone other than the DoD?  It is tricky.  I think I have seen AP and Getty claim copyright on images that are clearly PD.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, WP's restrictive fair use policy is designed to encourage the acquisition of free photos. As long as he is detained at Guantanamo, getting a free photo is nigh impossible.  There might be an argument that this pic is PD (is standing outside and handing out multiple copies/photos to the public the same as "releasing" an image to the public? I don't know.)  But I think this situation is a definite common sense exception to the normally restrictive policy with regard to fair use.  R. Baley 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, if the sketch I uploaded from The Wire (JTF-GTMO) was made by a DoD employee, would you agree it is a useful image? If the sketch is in the public domain, then the fair use rationale that there are no free images is no longer valid.


 * I think that the Wikipedia's standards for when it is OK to use images, is higher than that of many journalists.  I came across a couple of dozen images taken by a freelance journalist who visited the village where Dilawar (human rights victim) lived.  It was on a site where you could preview limited resolution pictures for free, and outright purchase, or, liscence for re-use, full resolution versions of the images for a fee.  I have no problem with this guy seeking a fee for all the images he took on this expedition.  Afghanistan is dangerous.  He could have been killed, or kidnapped.  And even if he wasn't, field trips in Afghanistan require a willingness to rough it.  But one of the images he claimed copyright on was a copy he made of a family photo of Dilawar.


 * I, briefly, considered uploading the low-resolution version of the picture of Dilawar, in spite of the freelance journalist's claim that he owned the copyright on it, because I am 100% sure he can't claim copyright on a photo he didn't take. But, I decided it was not my place to put the wikipedia in the position of pushing any boundaries on the use of images.


 * I am suggesting that following the example of some journalists is the same kind of boundary pushing If Khadr's mom really wants to release that photo for us to use, or if she really wants to release it into the public domain, I believe it is possible for us to get that permission in writing.  I would feel better if we sought explicit permission, and removed the image if that expliciit permission was withheld.  Geo Swan 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here is an example. :::*here is an image that illustrated a Washington Post story about Dilawar.  It looks like a Bagram Theater mugshot.  If it were taken by a GI it would clearly be PD.  If it were taken by an Afghan employee of the DoD it would clearly be PD.  If it were taken by a CIA case officer it would clearly be PD.  If it were taken by a Blackwater or CACI contractor?  I dunno.  But since Blackwater bills out its contractors at sufficiently high rates that they get paid $1000 a day, and GIs get paid considerably less, I think it is fair to assume this almost certainly a PD picture.  And yet the Washington Post is crediting the picture to Jigsaw Productions.
 * Is the Washington Post just playing it safe, in case the picture was one taken by a mercenary, who leaked it from Blackwater, or CACI? In that case the copyright would lie with Blackwater, or the mercenary.  If someone leaked the picture from Blackwater, and sold it, and all their legitimate rights to it, to Jigsaw Productions, Jigsaw still couldn't claim copyright on it, because they stole the image in the first place.  They had no legitimate rights to it.
 * Or maybe the editor who adds the credits to pictures in the Washington Post is clueless about PD pictures? Geo Swan 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rest in peace all who are worried, we have no problem with anyone using this picture, it is in the public domain, and it's all we have now.(Zaynab Khadr 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Uploaded largest available version to Commons - if the family has a larger version, it would be appreciated. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I misunderstand you, was that actually a reference to this image? Or both? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Illegal" or "enemy" combatant
The section on the Status Review Tribunal says that he was found to be an "illegal combatant" in September 2004. The section on the dismissal of charges says that he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" in late 2004. This appears contradictory. 142.162.61.216 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the assertion in the combatant status review tribunal section is incorrect. None of the Tribunals were authorized to do anything but confirm or dispute earlier, secret determinations that the captives met a specific, very broad definition of "enemy combatant".


