Talk:Shaker Aamer

role in negotiating the end to the July hunger strike is significant

The NY Times reported that Shaker negotiated an end to the first hunger strike. I think this is significant event in his life, and deserves to be covered in this article. So, I am restored that information.

I invite a discussion from anyone who thinks a case can be made for its removal.

Similarly, the link to the NY Times article was removed, without explanation. So I restored it. I would welcome a discussion with anyone who thinks they can make a case for its removal.

I added information about Stafford Smith's claim of what Shaker's negotiation had acheived. I believe this to belongs in Shaker's article. For balance I included the American denial. -- Geo Swan 22:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia publish press releases from defense counsel? If so, which cases?

Essentially this article, like many others, sources from the press releases of defense counsel. Those press releases end up in the newspapers. This is not a criticism of the defense attorney, he is doing what lawyers do. The issue is whether an encyclopedia loses credibility by becoming a megaphone for one point of view. Joaquin Murietta 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Why not, so long as the source is not misrepresented?

Could you please explain what you mean by the phrase "a megaphone for one point of view"? No one is forcing the Bush administration to adopt a policy of secrecy around the detention of terror suspects. Taken to its logical conclusion, your suggestion would not permit any wikipedia articles on controversial topics, so long as one party maintained a policy of silence.

I think the {accuracy} tag was applied to this article in error. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been waiting six months for answers to my questions about the application of the accuracy tag. I will wait one further week. If no one makes a serious attempt to defend the tag I am going to remove it. -- Geo Swan 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

CSRT & ARB

I have removed the common text that is duplicated across this and many other guantanamo prisoner articles about the CSRT and ARB, and instead linked the relevant section headings in this article to the relevant articles for CSRT and ARB. This is a cleanup exercise that I am applying across the guantanamo detainee articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

image

This is the biography of a living relative unknown individual. The amount of information that can be published about them is restricted. To reveal the identity of the minor children is highly critical. I have serious concerns and will remove the picture again and it should not be re-inserted until a discussion has been taken place. Iqinn (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The image, like all images of people with children, is not contentious or a legal concern in any fashion; in fact Aamer and his lawyer have widely desseminated the photograph. I am restoring it, please do not remove unless you can establish consensus overriding Aamer's own decision. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To be released into the public domain does not mean that it can be used where the use is restricted or not appropiate. When releasing such pictures people rely on responsible editors not to break the rules. I know the picture is in the public domain but that does not mean mass media can publish them freely in any occasion as they include minors. Even if Aamaar wants the pictures been published in mass media we have to follow our own rules and judgment. I have serious concerns the publishing here in the article could break rules or do harm to the children. Please do not re-insert the picture until we have consensus that the inclusion of this picture is more imported than the risk of violation rules or even more imported possibly doing harm to the children. Iqinn (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the picture based on "your own judgment" unless you can demonstrate consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely consensus to remove possible harmful material first. And it should not be re-insert until consensus for that has been established. Please engage in the discussion that i have started here and address my serious concerns and objections against a re-insert. Iqinn (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done that, and unlike other complaints you have made that I have deemed to have some merit, I cannot see any merit in this claim; I cannot claim that it's libelous to list Barack Obama as the current President of the United States, and thus remove it "until consensus determines otherwise". You are free to open a Request for Comment on the issue, but I can almost certainly guarantee you of its outcome. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

