User:Geo Swan/opinions/Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs

=Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs=

Context
I've cut and pasted this discussion about whether Guantanamo captives are merely prisoners like the convicted felons in a US State Penitentiary, because this is a question I find addressed to me faily often, and I think I expressed myself fairly clearly here.

I think a very similar argument applies to the question, "Aren't Guantanamo captives merely POWs?" and I have addressed that issue below at

Feel free to add comments, at the end of this file. But, if you do, can you leave me a brief note on User talk:Geo Swan telling me so? Thanks!

(here are the original links to the contributions... )

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does every Guantanamo detainee rate their own stub?
I happened upon the page for "Sohail Mohammed" as I was looking for the lawyer who represented New Jersey muslims who were detained after 9/11. I soon found that you have written small articles for nearly all of the known Guantanamo prisoners. Are all of these men "notable"? That is to say, do all of them rate being included in an encyclopedia? I am certain that they are important to their families, but so are the prisoners at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Many of them are also considered to be innocent. I am of the opinion that the information in these small articles could be included in a list, with only the truly notable (i.e. known for something other than there detention) having seperate articles. 66.192.126.3 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have written articles about nearly ever known Guantanamo captive.


 * Thank you for offering the comparison between the Guantanamo captives with "...the prisoners at the Louisiana State Penitentiary."


 * You pointed out that some of the Louisiana prisoners are also considered to be innocent. Before I address your comparison, are you suggesting that Louisiana prisoners, who might be innocent, or who might otherwise be held in detention in breach of the law, do not merit coverage in the wikipedia, even if articles could be written about them from a neutral point of view, which cite authoritative, reliable sources?


 * I am asking because I want to make sure there isn't any confusion on this point. It seems to me that if authoritative sources documented the improper incarceration of a single Louisiana prisoner, he, or she, would merit coverage in the wikipedia.  It seems to me that if authoritative sources documented the improper incarcerations of a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand Louisiana prisoners, they would all, potentially, merit coverage in the wikipedia.  You suggested that only the "truly notable" merited separate articles.  But you didn't define what you meant by "truly notable".  Perhaps you could take a minute and clarify what you mean by "truly notable".