 * I'll go search for the passage you describe, and fix it.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Khadr-guilty or not guilty
For me is very unclear what people want about this guy. I think the situation is very simple: he killed a doctor (doesn’t matter he was a doctor in the Army) and crippled some other soldiers while being in a terrorist compound. He killed people defending a terrorist organization (I think this makes him a terrorist no doubt about it). There are clear connections of him to Al Qaeda and he acted on behalf of this organization when he was 15 only. What will he do now if he is to be released if he did what he did when he was 15? If he and his family were (are) Canadian citizens why don’t they stay in Canada? Should we be sorry about him or about the kids he left without their father? Should we be sorry about him who committed a terrorist act? We send to jail other teenagers for stealing a Mars from a corner store and we want to release a terrorist. Hopefully the justice will prevail.

R August 24 2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I want the article to offer as much information as possible, while fully conforming to all the wikipedia's policies.


 * Should we feel the deepest sympathy for Speer's widow and children? Yes, of course.  There is no reason to doubt that Speer was a decent man, and a dedicated patriot, who thought he was obeying legal orders in protecting his country.  Presumably all the the American GIs who were injured in this incident deserve our sympathy, because they too were decent men, motivated by the patriotic desire to protect their country.


 * Concerning the Afghan soldiers... Both sides in this civil war include corrupt elements who are willing to commit the worst kind of crimes.  And, I believe both sides include patriots -- who think they are fighting for the best interests of their country, just like Speer and his fellow GIs.


 * R, from August 24th doesn't say how he or she knows Khadr was in a terrorist compound. And R doesn't say how he or she knows Khadr was defending a terrorist organization.


 * What will Khadr do if he is released? I am sure Khadr will eventually be released.  Maybe in 2009 or 2010.


 * I hope that when he is released he is able to go back to school, get some job skills training, and become a normal tax-paying citizen. I hope he gets a good job, gets married, has a loving wife, and loving children, and lives a happy productive life.  I am concerned he may have grave difficulty getting over the cruel and inhumane treatment with which he has been subjected.  Integrating him into Canadian society would have been a lot easier if he had been held in the same conditions as the other children, in Camp Iguana, or a place like it.  Geo Swan 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Khadr was defending a terrorist organization. He was indoctrinated and trained by them; he fought for them; and he killed for them.  Say what you like about competent tribunals, but they're close enough to a CSRT that it wouldn't make a difference for Khadr.


 * Beyond that, there's always a chance he won't be found guilty by the standards required by the MCA, but there's no chance he'd be released. In accordance with the GCs, the U.S. government can hold him as long as it determines that military necessity calls for it.


 * I can only imagine that you think the next president will release him. I doubt it.  None of the detainees released thus far were directly responsible for the death of an American soldier.  None so dangerous were shipped back to a home country that was only a thin border away from the U.S.  Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would think twice about leaving him locked up until the war on terror concludes.  And that won't be for a long time.
 * -- Randy2063 23:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you do seem very sure of your self so I will assume that you have had first hand contact with Omar, other wise you might want to go back and think about what you are saying. First of all, if the US hade one ounce of solid proof they would not have waited so long and kept eveything a secret, and if they dont have any proof then, WOW, they are taking an awfully long time to find it. But let me tell you one thing for sure, Omar is purer and more noble then most if not all the people taking part in this war, you know why? He was in his place in a country that he lived in, he was not invading anyone or terrorising any one, and if he did what they say he did, then he as every other humen who walkes the face of this earth has a right to defent himself. But rest assured he is at peace with Allah(God), himself and the world.(Zaynab Khadr 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC))


 * If "Omar is purer and more noble then most if not all", I should think he would have been on the side of the interpreters who were gunned down, not on the side of those who did the gunning (assuming he didn't kill them himself).Bdell555 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have missed your post.
 * An ordinary town wouldn't have needed to defend itself if they had decided to remain noncombatants. The fact that they armed a naive fifteen year old boy with at least one grenade implies something more than that.  One wonders what the adults were armed with.
 * At the very least, he's a Canadian citizen who was defending an enemy of the U.S., which is an ally of Canada. I fail to see how they couldn't prove that.  Perhaps he should have renounced his Canadian citizenship when he moved there, and formally declared his allegance to Afghanistan.
 * It is taking a long time but you should know that it would have been over a long time ago had there not been so many legal challenges.
 * -- Randy2063 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Khadr-"canadian"
Hopefully Canada will not defend a terrorist.

