User talk:Sherurcij/Geo

Thanks for taking a look...
Thanks for taking a look at Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.

Two more articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion:
 * Articles for deletion/Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed
 * Articles for deletion/Abaidullah

Can I ask you to take a look at them? Thanks -- Geo Swan 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
Thanks for the note. I responded on my talk page. Cheers. -- Geo Swan 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I found two (possibly three) more afghan training camps
I found two (possibly three) more afghan training camps. I added two to the trainingCamp template. Please let me know if I did that the right way. One of the new detainees alleged to have been trained at them was also said to have retreated from the Omar Sief Centre -- without any explanation of what that might be.

I don't know if you have charities accused of ties to terrorism on your watchlist. Last week someone renamed it charities with ties to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Saeed al-Ghamdi pictures
I don't think it would be possible to tell, from these four pictures, al-Ghamdi's relative age.
 * A strong reason to prefer to have the first picture of al-Ghamdi the FBI released, where he is in Western garb, is that this gives readers a better idea of how well he would have melded in with the plane's other passengers.
 * On the other hand, the one with evidence legend is much higher resolution.

How would you feel about something like this:

I thought you'd like to know...
I thought you'd like to know that, now that I have started articles on all the detainees whose transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals have been released -- making available authoritative, verifiable information about their background, and the allegations against them, someone has decided that all the articles should be nominated for deletion. They nominated Shaker Aamer, as a test case. -- Geo Swan 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Saeed al-Ghamdi pictures, in order of their wide distribution
It would be good to know when the two pictures said to be from al Qaeda films were first widely distributed.

FWIW, there was a discussion in June as to which picture of Omar Khadr should be used.

I am sure you have encountered the same phenomenons I have in discussions of counter-terrorism:
 * 1) For some people the indisputable and widely accepted evidence of real involvement in terrorism is insufficient -- and they let themselves repeat, or expand on exaggerations, or outright falsehoods.
 * 2) *''One of the most influential books I read when I was a teenager, 30 years ago, was James Randi's The Magic of Uri Geller. Randi was a professional magician, and one of the founders of PSICOP.  Geller was a "psychic" mindbender.  Randi followed Geller on the talk-show circuit, demonstrating that he could duplicate all of Geller's psychic performances using sleight of hand and misdirection.  Randi devoted a series of chapters of his book to deconstructing laudatory (and credulous) articles by journalists who met Geller, and was convinced he demonstrated psychic powers.  Randi devoted a chapter to a writer for Psychology Today, who found (1) that when he spent time with and interviewed Geller, that all the psychic events happened when he was running errands, or was in the other part of the room; (2) that those who were convinced that Geller had psychic powers, by being around Geller when a psychic event happened would later exaggerat, often wildly so. Geller's feats.  I think that we see something similar happening with the exaggerations and bad judgement against those accused of involvement with al Qaeda.
 * 3) The allegations against some of those who have fallen under suspicion of a connection with 9-11 are so powerful that they bypass some observers critical faculties.
 * 4) *The possibility of cases of mistaken identity doesn't occur to them -- or indeed, they find literally inconceivable. I found myself shocked, over and over again, following the US Supreme Court's ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  So many journalists and politicians, who  we should expect to know better by now, that all the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists.
 * 5) *Everyone seems to have forgetten six degrees of separation -- that each of us has wide network of acquaintances -- when we consider the acquaintances of our acquaintances.
 * 6) *I don't know how closely you have been following the transcripts of the detainees that I have slowly been trying to summarize for the wikipedia. An alarming number of the intelligence analysts seem unconcerned to follow up on any exculpatory factors, or to simply dream up allegations.  One analyst wrote of a detainee, that when he fled Afghanistan to Pakistan he "probably" carried a rifle.  Somehow intelligence analyst mismanaged the their record keeping such that allegations migrated from one detainee's dossier to another.  The detainees captured following the skirmish at Lejay, Afghanistan, offers several clear examples.
 * 7) **Did you read about Abdullah Khan and Khirullah Khairkhwa? Khan, and ethnic Uzbek, was captured in 2003.   During his youth he had traveled to the Pashtun region of Afghanistan, and worked for a rich land owner named Shahzada during harvest season.  Twenty years later, after Karzai came to power, Shahzada travels to the Uzbek region.  While there he runs into Khan.  It turns out that the two of them are fans of cock-fighting and dog-fighting.  Khan recognizes his former boss at a dog fight, after seeing him for the first time in twenty years.  Shahzada tells Khan he is looking to buy a new dog, for his kennel.  Khan gives his former boss a valuable dog.  In return Shahzada tells Khan, that if he ever comes to Shahzada's region he should be his guest.  Six months later Khan does visit Shahzada.  His first night Shahzada invites a friend who is not a Pashtun, an in-law of his who is an ethnic Tajik, who lives in a small Tajik enclave in the the Pashtun region.  From their description, the three of them play cards, avoid politics, even avoid personal inquiries.
 * 8) **The next day these three men are arrested by American soldiers, based on a tip by one of Shahzada's neighbours -- who presumably pockets 3 x $5000. Khan tells his Combatant Status Review Tribunal that during all of his interrogations his interrogators kept insisting that he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa, and that his denials that he was not Khirullah Khairkhwa were lies.  Khan says he pleaded with his interrogators to check the prison roster, because not only wasn't he Khirullah Khairkhwa, but ohter detainees had told him that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa had been captured back in 2001, and was being held in another portion of the camp.  Unbelievably, his interrogators fail to take the obvious step of checking the roster.  For half a decade Khirullah Khairkhwa had read the Taliban's Press releases -- which must have made his name one of the most widely recognized Afghan names.  Every time I think about this failure I am shocked, all over again, at the failure of American intelligence analysts to take the obvious step of sanity checking their theories.  Running the Guantanamo camps has cost more than half a billion dollars.  Running Guantanamo has tied down several battalions of soldiers.  Yet intelligence analysts seemed willing to blow a million bucks a pop by failing to consider the exculpatory evidence.

