Talk:Said Muhammed Salih Hatim

disputed picture

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 06:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

In this edit, with an edit summary of "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source", another contributor removed a bunch of valid and useful wikilinks.

I think this kind of extensive and controversial edit requires further explanation on the article's talk page. In particular I think that explanation should include a clear explanation of why the excising contributor consider the source "questionable".

This contributor has similarly excised valid and useful wikilinks from several articles. I don't care if they offer a single explanation, somewhere. But I am leaving this note here, so that the need to deal with this issue in this article doesn't get forgotten. Geo Swan (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Already explained here and here. I have told you that here and here. It is also in this post where i have ask you about that and other open questions. You have not answered my questions concerning these content issues nor have answered many of these posts at all. As well as many others posts concerning content issues. I would like to ask you not to ignore questions and to work more constructive to solve the outstanding issues. IQinn (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

rough work

These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CSRT allegations	87-88
CSRT transcript	38-46
habeas documents	38-62
ARB 1 allegations	21-23
ARB 2 allegations	8-10
ARB 3 allegations	52-54

Another useful source is the The Guantanamo Docket it is an interactive database provided and updated by the New York Times. The database is searchable and has the Pentagon documents (CSRT and ARB) included. Additional documents and reliable New York Times research regarding the detainees at Guantanamo are also provided. This is the link to the documents and research regarding Said Muhammed Salih Hatim. IQinn (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Various problems

I have several concerns with this edit.

First, I think it is still appropriate to state that he was held in extrajudicial detention, even if his detention was ruled illegal in December 2009. If his detention was ruled illegal in December 2009, he still spent all but the last seven months in Guantanamo in extrajudicial detention. So the article should make clear that even prior to his detention being declared illegal, he was being held in extrajudicial detention. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder we did not remove from his article that he had been charged with murder. We don't, in general, remove all references to earlier charges, earlier status, even when subsequent events supercede the earlier information. To do so would be an "Orwellian", rewriting of history.

The assertion that his detention was ruled "illegal" requires at least one WP:RS reference.

The paragraph that lists how long he has been held in Guantanamo does not comply with the discussion over paragraphs like this from WP:Help desk, in January, 2010.

WRT this edit removes the image of the trailer where CSR Tribunals were held -- with no explanation. I do not believe the contributor who removed this image thinks they can point to a consensus for removing this image. There is no consensus for removing this image.

The image had a caption, which I drafted. The contributor who excised the image had concerns with that caption. The image has been widely used. And, initially, those instances used a caption I drafted. The contributor who removed the image initially replaced my caption with a briefer, alternate caption.

I don't own the image, or the caption. Neither does the contributor who had concerns with the caption I supplied. Unfortunately, the caption they supplied was (1) inaccurated; (2) unreferenced. So I reverted their briefer, alternate captions with the original accurate and referenced caption. I have no problem engaging in a collegial discussion over what the ultimate caption for this image should be. I have told the contributor who removed the image this, many times.

I do not believe that simply removing the image, without explanation, is a valid, collegial alternative to engaging in a civil dialogue over the wording of the caption.

Since there have been at least four kinds of reviews of the captives' status I don't know why this edit would remove "Tribunal" from the heading. I don't think this is helpful.

This edit replaced the passage

Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives from the war on terror. This policy was challenged before the Judicial branch. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation to conduct competent tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status. Subsequently the Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration's definition of an enemy combatant.

with

Said Muhammed Salih Hatim status as a enemy combatant was review and confirmed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal betweeen July 2004 and July 2007.

I drafted the original wording of this section. But I don't "own" it, nor would I claim to own it. I do think I am entitled to raise concerns about its replacement with other wording, without being accused of "WP:Ownership".

This new wording does not have links to several important related articles, the old wording linked to:

• Geneva Conventions
• the war on terror
• competent tribunal
• prisoner of war

No explanation has been offered as to why the original wording needed replacement. No explanation has been offered as to why the new wording does not link to these important related articles.

Further, the new wording misinterprets existing WP:RS by stating that Said Muhammed's CSR Tribunal was held "betweeen July 2004 and July 2007." For most captives we know when their Summary of Evidence memos were drafted, but we don't know the exact date when their Tribunal panel convened. Usually their Tribunals were held within a week or so of the drafting of the memo. The relatively rare instances when the actual Tribunal did not follow promptly after the drafting of the memo were due to the captive requesting witness statements, or exculpatory documents from the JTF-GTMO evidence locker. Those delays were rarely longer than a month. The requested witness statements or documents were almost never delivered. After 3 to 4 weeks of waiting the Tribunal Presidents routinely ruled that the witness statements or exculpatory documents were "not reasonably available".