T August 24 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Note: Neither Omar Khadr, or any other Guantanamo captive, had had a "competent tribunal" convened to determine whether he is satisfies the criteria laid out in the Geneva Conventions to be considered a "lawful combatant" who is entitled to the protections of Prisoner of War status. This makes it extremely premature to call him a terrorist.


 * The US military has a manual that lays out how to conduct these competent tribunals. See Army Regulation 190-8.


 * Note: Even if an AR 190-8 Tribunal determined Khadr didn't satisfy the criteria to be considered a "lawful combatant", wouldn't it be a big jump to consider him a "terrorist"? Which of the charges against him accused him of a terrorist act?  Even if, for the sake of argument, he doesn't merit the protection of POW status, and even if, for the sake of argument, one or more of the charges against him accused him of a terrorist act, his trial could still acquit him.  I suggest to you that this would leave him a non-terrorist.


 * I too hope that Canada does not defend any bona fide terrorists, but that it does defend those who are unfairly branded terrorists when they weren't afforded the protections of the rule of law and their status remains unclear. Taking shortcuts with justice, because we are sure a fair trial would be a waste of time, doesn't make us safer.  Ask Richard Jewell.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Like any other individual he deserves a trial. I think a lot of the "sympathy" his family back here in Canada is trying to generate is unwarranted. His father threw all his sons into affiliations with very extreme groups, and they seem very willing to accept this affiliation. They try to play up the fact that this guy is a child by using old photos but there is very little sympathy for him or his family within Canada. But he is still deserving of a trial.Manic-pedant (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An International Law Perspective
The article sourly lacks a state-centered Interational Lawa perspective. The emphasis here is on alleged US violations of International Law, but the problem is much bigger than is being portrayed here:

- To be a lawfull combatant, the accused's country of citizenship, in this case Canada, needs to be at war with the US.

- The accused would need to be enrolled or enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces.

- If these two conditions are not met, it cannot be argued that he was "lawful."

- In the event of being illegaly at war with the US (keep in mind that the US attack on Afghanistan was approved by the UNSC), it is incumbent on Canada to try Khadr under its own equivalent of the Neutrality Act, if and when Khadr is released to Canada. To the extent that the Canadians have not brought charges against Khadr, the US should not be seen as being under any obligation to hand him over.

- Finally, there is a very dangerous, albeit strictly legalistic, implication of the ruling: it suggests that a "lawful" war can exist outside the framework of the state -- and that is an extremely dangerous precedent that the US Military Court may have created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadians need to think long and hard on the question of whether military attacks on Americans qre "lawful." There should no repatriation of the suspect unless Canada charges him. A Canadian trial can be held at Guantanamo, if the Canadians convict the accused terrorist and sentence him to spending the rest of his life behind bars, then he should be repatriated to Canada. Hopefully, Canada gets to be a little more careful on its immigration policy from now on.--Jackkalpakian 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Over ten thousand Canadians enlisted in the US Armed Services, and fought the Vietnamese. By your reasoning none of them would be lawful combatants, and, if captured, would not be protected by the Geneva Conventions.  Is this what you meant to suggest?  Geo Swan 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They would have been unlawful combatants had they gone directly to Vietnam, but as recognized members of the U.S. military they qualify under article 4 of the 3rd GC regardless of their nationality.
 * Had Khadr joined the Taliban, some would argue that he'd qualify too. He didn't, and the SCOTUS hasn't decided the Taliban qualify anyway.
 * -- Randy2063 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'sourced' material removed because it refers to the wrong omar khadr
i actually went and read this source that was used to support the claim that omar khadr had received lessons in "Mathematics, English, Sciences, and other subjects for their mental and psychological need" and discovered that the individual in question is actually Omar Khadr al-Kindi who is "of Egyptian origin". different guy! material removed. -- frymaster 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How carefully did you read it? If you check the offical list of captives you will see that there was no one named "Omar Khadr al-Kindi" there.  Omar Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, WAS born in Egypt.  The "al-Kindi" part of his name?  It means "The Canadian" -- Ahmed Said Khadr's nickname.  You are misreading the paragraph.  The "Egyptian origin" phrase merely means that Omar's father was Egyptian.