You have probably experienced the same accusations I have, that by trying to write neutrally about terrorism and counter-terrorism, we are helping terrorism, or making the world less safe. I suspect you will agree with me that the complete opposite is the truth. We have limited resources to devote to counter-terrorism. So how to use those resources should be based on rational arguments, not emotional arguments. Making decisions on unreliable evidence costs innocent lives. The coercive (or worse) interrogations of Ibn Sheikh Al-Libi and Mohammed al-Qahtani prove that.

Well, I will stop preaching to the choir.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

update
Thanks for the update on Majid Khan. What I suspect is that the real secret of the American interrogations will turn out to be how phenomonally amateurish and worthless they have been. Not worthless -- worse than useless -- actually very damaging to our overall safety.

Basing counter-terrorism efforts on false confessions coerced from innocent men makes us all less safe, rather than more safe. Similarly, basing counter-terrorism efforts on allegations from mentally unbalanced detainees who turned accuser to settle grudges, or to secure more privileges for themselves, makes us all less safe. I think the announcement that they intend to charge 70 detainees is a tacit acknowledgement that they have recognized that most of the detainees were not terrorists in the first place.

At least one of the Presiding Officers of the first Administrative Review Boards is clearly deeply prejudiced, and deeply malicious. You get to recognize some of the signature mannerisms of these anonymous officers. The first time I read one of the hearings he presided over I was shocked by his malevolence. I wondered if he presided over the hearing when he was drunk. That particular detainee sounded like one of the innocent ones, who should never have been classified as an enemy combatant. But at the end of the hearing the Presiding Officer proceeds to tear a strip off of him, because he believed he hadn't been obeying the camp rules. I didn't see anything in the "factors" that stated that the detainee had not been compliant. Similarly, I didn't see anything in the recorded testimony to indicate he had not been compliant. Either the Presiding Officer had been tipped off, or he was basing his diatribe solely on the colour of the detainee's jumper.