However Said Muhammed's habeas dossier contains documents that say when his Tribunal panel convened -- on 2 November 2004.

I've explained to the contributor who made this edit that the DoD page that lists documents connected with the CSR Tribunals states that those documents were held "betweeen July 2004 and July 2007" because it was updated when the 14 "high value detainees" who were held in CIA custody until September 6, 2006 were sent to Guantanamo. Those fourteen captives, ISN 10011 through ISN 10024, had their Tribunals in the spring of 2007. For a long time ISN 10025 through ISN 10030 were not given Tribunals. The documents from their Tribunals are not listed on the DoD page that lists the URLs of Tribunal documents because their Tribunal documents have not been made public.

558 CSR Tribunals were held between August 2004 and January 2005. Notices to the captives that the CSR Tribunals were going to be held were issued in July 2004. Some CSR Tribunal results underwent (secret) internal reviews, in February and March 2005. So the initial 558 Tribunals are often described as taking place between July 2004 and March 2005.

I do not believe I am showing WP:Ownership to request the individual who made these edits to return here and address my concerns. I do not believe I am showing WP:Ownership in trying to make sure that if wording I drafted is replaced by alternate wording the alternate wording continues to accurately reflect what our WP:RS support. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but your 7000 character post here is another good example of WP:Ownership.

Coming to the content issueS. I suggest to discuss them one by one as a reply to your post here as it is would needed a 14000 character reply from me what would follow a 30000 character reply from you... wast of time as shown in the past.

You are free to pick one issue and to formulate a clear argument or question in a not more than a few hundreds character and i am more than willing to discuss these issues one by one with you. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I left this note on User talk:Iqinn. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No need for another fillibustering "central discussion". Most of the issues can be easily discussed and agreed on by using the talk page. Let's do it step by step i do not see any problem to find consensus with you in most of the issues you have brought up here. Let's work towards consensus issue by issue and when we come to a topic where we can not find consensus then i would suggest a form of dispute resolution with a lot of input of other editors. But as i said i am willing to work towards consensus and i am full of confidence that we will achieve this when we keep some basic rules as taking it issue by issue and argument by argument in short replies with not more that one argument or question at a time. Let's start.

I suggest to start with the word "illegal" that you think should not be used or needed to be referenced. I hope that is fine with you and you are up to pick the next point after we have found consensus for this what i think won't be to difficult.

Please understand Said Muhammed Salih Hatim won his habeas corpus. Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that his detention is illegal. The reference to this ruling is i think not in question and included in the article.

The government has been holding Said Muhammed Salih Hatim against the law for more than eight years. You might get some more information on the meaning of habeas corpus as their is IMO no doubt about the fact that his detention has been ruled illegal. IQinn (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To say "against the law" is not quite the best description. It was technically unlawful, rather than "illegal", to hold him initially because it wasn't adequately covered by the law. It was only in Boumediene that SCOTUS decided that the law really required a habeas hearing. But even Boumediene ruled that the hearing could be delayed until after the CSRT.

Along the way to all this, the Detainee Treatment Act had removed habeas as an option. It was overturned, but it was deemed legal at the time.

Even afterwards, it's okay to hold him pending appeal, and then perhaps pending finding a place to send him. So, the phrase "against the law" implies the wrong thing.

Regardless, he was held in extra-judicial detention. I don't think of that category being the same as "living people", where it's removed when someone dies. I think it should stay once it's assigned. If there's a call to change the name of the category then that's a different matter.

And, no, I don't think WP:Ownership applies here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank's for joining the discussion.

Correct me if i am wrong. I think we agree that his detention was declared as unlawful.

According to the information about habeas corpus and all dictionaries (unlawful = : not lawful : illegal) that i just have checked: Illegal is just another term for unlawful with the same meaning.

So i still wonder a bit why we can not use this equal term. IQinn (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Although that's not exactly the problem here, unlawful and illegal are not always the same.

My problem is that this implies the U.S. was acting in a rogue manner for eight years when that's clearly not true. They did everything the law says. If the Supreme Court had decided they need to be released immediately then that would happen.

For example, Hatim is still locked up in GTMO. Did the Court really say he should be released? Does that mean the commanding officer at GTMO is breaking the law at this very moment? Or, does that mean that every previous C.O.s at GTMO broke the law by holding him? Nope.