←I understand that you are not familiar with the distinguishing between biographies of well-known and relatively unknown persons. I have patiently pointed you to the policies and explained it to you in recent debates. Where you also simply reverted my changes back without engaging in a constrictive debate. [1] [2] [3]. You have created these articles but you do not have ownership and therefore reject necessary changes. You can put the picture of the children of Barack Obama on the front page of the NYT or Wikipedia. They are well-know and the family can protect them against the potential harm that comes with wildly published images of minors. These kids here go to the local kindergarten and have no protection. The privacy and well being of private person is protected under the law and under our policies. If an editor has serious concerns about than it is simply irresponsible for another editor to revert these images back. These are serious concerns and needs to be addressed first. Iqinn (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact I have spoken to Aamer's lawyer who assures me it is alright to use this image (as evidenced through the OTRS ticket system) tells me that I'm right to believe this photograph in no way harms Aamer's family. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You spoke to the lawyer now? Iqinn (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I spoke to the lawyer in February when I uploaded the image; please check your facts before making decisions. You can have this verified by any Wikimedia member with OTRS access, the ticket number is 2009021910074188. I seek the advice and permission of detainees' families and lawyers whenever I have the opportunity, to ensure that these articles are not intrusive, liable or harmful as you suggest. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved, just happened to see the 3RR notice and was curious. I think the picture should be restored to the article. Per above discussion, due care for the welfare of children has been taken. Given the nature of the detention situation here, the welfare of the children is supported by displaying the photo; their welfare is somewhat threatened by deleting the photo! The photo puts a human face on Shaker Aamer and deliberately, perhaps poignantly, shows him as a family man. It would be relevant to note the fact that the photo was provided / approved of for use in wikipedia by his lawyers in the caption, or to note that this photo was widely released by his lawyers. But, the photo is fine and should be allowed. It is even specifically noteworthy here, as the photo illustrates part of the news story of campaigning for Aamer's release. doncram (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I am still concerned about the including of the image. The widely release of the image by his lawyer does not mean we have to include it here as we have our own ethic rules, policies and we are restricted by laws. That the lawyer and father wants the pictures been published, does not mean we have to. The children have their own rights. The publishing of the image of the children could be harmful to them in many ways. Risk of harming the children or having an article without a picture for some time? Soon another image without the children will appear. The article has less than ten visitors a month. I clearly state that i object the re-insert that just has been performed. It has been performed without even waiting for my reply to this discussion. Iqinn (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, are you disputing that the individuals with the primary responsibility for protecting the children in this photo are their parents -- Shaker Aamer and his wife? Are you suggesting that Shaker Aamer's granting of permission to use this photo was a form of child abuse? I just took a look at Commons:Category:Children. Can I assume you have similar concerns over these hundreds of similar photos?

If you are really concerned that the image of Shaker Aamer and his children constitutes some kind of child abuse have you considered reporting the image to the United Kingdom's child protection services? Let us all know how that works out for you. Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not paraphrase me! I have never said anything like that! And do not put things out of context. The pictures here are included in an article where their father is described as somebody related to terrorism. I have stated my concerns and objection very clear above. No further need for discussion. Iqinn (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further need for discussion, I am happy to consider this point moot and resolved. Shall we move on to Abdel Razzaq (Guantanamo Detainee XXX) naming structures? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

explanation...

The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who is interpreting a primary source. I see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

notable?

Should this be mentioned in the article: http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/8308643.Protesters_gatecrash_Nine_Elms_meeting/

I just added one sentence about it to the article. I guess that will be enough. IQinn (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"long been cleared for release by the United States"

I had accidentally edited a quote the other day, not seeing the second set of quotation marks. But restoring the quote doesn't solve the main problem.

It currently leaves the impression that a trial is legally required under the laws of war, which is obviously untrue. The article does this with misleading quotes from people who oppose the U.S.-side of the war.

More important at the moment, it quotes Reprieve claiming that he's "long been cleared for release by the United States." This needs to be clarified in the article, the lede, and the infobox. Right now the balance of the article leaves the impression that he's being held against his will. If he's allowed to go back home to Saudi Arabia then the article should say that. And if not, then Reprieve's statement should be clarified.

Besides that, it would be nice if we could include the actual name of that person from Reprieve.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy, did you see that i actually removed "cleared for release" from the first sentence? I fully disagree that the lead now gives the misleading impression as you describe. As you know there are detainees in Gitmo that get prosecuted and other never.

You say: "Right now the balance of the article leaves the impression that he's being held against his will." He wants to stay in Guantanamo and refuses to leave? IQinn (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It still says Aamer has "long been cleared for release by the United States" in the quote from Reprieve. What does that mean to you? It sounds to me like he's been cleared for release. If you're going to quote that he's been cleared then you should also explain why he's still there.

According to the law, it is completely up to the U.S. as to whether or not we give trials to detainees. We need to give a balanced article that tells the full story, not one that leans so heavily to one side. Reprieve is not a neutral observer.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "According to the law, it is completely up to the U.S. as to whether or not we give trials to detainees." What is that? Doesn't this depend on if they committed a crime? And isn't it up to the law itself? Your description suggest to me that it is up to the will of a random guy in the administration to give someone a fair trial or not rather than the law. You confuse me. IQinn (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is according to the law.

The Supreme Court ruled five years ago that we're operating under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This means we can detain people under the laws of war for as long as militarily necessary.

They get a tribunal and annual reviews to make sure they're still considered a threat. The Supreme Court decided later that a judge can look over their case, but that's not a trial. No trial is legally required unless we choose to pass a sentence.

This goes until the war is over. (Unfortunately, the people who pretend to be against the war refuse to ask the Islamists to stop fighting and support elections.)

