Talk:Mohammad Lameen Sidi Mohammad

concerns over a recent edit

This recent edit introduces material essentially identical to material I had a concern about that I addressed here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And the reasons your prior version violates POV and neutrality has been already addressed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I can not agree that you attempted to offer me a civil, meaningful reply. Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can only shake my head at your refusal to assume good faith. No, the explanation was full, civil and quite meaningful. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please! The record of our correspondence shows I have never failed to be civil to you. The record of my correspondence to you shows I have made a meaningful effort to try to understand your concerns. In our recent discussion of these paragraphs I have suggested we reach a compromise wording, we can both agree to. And you have not cooperated. You merely repeat that my wording was POV. No compromise can be reached if you can't spell out what you think is wrong with my wording. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I hardly call this latest exchange a cordial one from you, Geoswan (note "Please!"). Your record, by the way, does not strike one as being particularly accepting of other's view points that differ from your own when it comes to the subject matter at hand, and any change to any article written by you is met with a strident defense of its prior incarnation, bordering on the harassing, with requests that the editor who made the change defend himself and provide succinct statements as to why your prior version was not acceptable. However, as it appears you have called for a compromise, you can start by examining the text of my statements rather than ignoring them. The prior version is POV, and lacks neutrality. My version actually describes what a CSRT actually is, and leaves your further points about the process for each individual detainee as it was. Thus, in order to reach a compromise, you must be willing to eliminate your critical positions of policy, and be willing to accept that the article should describe what a CSTR is. These articles are not intended to cast doubt on the process, to provide criticism to policy, yet that is what is imparted, loudly and clearly. This should be eliminated. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a civil expression of a concern. I do my best to comply with WP:NPOV and every other policy. I don't expect to succeed 100 percent of the time.

My recognition of human frailty and fallibility is why I pay attention when my correspondents express or hint at their concerns. I am certainly not going to apologize for trying to understand the concerns other state or hint they have with my contributions. And I am very disappointed when my correspondents can't or won't explain their concerns. In this particular instance not only have you failed to explain your concerns in meaningful detail, you have just asserted that I should read your contribution, as if you had not even bothered to read the specific comments I already made about my concerns with your contributions. Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your post. I note that editors are certainly not "your" correspondents, and you should examine this position carefully before commenting further. However, the portion of my post you "ignored" is repeated, this time in bold so you won't miss it: Thus, in order to reach a compromise, you must be willing to eliminate your critical positions of policy, and be willing to accept that the article should describe what a CSTR is. These articles are not intended to cast doubt on the process, to provide criticism to policy, yet that is what is imparted, loudly and clearly. This should be eliminated. Perhaps it would prove more constructive to actually address what I wrote then to expound on hypothetical. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire first two paragraphs in "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" and the first two paragraphs of "Administrative Review Board hearing" violate WP:SYN, and thus WP:NOR. It has nothing to do with Mohammad and should not be in this article. I also note that the entire exchange above is incomprehensible, and appears to have nothing to do with the article. If there weren't so many redundant articles instead of a single group article, there would be many fewer editing problems. THF (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO the CSR Tribunals and ARB hearings require some context setting. I agree it is inappropriate to try to explain what the CSRT is here in this article. IMO detailed coverage belongs in Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

IMO Context is important. I have read some comments today about "eliminating redundancy". This is a "human factors" issue. Without a small measure of redundancy, to provide context, the information on the wikipedia would be much harder to navigate. Sometimes that requires a few sentences, or even a few brief paragraphs. I think this is one of those instances.

I have concerns with the most recent wording of the CSR Tribunal intro. I drafted the wording of the intro to the ARB hearings. And I would be very grateful if you explained how that section lapses from WP:SYN. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

npov and lead tags

The article fails WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD by failing to mention that Mohammad was held as an enemy combatant in either the lead paragraphs or in the infobox. It also violates WP:NPOV by failing to note the United States' denial of torture and Koran desecration claims, and by failing to note the fact that al Qaeda members are trained to make false claims of torture and desecration for propaganda reasons. I have little doubt that there are hundreds of articles that have the same problem. THF (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask how you know that: "...al Qaeda members are trained to make false claims of torture and desecration for propaganda reasons"? You describe this as a "fact". I know it is frequently repeated, as if it were a "fact". But being described as a "fact" doesn't make it a "fact". Over the last N years I have tried to trace the basis for this claim.

Maybe there are better basis for this claim, that remains classified. The only basis for this claim that I have seen published is the further claim that the "Manchester Manual" counsels its readers to lie about torture and abuse. This document was captured in Manchester UK in the late 1990s -- hence the name. The DoJ published it on their website. When I went and read the chapters about detention I found the manual did not actually say what those who claimed it counseled captives to lie said it contained.