To repeat the O.J. Simpson example, was it unlawful to arrest Simpson in the first place, and then hold him for a year when they couldn't adequately prove the charges? Of course not.

Based on the information they had at GTMO, it was proper to detain Hatim until the law says otherwise. The law didn't say otherwise until relatively recently, and they're still allowed to appeal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On further study, I don't see any call for an appeal at this point. He seems to be held simply because he's a Yemeni, and the problems we're having with them. If so, it's still not illegal to hold him until that's straightened out. Regardless, this needs to be clarified in the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

- Not an easy issue and i am working on checking more information and working on a longer reply. So far at this point there is no doubt that he won his habeas corpus that the judge has ordered his detention as unlawful and he has ordered his release. Your reply and your attempt to compare his case with the case of O.J Simpson shows that you not even have a basic understanding of habeas corpus. As said i am working on a longer reply with information that should help you to understand more about habeas corpus and i suggest you may deepen you knowledge about this until then. IQinn (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what habeas corpus is.

Your version of the article says he was "unlawfully detained for more than eight years". That suggests malfeasance in a way that will fool the casual reader.

Is GTMO's C.O. in 2007 a criminal for holding him even though the appeals court had then ruled that habeas didn't apply to GTMO?

In its final ruling, SCOTUS had said: "The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine a detainee’s status before a court entertains that detainee’s habeas corpus petition." How does that factor into your eight years?

If the case is pending appeal, or if they're simply waiting until they figure out where to send him, then is he, in your opinion, being unlawfully detained right now? The text says that he is, when that's obviously not true.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that you fully understand habeas corpus law. What the impossible attempt to compare this case here to that of O.J Simpson showed.

It does not matter at what time he was entitled to file his habeas corpus it is the result of the habeas corpus that counts. The judge has ruled that his detention is unlawful / illegal and he has ordered his release.

The Judge ruled that the government had no right to further detain him because the administration does not have sufficient evidence that would justify his detention. You mean the government believed it had credible evidence until the judge proofed they had not? And that the government was in the false believe they had credible evidence follows that he was lawful detained until a judge ruled that there are no credible evidence? That does not make sense to me. They were never sufficient credible evidence all the eight years. The false believe of the administration does not matter. He has been detained unlawful for more than eight years.

Yes, the status quo now is that he is unlawfully detained. That nobody can force the Obama administration to release him after the ruling does not change this fact nor does it matter if there would or wouldn't be any legal consequences for the administration if they do not follow the release order timely. That's just policy and does not change anything on the fact that Hatim won his habeas corpus and the judge has ruled his detention as unlawful. IQinn (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. He is not presently unlawfully detained. If there is no appeal then he cannot be held as an enemy combatant, but he could be held until we figure out where to send him. There's nothing wrong with that.

Second, almost as an aside, you should realize that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal trials. That the courts weigh these things differently doesn't mean the difference was that clear to the CSRT. And besides that, the rules had changed slightly in the past year. Hatim might have lost his case prior to that.

As for habeas, back when Hatim was first picked up as a suspected combatant, the government had a duty to detain him while his case is being evaluated by military authorities. As I said, the Supreme Court didn't say the habeas hearings should start immediately. Therefore, his detention was not unlawful at that time. (This is why I asked if you think GTMO's C.O.s should be prosecuted for illegal imprisonment.)

The Supreme Court did not require habeas hearings at all in the beginning. Congress passed a law eliminating the possibility in GTMO. The lower courts ruled that law was legal in 2007.

You did phrase it somewhat properly when you said "no right to further detain him". They may not be able to legally hold him now an an enemy combatant but they did then. At the moment, assuming they don't intend an appeal, they still retain the legal authority to hold him in the same way that they hold genuinely innocent people in immigration detention. So, your count of days and years illegal detention is plainly untrue.

You're not going to help with a Worthington link, much as I might enjoy them occasionally. Dropping all the facts and suppositions that the judge wanted dropped, Hatim's case hinges on the excuse that he's not an enemy of the U.S. because he wanted to kill Russians instead (similar in that sense to the Uyghurs' story except that I'm not aware of a Uyghur version of the Beslan massacre). Even if I believed Worthington cares about human rights (and I don't believe there's the slightest chance of that), his exhuberance is misplaced -- unless you can imagine (as I do) that he sees this in the same way that a greedy lawyer sees a catastrophic car wreck.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)