 * Now I would like to start to address your comparison with Louisiana prisoners:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Prisoners in the Louisiana State Penitentiary || Guantanamo captives Prisoners in the Louisiana State Penitentiary are held openly Captives in the GWOT are held in secret detention. Guantanamo captives, and the other captive taken during the GWOT have no meaningful protections. The documents that sumarized the basis of the decision to confirm enemy combatants status has been released for 58 179 of the captives. In every single one of those 58 179 cases the summary records that the decision was made based on secret evidence. Guantanamo captives didn't have any defense attorneys. As I noted above of the 58 179 captives we know about the confirmation that they were enemy combatants was base on secret evidence. Many Guantanamo captives faced allegations that were patently absurd. Hundreds of captives faced the allegation that their name, or "known alias", was found on a suspicious list. At least eighteen fifty of the Guantanamo captives were held, at least in part, because they were alleged to be wearing a Casio F91W digital watch. It is now known that when some Guantanamo captives Combatant Status Review Tribunals determined that they were innocent, the DoD just convened new Tribunals, to redo the Tribunal, until they got the result they wanted.
 * They can receive mail
 * They can receive visitors
 * Up until May 15 2006 the USA would neither confirm or deny the identity of any captives in the GWOT.
 * We have confidencee that the Louisiana prisoners are who the prosecutions say they are ||
 * The true identity of some of Guantanamo captives still remains in doubt.
 * All the prisoners in Louisiana were protected by the US Justice system
 * All the prisoners in Louisiana started off with the presumption of innocence.
 * They all knew what they were charged with.
 * They all had a fair and meaningful opportunities to refute the evidence against them.
 * If they learned their Prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence this would be grounds for an appeal, a mistrial, a pardon.
 * If new evidence came to light this too would be grounds for an appeal.
 * They all had a fair and meaningful opportunities to refute the evidence against them.
 * If they learned their Prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence this would be grounds for an appeal, a mistrial, a pardon.
 * If new evidence came to light this too would be grounds for an appeal.
 * Some of them have been murdered, by American GI, while in American custody, with trivial or nonexistent consequences for the murderers. Some of the known murders have not even been investigated.
 * None of the Guantanamo captives has faced charges before a court of law. (No, the Guantanamo commissions are not courts of law, for a whole list of reasons, like that they lack established rules of evidence.  The charged men's lawyers don't know the rules are.  Go read David Hick's Australian lawyer's account of why he was barred from attending Hicks commission.)
 * I know Bush administration and DoD spokesmen represent the Combatant Status Review Tribunals as the opportunity the captives had to refute the evidence against them. But the role of the wikipedia is not to repeat the talking points from Bush administration spokesemen press releases, as if they contained unquestioned established fact.
 * Louisiana prisoners did not have to worry about secret evidence.
 * Louisiana prisoners did not have to worry about secret evidence.
 * Louisiana prisoners did not have to worry that evidence that might clear them was being kept from them, and their defense attorneys.
 * Louisiana prisoners did not have to worry that evidence that might clear them was being kept from them, and their defense attorneys.
 * Guantanamo captives didn't get to see any evidence whatsoever. What they got to see, what the Tribunal called evidence was merely a summary of compilations of unsupported allegations -- or a compilation of summaries of unsupported allegations.
 * Guantanamo captives could rely on evidence being withheld from them.
 * Louisiana prisoners did not have to worry that secret evidence was being used to justify their continued detention
 * Civilized nations, that follow the rule of law, allow suspects to cross-examine the testimony against them.
 * Civilized nations, that follow the rule of law, allow suspects to cross-examine the testimony against them.
 * In a better world, even if there was some other objection to the secret evidence, we would be able to count on it being leveled at the right captive. As I noted above, that certainly wasn't true for Abdullah Khan
 * Someone did a sanity check against the charges and evidence against your Louisiana prisoners.
 * In civilized countries the charges against criminal suspects are a matter of public record. Charges that are what we call "patent nonsense" here on the wikipedia don't get laid, because, if they are too ridiculous, someone in the prosecutor's office will lose their job.
 * Similarly, the evidence is a matter of public record. So someone does a sanity check to make sure the Defense can't shoot it down in flames.
 * Similarly, the evidence is a matter of public record. So someone does a sanity check to make sure the Defense can't shoot it down in flames.
 * There was the kid who was alleged to have been one of Abu Qatada's assistants in 1998. Abu Qatada was a political refugee in London England, while, in 1998 the boy was still in Primary School in Saudi Arabia.
 * Half a dozen captives face rafts of absurd allegations for involvement in events when the Taliban had them locked up in their own prisons.
 * Captives faced allegations like "probably carried a weapon, while in Afghanistan".
 * Your Louisiana prisoners get to call witnesses in their defense.
 * Guantanamo captives are allowed to call any witnesses they think might help them prove that they were not enemy combatants.
 * But their Tribunal's Presidents had the authority to rule that those witnesses were "not relevant".
 * The transcripts from the Tribunals were so inadequate we can't be sure how many captives called for witnesses.
 * When the Tribunal's Presidents ruled that a witness was relevant, they then went through a charade whereby they determined if the the witness was "reasonably available".
 * I called it a charade because there wasn't a single witness request for an "off-Island" witness which eneded up being ruled "reasonably available".