 * I am going to paste in the paragraph in question:


 * We can't know whether Bryan Del Monte actually lied to the Arab journalists, or merely mislead them. It seems to me that the Arab journalists BELIEVED that Del Monte told them that Omar Khadr had been given schooling in Guantanamo.  Guantananmo didn't contain three minors.  It contained over twenty minors.  Three children were detained in Camp Iguana, and they did receive schooling, and get to play soccer with their guards.  But the three teenagers named in article were not those three children.


 * Please be more careful. I am going to resist the temptation to correct your mistake.  I am going to give you an opportunity to acknowledge your mistake yourself.  Geo Swan 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * point taken. altough, to me 'egyptian origin' would imply, you know, coming from egypt. i would, however, prefer not to have my name on putting that content back as it seems at odds with facts established elsewhere -- frymaster 09:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckless editing
I think this is an example of reckless editing. Contributor offered the edit summary:

Hello! I suggest the contributor check Omar Khadr's birthdate -- which is not in dispute. He was fifteen years old when captured. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao's policy statement on how child soldiers should be treated is highly relevant to Khadr's treatment. Geo Swan 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem with that is Omar Khadr wasn't a child soldier iaw international law.
 * Look at it this way, if he was a child soldier then you'd have to call his father a war criminal based on that alone. That would be fine with me but I don't think it'll sit well with everyone else.
 * -- Randy2063 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributor justified removing material with the edit summary:

CBC News, and many other sources, reported:

I'd like to ask this contributor to use references in a way that reports the title, date, publisher, author, if known. When we only cite the URL of a reference then other editors can't find replacements if that link goes 404. They can't even guess at what it might have said. Geo Swan 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * whoa... "reckless"? i would submit the following to support my edit: firstly, that regardless of his age, khadr was classified as an adult at guantanamo so anecdotal stories about children learning to read at the facility are irrelevant at best and weasle-wording at worst. secondly, the article is supposed to be about khadr, not unnamed children at the same prison facility. -- frymaster 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

buried evidence
Lead sentences from a recent report:



So who was this U.S. government eyewitness?
 * Another green beret?
 * Pilot of one of the fighter-bombers?
 * Driver of a predator drone?
 * Local CIA case officer?
 * Civilian member of a local Provincial Reconstruction Team?

What could this exculpatory evidence be? There was some kind of contact with those in the compound, prior to the initiation of active hostilities. Might this exculpatory evidence refer to notes about the initial call to surrender, and the compound occupant's refusal? If notes from the action recorded that they refused because they considered the US to be invaders would that be exculpatory? What if their negotiator declared loyalty to the Taliban's military structure?

The second allegation Khirullah Khairkhwa faced seriously erodes any claim the DoD could make that members of the Taliban weren't lawful combatants because they didn't follow a chain of command. That second allegation couldn't be a clearer description of a chain of command:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Detainee was appointed the governor of Herat Providence [sic] in Afghanistan from 1999 to 2001. Detainee worked for Mullah Omar while serving as governor. The detainee had control over police and military functions in Herat to include administration of the Taliban’s two largest divisions. Detainee was required to route all decisions through Mullah Omar.
 * }