Did it counsel its readers to "lie" about torture? No, it counselled its readers to inform their judges they had been tortured. That is not quite the same thing. It also counselled any of its readers who were captured to do everything they could to get a medical examination, prior to their first interrogation -- to establish a "before" picture, so their prosecutors can't say the scars inflicted during their interrogations were from pre-existing injuries.

I am not suggesting this means no captive lied. But I feel strongly that the actual wording of the document casts enough doubt that those interpretations of the manual should not be reported as a "fact". I am not sure whether this claim, essentially unsubstantiated, merits much coverage at all.

Regarding noting that US spokesmen have given generic denials of torture and Koran desecration. So, what are the choices?

1. Suppress all reports former captives have given of beatings, or other abuse, and koran desecration;
2. Give neutrally written coverage of the specific claims of a particular captive in their article, followed by the generic denials;
3. Give neutrally written coverage of the specific claims of a particular captive in their article, followed by a {{see}} to koran desecration;
4. Give neutrally written coverage of the claims, without including the generic denials.

Wording the generic denials is tricky. It is DoD policy, when asked about specific claims of beatings, or other abuse, and koran desecration, to decline to comment on any particular claim, but to assure the questioner that abuse was against policy. Frankly, it is hard to follow an individual's specific claims with an account of the generic denial in a way that isn't going to strike someone as biased. I have done my best to cover those generic denials in a neutral manner, only to have the same passage challenged both as a shameless defence of what the reader regards as a shameful US policy, and, by others, as a sly, tongue-in-cheek attack on US policy.

I have no problem with either the second, third or fourth choice. If you thik you can word the generic denial in a way that won't trigger concerns, by all means go ahead and do so. Geo Swan (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source that took me three seconds to find on Google: [1]. I am quite confident there are dozens of other secondary sources noting this al Qaeda propaganda training.

Vis-a-vis denials, there is a fifth choice: a mention of an individual's claim of Koran desecration isn't notable in the individual's article; have a WP:SEEALSO to the Koran desecration allegation article; and raise both sides there. THF (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WRT to the Washington Times article, exactly what are you proposing a reference to that article would add to this article? I don't see it establishing training to training to lie, as a fact.

The article mentions General Hood's inquiry. There have been multiple inquiries lead by flag officers. And one of the things they have in common is that they didn't interview any of the captives. If you follow this closely you will see that many of the reports of Koran abuse are said to have occurred in Bagram, not Guantanamo. Both former guards and the captives describe much worse conditions in Bagram. You are probably aware that two captives were beaten to death in Bagram, while their hands were suspended from shackles hanging from the ceiling. It is now clear that suspending captives from shackles hanging from the ceiling was routine in Bagram, for the first couple of days after their arrival throughout 2002, and at least into 2003. Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your fifth choice, as to how to address Koran desecration -- excuse me, how is that different from my third choice -- which is actually the current state of that section of the article? Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your third choice violates NPOV by only telling one side of the story. My fifth choice avoids that problem by omitting the claim, which is biographically irrelevant except as wikipuffery to excuse making the article slightly longer with an addition cite. THF (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WRT the claim that captives' claims of abuse should be discounted since jihadist training manuals counsel their readers to lie about torture -- are you now willing to acknowledge it is a mistake to state this as a fact?

WRT to your "fifth choice" -- so you suggest the article should merely have a {{see Koran desecration}}, without covering that Mohammed claimed he witnessed Koran desecration? In your opinion neutrality requires not covering Mohammed's claim if we don't offer the DoD's side? Well, how is covering Mohammed's claim, and the DoD's denial different that the second choice I listed above. It is hardly Mohammed's fault that it was DoD policy to not offer specific responses to individual captive's claims.

Is it possible you don't think Mohammed's claim of witnessing Koran abuse should be covered because you, personally, don't consider it credible? If so, please consider whether an editing choice based on your personal judgment of his credibility really complies with WP:NPOV. Reliable sources reported his claim. Stating his claim as a fact would lapse from NPOV. But noting that he made the claim does not lapse from NPOV. As I wrote above, I have no problem quoting a specific denial of Mohammed's claims, if the DoD ever makes one. And I have no problem quoting their generic denial.