Among the justifications for continuing to detainee the captives are:
 * Lead prayer sessions. Several detainees have the assertion that they lead prayer sessions listed as a factor favoring their continued detention.  If the detainees were being given the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions I believe this would be a serious violation of their human rights.  I believe captives are allowed free exercise of their religion.
 * Detainees are asked whether their treatment at Guantanamo has embittered them against the USA. If they are innocent men, then they were basically kidnapped, then I don't believe they should be punished for acts of civil disobedience, or other non-compliance with the camp rules, when their detention was itself illegal.

But, maybe I am preaching to the choir?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
Can I ask you for your opinion on an exchange I recently had with User:Zoe?

I created an article entitled: Codename "Mark" - a CIA agent in Afghanistan in 2001. When I went to save a minor chage, I found tha Zoe had already deleted it.

Its deletion has been bugging me, because I believe she didn't follow the rules.

I decided to tell her today. WP:RFC says we should try to resolve difficulties with the other person before calling in formal help.

Here are my comments

Here are her replies,
 * original research is a speedyable candidate, and I did nothing wrong in my deletion
 * Please read WP:CSD.
 * I am not going to undelete it. Either take it DRV or drop it

WP:CSD doesn't really say what she thinks it says?

Do you think her lack of willingness to engage in dialogue is sufficient for an WP:RFC?

Do you think my attempt to open a dialog was sufficiently tactful? It was too tactful for to really understand me, but not tactful enough that it didn't piss her off.

Do you think I should make a second attempt later this week?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry. I thought I included this link.  When I found the article had been deleted I saved my update at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark.


 * I was wrong about there being two captives who were connected to "Mark". When I found the other captive who interacted with a guy who was obviously a CIA agent, his name was "Tony".  In retrospect this probably isn't enough to hang an article on.  My most recent beef with Zoe is that I don't believe administrators are supposed to be both judge and jury.  I believe that on any particular article, unless it is a real emergency, she, or any administrator, should be one, or the other.  If she doesn't like an article, and it isn't already tagged, she can tag it with a db-bio, or prod, as appropriate.  But unilaterally deleting it isn't authorized by WP:CSD, as she claims.  Nor does WP:CSD authorize her to speedy "original research" or "speculation", as she claims.


 * She left a comment on User Talk:Geo Swan back in December 2005. Something like: ''"Your anti-Americanism is neither appreciated or acceptable."


 * I have another administrator, an original, who is acting like he can delete any article, without any discussion with anyone else. I think the Jennifer Tharp article this guy deleted has a rosier future.

Your opinion please...
Do you know much about categories?

I had a bunch of categories I started nominated for deletion recently.

I am very frustrated, since, no one is paying any attention to the defense I offered.

Does my defense sense to you?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

conflation
Do you think it is safe to assume that Khalid Al Zahrani is the same guy as Guantantamo captive 234, Khalid Mohammed Al Zaharni?

The DoD spelled his last name as "Al Zaharni", not "Al Zahrani" -- probably just a typo. While there are a handful of other guys named Al Zahrani on the official list, he is probably the closest match.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Khalid al Zahrani
I took a look at the Khalid al Zahrani article, thanks.

He is not one of the al Zahrani's listed on the official list from May 15 2006. He isn't one of the new 14 high value detainees, is he? Are you sure he is at Guantanamo?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

bagram
Can you think of any additions to Category:American captives in Bagram?

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
I just started Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees. Yes, by all means, let's meet IRL.

How would you like to invite A.K. and Z.K. to join us?

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hassan Ghul
Wow. You found a lot references. I am going to have to make time to read them all.

I started filling out the references, because it is heartbreaking when someone finds a good reference and then it gets moved, or expires. When the reference has been filled out, with title, author, publisher, etc, it makes it a lot easire to find mirrors.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

coffee
Yes, how about Tuesday, noon, at the Tim Hortons on Front Street East?