 * Even witnesses who were also Guantanamo captives were ruled "not reasonably available" -- further proof that those charged with the responsibility to maintain the records ever figured out who that captives were.
 * Even the testimony of witnesses who were in US custody, in other facilities, was deemed "not reasonably available".
 * The process whereby witnesses availability was determined was:
 * For one of the Tribunal to send a request to the US State Department;
 * The request to the State Department asked them to send a request to the Washington embassy of the country where the witness lived.
 * The request to the embassy asked the country's diplomatic staff to request permission from the country's civil service to contact the witness, and to enlist the help of the country's civil service, to locate the witness's contact information.
 * Not even one of these requests netted a reply. Not one.  Not even when the country the witness was a citizen of was the United States.
 * Your Louisiana prisoners get to call for documentary evidence in their defense.
 * Guantanamo captives are allowed to call for any documentary evidence they think might help them prove that they were not enemy combatants.
 * But their Tribunal's Presidents had the authority to rule that those documents were "not relevant".
 * When the Tribunal's Presidents ruled that a document was relevant, the Tribunal's President then made a determination as to whether the document was "reasonably available".
 * The only documents that I remember being produced at the Tribunal were letters that captives had received while in Guantanamo.
 * Numerous captives asked for highly relevant documents, like their passports, which they knew were in the Guantanamo evidence locker, because their interrogators showed them these documents, their passports, and other travel documents, during their interrogations. Yet the Tribunal staff were routinely unable to access these documents.
 * No Louisiana Prisoner was held in detention because his name was "on a list".
 * When the Tribunal's Presidents ruled that a document was relevant, the Tribunal's President then made a determination as to whether the document was "reasonably available".
 * The only documents that I remember being produced at the Tribunal were letters that captives had received while in Guantanamo.
 * Numerous captives asked for highly relevant documents, like their passports, which they knew were in the Guantanamo evidence locker, because their interrogators showed them these documents, their passports, and other travel documents, during their interrogations. Yet the Tribunal staff were routinely unable to access these documents.
 * No Louisiana Prisoner was held in detention because his name was "on a list".
 * No Louisiana Prisoner was held in detention because his name was "on a list".
 * Several of the captives were alleged to have had their names, or known aliases, listed on an internet website whose stated goal was to lobby for the captives' release. Sanity check time!  From this description this internet web site could have been some completely legitimate site, like Amnesty International!
 * Other captives faced the allegation that they were found on a list of captives known to have spent time in Pakistani custody. Sanity check time!  Circular reasoning.  "Our proof that you are associated with terrorism is that someone learned you were in our custody, becasuse you were once accused of having a tie to terrorism."
 * If you are going to hold a guy, for five years, based on the allegation that you found his name on a suspicious list, the least you can do is make sure you spell his name consistently. Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari faced the allegation that his name was found on a suspicious list.  The documents in his unclassified dossier spelt his name six different ways.  So, which spelling matched the name on the suspicious list?  Faiz Al Kandari also faced the allegation that his name was found on a suspicious list.  Unlike his partial namesake he faced many other serious allegations, including that he was Osama bin Laden's "spiritual advisor".  I'll bet you a six pack, that if this list is ever made public, it will turn out that there was only one Kuwaiti named "Al Kandari" on this suspicious list, and that it referred to Faiz Al Kandari, not Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari.
 * No Louisian Prisoner is in prison because he owned a Casio watch.
 * No Louisian Prisoner is in prison because he owned a Casio watch.
 * The transcripts record only one captive's Personal Representative challenged the credibility of holding a captive for ownership of one of the most popular watches ever produced.
 * Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari also faced the allegation that he was captured wearing a Casio F91W. His was one of the first transcripts I read.  His was the first transcript I came across where the captive was accused of owning a Casio watch.
 * So, what is the first thing you would do if you read that allegation? Do a google image search on "Casio F91W" right?  Thirty seconds later I had several dozen pictures of Casio F91Ws.  I realize I used to own one of these watches, about twenty years ago.  I recognize that it is one of the cheapest, simplest, digital watches.
 * Then I return to reading the transcript. Al Kandari starts to describe his watch.
 * Guess what, his description is very different from the cheap, simple, no frills, Casio F91W. His watch calculated when to tell the wearer it was the time for prayers.  It would calculate this from the user's location.  The owner would enter his or her geographic location, by longitude and latitude, or by choosing a nearby city from a list of cities...  Not only would the watch ring out the call to prayers.  But it would point to mecca.  Technically cool.  That would be the Casio Prayer Watch.  Do a google search on it, and you will find it costs about six times what a F91W costs.  And you will find that it looks totally dissimilar to the F91W.
 * Louisiana suspects are protected by double jeopardy ||
 * Louisiana suspects are protected by double jeopardy ||
 * If a Louisiana suspect's trial acquits them, then they are released. || Donald Rumsfeld, and various other DoD official announced that the DoD had the authority to continue to detainee the Guantanamo captives who faced charges before a Guantanamo military commission -- even if those captives were acquitted.
 * }
 * }