I think it is worth noting that Fred Borch, the first Chief Prosecutor of the first military commissions, promised his staff that all exculpatory evidence would be buried, so it would never be available to the defense. He resigned his commission after emails were leaked from officers under his command who objected to his lack of ethics.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mafia and Hell's Angels have a chain of command. The Crips and Bloods probably have one, too.
 * Perhaps there was some ICRC rep on hand who gave him a POW card at some point, as happened to Moazzam Begg. It wouldn't mean anything legally, but lawyers can take an incidental item and inflate its importance for public consumption.  That may be what's going on here.
 * It could very well be that Khadr's lawyers have nothing substantial, and so they need to try this in the press. If so, it means they're desperate.
 * -- Randy2063 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the mystery witness an ICRC rep? Well, all the accounts say he or she was a "US Government employee" -- which would preclude the mystery witness being an employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross.  I'll agree that the issuing of an official POW card would be meaningless in the event there was real evidence that Khadr had violated Geneva Convention.  Real evidence of a violation of the Geneva Conventions, presented at a properly constituted competent tribunal, would trump any issue of an ICRC POW card.
 * I listed some possibilities above. I have thought of two more possibilities.
 * DEA agent;
 * Peace Corps
 * Is it possible that the testimony of this witness, will, in the end, not prove significant? Sure.
 * I suspect that, if we ever find out what this mystery witness's testimony was, it will turn out someone recorded the reasons the guys in the compound refused to surrender, and it was some variation of: "We won't surrender because we are loyal to Mullah Omar's government."
 * Was the lack of evidence disclosure significant, even if, for the sake of argument, the testimony might not prove significant? Hell yes.  Unlike the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, where the captives had no presumption of innocence, Omar Khadr and the other men and boys facing charges before the military commissions are supposed to have the presumption of innocence.  It is not the role of the prosecution to decide whether the testimony would be significant.  That is the role of Presiding Officer and the Commission Members.
 * So I don't stray off topic I will leave my reply to your Hell's Angel question on your talk page.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

revert -- see talk
I decided not to wait, and reverted a bunch of edits. I voiced my concerns above.

I changed my mind about waiting as I want to incorporated the new material about:
 * the November 8th hearing;
 * the "buried evidence";
 * Dennis Edney being barred from visiting Khadr or attending his trial;
 * the most recent challenges to Brownback's Presidency;
 * the dates of the next hearing;

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

rm untraceable dead link -- see talk
We should remove links to references that go 404. If the contributor who made the reference provided details, like the title, publication, date, author, in addition to the URL, it is possible for a dedicated reader to verify the reference. Policy does not require reliable sources to remain online. Removing links to references that go 404 is counter policy.

However, when contributors do not provide the title, publication, author, or date then the 404 link is untraceable. No point keeping those.

The lesson is -- don't just provide the URL for the references you cite. Learn how to markup the reference so you can supply the title, publication, date, and so on. OK?

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a source or delete demand
Respondent says: Incarceration at Guantánamo Bay - this needs to be sourced or it should be deleted. So, how many sources were you demanding? Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I re-read each of the three unique sources mentioned above (one is listed twice) and I still have not seen any information to support the statement that "The two years he spent there were the only education he had ever had" nor the statement that "he reported being sorry to leave."

The sources listed above as references are about different children. The BBC article is about a child named Naqibullah, while the San Francisco Chronicle article is about another child, Asadullah. The Guardian article is about both children. This may be a cause for some confusion, but it still does not resolve the issue of citing the two statements which I am questioning.

When making specific claims (e.g. that the child inmate was "sorry to leave" the Guantanamo Bay internment facility), there must be a specific citation to support the statement.

The rest of the Incarceration section, I believe, is in need of a re-write. Other specific concerns:
 * if Khadr was treated as an adult (as Human Rights Watch claims), then the information about the treatment of children should not be in this article.
 * Elaine Chao's recommendations about child soldiers is a peripheral point in this article about Khadr. She did not speak about Khadr specifically, so this needs not be mentioned here.
 * where is the source material that states that Khadr "has been described as leading the prayer sessions of the other detainees in his cell block?" I have read through the listed references and have not yet found that.
 * this article specifically claims that Khadr has been treated as an adult. This seems to be contrary to the US position.  Stating that he definitively has been treated as an adult seems to be a {POV} issue as both sides appear to contend contrary views on this subject.

For more concerns about my questions, please see your talk page. BWH76 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)