I did notice Z.K. had established a presence on the wikipedia. I also saw that User:Zaynab Khadr said she planned to establish a web-site to correct popular misconceptions abut her family. I think that is a good idea, but I thought it was against the legal advice her family has received.

Her mom gave an interview, about a month ago, where she said her husband had sent Omar to translate for an important Arab. I wrote to the journalist who reported it, and she assured me it was directly from her notes from her telephone interview with Maha.

Earlier accounts had described his comrades as Afghans. If Maha got it right, and he really had been translating for an Arab, it makes claims that he was associated with al Qaida significantly more credible.

I don't know if I told you about having a professor who was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War...If I haven't I will fill you in when we meet...

I was relieved to read ZK's recent addition to Ahmed Khadr's article that Ahmed organized schools for both boys and girls. This would put him at odds with the Taliban.

Would you like to have our first meeting this week, and invite Z.K. to join us for a second meeting?

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

prisonplanet and related references
I am taking a look now.

First I thought I would take a look at the article's existing references. I was not familiar with prisonplanet six or eight months ago. Then I got into an unpleasant exchange with someone who had appointed themselves the wikipedia's guardian against prisonplanet and a constellation of related blogs, and blog-like sites that he felt sure were not reliable sources.

He had made a large and poorly explained excision. I had replaced the prisonplanet reference to one from http://globalresearch.net or http://globalresearch.ca. This guy lumped that site in with the prisonplanet.

When I did a google search on "Omar Al-Faruq" "Recruited by The CIA". It turned up what looks like a bunch of identical links to prisonplanet and other blogs and blog-like sites. I didn't think I could defend those sites back then. I did try to defend globalresearch. I saw that the other guy did ask on WP:AN/I, or reasonable equivalent, whether globalresearch was a reliable source. My recollection was that he was told it was. He never acknowledged this to me.

I don't know if you were the contributor who added the gnn link. Personally, I don't find it incredible. Abdurahman Khadr was recruited by the CIA. Up until May of this year I thought the real explanation of the early release of "Mullah Shahzada", "Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar" and Abdullah Mehsud was that the CIA had thought they had recruited them to be double agents. I thought this explained why they couldn't be reconciled with the official lists.

Anyhow, we should (1) be prepared to see the reference that backs up that Omar al-Faruq was a CIA recruited mole challenged, or removed; (2) maybe we should remove it ourselves -- even if it seems credible -- because we couldn't defend the site as a reliable source?

CIA connection
The International Herald Tribune says:

Fully populated references
This article needs to have the references fully populated, using:

When we don't put the title, publisher, date, and author in the reference, we can't look for mirrors, or equivalent references, if the reference goes 404. We can't even know for sure what the article said. The policy is that a reference is still considered "verifiable", even if it is no longer online, if the reference contains enough information that a sufficiently interested reader could find the paper copy.

Some BBC links...
So, why do I remember that one of these guys was going to testify against Carolyn Wood's troops?

Typical American treatment of the local civilians as if they had no rights...

Calls Omar al-Faruq:

This one says al-Faruq appeared on an "Islamist web-site" in February 2006, while another ref, above, says Abu-Yahya al-Libbi, appeared on TV in December 2005.

Radio Free Europe
Newsweek says:

question...
I saw this. I thought Maher Arar merely needed a witness signature, asked his friend, Almmalki's brother, who was tied up, but sent over Abdullah Almalki who he didn't know very well.

Someday, when all the controversy has blown over, I'd like to know if Abdullah Almalki ever suspected Ahmed Said Khadr was cooking the books to hide the diversion of HCI's funds.

HCI claims that Ahmed Said Khadr was never an employee -- just a volunteer.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this look like a mug shot to you?
I called this a "mug shot" of Mohamed al-Qahtani. What do you think? 

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly a different AFP article has a different picture, also said to be al Kahtani, between the institutional green rat-wire of a Guantanamo cell, that seems to me is clearly not even the same guy. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)