 * You aren't the first person to suggest an omnibus list for the also-rans. I told that other person I thought the idea was unworkable.


 * I declined to work on it, when he made the suggestions, because I had doubts as to how useful it would be; I knew it would be a terrific amount of work; I didn't see anyone stepping forward to assist me in this large task; and I had something else on my plate.


 * But when I had a couple of dozen spare hours I took a crack at changing the form of the list of captives I keep in my rough notes. I didn't finish.  When the omnibus list got to be over 400K long it just became too painful to edit on my older computer.  User:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15  Geo Swan 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Geo Swan is a tad more "definitive" in his feelings on the matter, but I still agree with him at least 95% - at the end of the day, these are people who the major world power are claiming represent some of the most dangerous people in the world, far beyond the simple "POWs" held during other wars, these are people for whom the war was declared over in 2004, or are being held indefinitely until what...terrorism is extinct? Quite simply, they are being touted as the "ultimate" villains - and if that's the case, then somebody, either Robert Fisk or Geo Swan, should be documenting why exactly that is, for each of them. We certainly have articles on more than 500 Nazis, after all. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the passion of Geo Swan and the amplification of Sherurcij. I am astounded that we have articles "on more than 500 Nazis."  This seems a little much to me.  I assumed that biographical articles were limited to historically significant or nationally known or by some other criteria notable.  I will do more research, but it seems to me that out of those 500+ Nazis, at least 300 must have had a relatively minor role in history.  Anyway, enough about my perceived issues with Wikipedia.


 * I can see the logic behind Sherurcij statement "these are people who the major world power are claiming represent some of the most dangerous people in the world, far beyond the simple "POWs" held during other wars." If these individuals are that dangerous, to be held by the U.S. governement indefinitely, they are certainly notable.  I appreciate your assumption that my question was in godd faith, as it certainly was.


 * I am not certain that I agree with Geo Swan's assertion that "if authoritative souces documented the improper incarcerations of a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand Louisiana prisoners, they would all, potentially, merit coverage in the Wikipedia." However, I may take a look at the few cases I know about, look for authoritative sources (unfortunately much of the information comes from the prisoners' own stories, which never came out at trial), and make a determination regarding whether to contribute a few articles.


 * Regardless, thanks again for your passionate yet rational responses. Editors, like the two of you, demonstrate how people of vastly different viewpoints can reach consensus.  This should be an example for all Wikipedians.  66.192.126.3 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)  Just wanted to drop back by to note that I finally signed up as a user.  Ursasapien 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How are Guantanamo captives different than any other Prisoner of War?
The Bush administration's position is that none of the Guantanamo captives is a Prisoner of War.

How are Guantanamo captives different from ordinary political prisoners?
I don't know what an ordinary political prisoner is. If a political prisoner is someone who is in custody not for committing a crime, but because of something they believe, or because the secret police believe they know the captive is sympathetic to other proscribed people, thoughts, acts or philophies, then I don't know why the wikipedia shouldn't cover every political prisoner for whom there is a verifiable, authoritative source(s) that would support an article that fully complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Geo Swan 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add your comments below
Feel free to add your comments below.
 * Given the special circumstances of detainees held at Guantanamo, each detainee needs a stub. Sources are not that difficult to find.  It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to cover these detainees.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 22:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Update 2008-03-10
Six months ago, in September the DoD released an additional 1000 documents. I have been working my way through them. In doing so I found the following details I should amend:
 * 1) I wrote that no captive was able to call on the testimony of "off-Island" witnesses. Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa, a prince in the Bahraini Royal Family was able to receive a testimonial letter from a Bahraini government official.
 * 2) I wrote that all 58 179 captives whose unclassified CSRT dossiers were released were confirmed as "enemy combatants" based on classified evidence. The September 2007 publications added an additional 122 dossiers.  I came across one, where the captive did not attend, where he was classified as an enemy combatant based solely on the unclassified evidence.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Update 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of this essay was written in 2007. Consensus evolves. Since 2007 there has been a considerable change in our inclusion standards. References which were generally accepted in 2006, when I first used them are no longer considered sufficient to establish notability. So I do not intend to try to argue that any individual who is only supported by those references measures up to our inclusion standards.

On the other hand there were many AfD on individuals held at Guantanamo that I think, objectively, fell short of the standards of diligence we should look for in such discussions. I am working on a document User:Geo Swan/opinions/Should we have some topic specific notability criteria for extrajudicial captives... related to my suggestion that some of those AfD fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)