Please consider, what would happen if we were to carry forward the interpretation of neutrality requiring hearing from both sides to the rest of the wikipedia? We would not be able to cover any dispute where one party stone-walled, and declined to respond to any accusations. Do you really think this is a good idea? Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my position, and don't see any reason to repeat it. Report the matter neutrally, or not at all. THF (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neural reporting would include any published denial in a RS that the abuse happened. if you find it, we could include it. We don't have to construct non-existent evidence to justify an article's balance. You are saying that we should balance the evidence that Madoff is a fraudster with the evidence that he is not, although nobody including himself ever said so. DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The United States has a position that hasn't been reported in this article. It has said that it hasn't tortured or violated international law; it has said that it did not desecrate Korans. Madoff admitted his fraud; the US has denied these lies. THF (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction #1: You asserted, above, that it is a "fact that al Qaeda members are trained to make false claims of torture and desecration for propaganda reasons." This is not a "fact". It is widely repeated, as you were able to find with your google search. That it is widely repeated does not make it a "fact".

Correction #2: I think, if you check, you will find that the various inquiries in response to claims of koran desecration only asserted to have cleared the GIs at Guantanamo of Koran desecration. Many of the captives' claims of witnessing Koran desecration either don't state where it occurred, or explicitly claim it occurred at Bagram.

Correction #3: That DoD inquiries cleared the GIs at Guantanamo of Koran desecration does not make the captives' claims "lies". Please recognize that the officers who conducted these inquiries didn't interview any captives. You are totally entitled to take the assertions of the DoD inquries at face value -- at a personal level. Any personal conclusion you might hold on the credibility of these assertions don't belong in article space. Similarly any personal conclusions I might hold about the credibility of the captives' claims don't belong in article space.

Correction #4: Susan J. Crawford, who held a very senior role at Guantanamo, has acknowledged that the USA used torture. [2], [3], [4], [5].

Correction #5: I suggest it is a mistake to conflate "The United States" with the George W. Bush Presidency. George W. Bush only led the Executive Branch. The other branches of the United States Government over-ruled aspects of his policy on captives. Geo Swan (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she said the techniques used were authorized, its simply that they affected his health because they were too rigorous in application. Did it make him tired? Was he exhausted? When he was tired, did he confess making it a coerced statement? And by your own test as stated above, this is not a "fact". It is widely repeated, that it is widely repeated does not make it a "fact". Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I have explained to you close to a dozen times that it is very confusing for other readers when one contributor sticks his comments in the middle of another contributor's comments. I am mystified as to why you placed your paragraph in the middle of my comment. I have moved it to after my comment. Once again I urge you to show respect for your correspondents by respecting the talk page conventions. Geo Swan (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about Crawford's comments amazes me. Are you disputing that she called his treatment torture?

Your comment about Al Qahtani's interrogation making him "tired". You didn't read his interrogation log did you? Geo Swan (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your conflation of Crawford's attributed and verifiable written description of Al Qahtani's treatment as torture, and the basically unattributed interpretations offered, Nth hand, by Public Affairs officers, is unsupportable.

Crawford is a senior jurist. She was, for years, a senior appeals judge. Her description of Al Qahtani's treatment as torture is her professional opinion. No, this does not make it a fact. I never claimed Crawford's decription made it a fact. I do dispute THF's statement that the US government "has said that it hasn't tortured or violated international law".

The statements of Press officers are in a different class. They are no more qualified than you or I to offer an opinion on whether these training manuals told their readers to lie about torture. These Press officers probably haven't actually read the document for themselves. Whose opinion are they quoting? Stephen Abraham, who was a military intelligence officer prior to 9-11, wrote that he found his colleagues at Guantanamo were young, inexperienced, untrained -- basically not competent. If the Press officers are quoting someone from military intelligence, without naming them, how do we know their opinion are credible? Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Geoswan: And as I have explained on each occassion, I dislike you moving my posts on talk threads, almost as much as I detest your patronizing lectures after you do it. Kindly do not ever edit one of my contributions on a talk thread ever again by moving it, and please save your markedly uncivil lectures for others (perferably very young children or wards of the state). Moving on to the actual debate, Crawford's statements are linked in the story, they stand entirely on their own. Her comments were that the techniques were authorized, but that they were taken too far, affecting his health, and were therefore "torture" in her eyes. For your information, any interrogation technique that affects the health and well being of a subject is "torture" under the eyes of United States law. As for his "interrogation logs", perhaps you can link them rather than making comments without support. That might help. As for your other arguments, you have now opened the door, and now you wish to provide the value of one opinion over another opinion, merely because it comports with yout own point of view. That hardly meets the definition of neutrality required under WP policies in this area. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

The Department of Defense lists Mohammad Lameen Sidi Mohammad's birthplace as being "Zandeer, Niger". There appears to be no such place. As there were frequent typos when detainee reports were completed, it is likely that this is referring to Zinder, Niger, one of the most populous cities in that country. I think a note should be made of this in the article, but I was wondering if anyone else had other opinions on this. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)