We have two U.S. Presidents (of different parties) and their administrations in agreement on this; several successive Congresses and years of Supreme Court decisions. The basic question of the law has been decided. Whoever told you that a trial is required has playing games with you. They say that stuff because they can't argue the facts.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Randy you mean U.S. law or international law? Guantanamo is an interrogation center build to extract intelligence out of the detainees. Guantanamo is not a prisoner of war camp under international law and Mr. Aamer has never been granted the rights of a prisoner of war and many innocent prisoners where held there and many were held based on false evidence. IQinn (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is under both U.S. law and international law. The Supreme Court would not have approved this if it was against the treaties in international law that we've ratified.

Specifically, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is international law. The part I mentioned about the tribunal and annual reviews is U.S. law but it was adapted from another part of the GC's that Aamer doesn't qualify for. The part about a judge looking over their case is U.S. law. International law doesn't give detainees very many rights at all.

POW status is for lawful combatants -- genuine soldiers and some auxiliaries that work with soldiers. Aamer doesn't legally qualify for that. He is a simple detainee under the laws of war. Common Article 3 is a minimum standard. Aamer is getting more rights than international law requires.

Claims of "innocence" and "false evidence" may make Aamer's defenders feel better about the evil that they're defending but they would have come up during the tribunal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

International laws gives a lot of rights and protection to prisoners of war these rights have been taken away from him. There is nothing in international that defines an "unlawful combatants" and what law did he break and why does he not qualify to be a a "lawful combatants". If he is an unlawful combatant what law did he break? And Randy the tribunals have kangaroo court standard and how would can someone defend himself when he or his lawyer is not allowed to see the evidence. IQinn (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. No rights have been taken away. From your statements, it is you who is opposed to international law.

A person can only be a prisoner of war if they and their circumstances meet certain qualifications. That's what being a "lawful combatant" is. The term "unlawful combatant" has been around for over a century. We didn't just make that up for this war. Our enemies and their supporters chose not to care about those qualifications.

The critics want the Geneva Conventions flushed down the toilet. If you'll notice the quotes in the lede, they don't address this.

You can pretend that tribunals are "kangaroo courts" if you like but we're talking about U.S. and international law. International law (specifically, Common Article 3) doesn't require a tribunal at all but the Supreme Court asked for it as a matter of U.S. law. International law doesn't require that they be given lawyers either (the Bush administration added that). International law doesn't require that detainees be permitted to see secret evidence. You may not like the Geneva Conventions, but that's how it works.

This has been argued to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration lost a few cases along the way, but what I've described is how the Court interpreted it and decided that it stands.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained why Shaker Aamer is an "unlawful combatant". I am opposed to international law? Surely not me. Obviously it is the U.S. who did not sign or recognize international laws. Sorry Randy once again you get it all wrong. It seems obvious that you are not a lawyer and that your knowledge about law is limited. You are either a prisoner of war or you are a criminal there is nothing between. The Bush administration withhold the protection they have as P.O.W's and they did it because they wanted to extract intelligence from the prisoner what would not be possible if they would have been granted P.O.W status. Guantanamo was set up from the beginning as an interrogation center to find those responsible for the 9/11 attack. IQinn (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in opposing the terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, you are opposed to international law.

Your phrase "You are either a prisoner of war or you are a criminal there is nothing between," while wrong, sounds suspiciously like the ICTY, which used a phrase like it regarding the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. While it doesn't apply here, it wouldn't help you even if it did because it makes my case better than yours. My statements are in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Yours are not. Whoever told you that one is either a POW or a criminal that requires a trial was clearly wrong. The Supreme Court agrees that they may be detained without trial until the end of the war.

Whoever told you that the U.S. never signed the Geneva Conventions is also clearly wrong. The ruling in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Ironically, the Bush administration ultimately lost that case because the Court ruled military commissions (as constructed at the time) weren't adequate for Common Article 3. But it was a minor technicality (the commissions were redesigned after that), and it makes my point today. Clearly, if you read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld you'll see that the Supreme Court, and the U.S., cares about the Geneva Conventions more than any of America's critics.

While it's true that the Bush administration did initially say the Geneva Conventions didn't apply at all, they did this by reading the the text of the Geneva Conventions and concluding that this type of a war isn't covered. The lower court agreed, but the Supreme Court decided differently. It doesn't help your case, though, because my statements above have covered the Supreme Court rulings. The Bush administration issued orders immediately to make sure they complied with the new ruling.

Shaker Aamer was designated as an enemy combatant by a legal tribunal whose format was upheld by the Supreme Court as legal under U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. (BTW: You're the one who brought up the term "unlawful combatant" here. The U.S. simply listed him as an "enemy combatant.")

And, no, I'm not a lawyer, but these are things that have been in the news for a long time. I can provide links to back up everything I said. You can't.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well i do not understand how proud you are that the U.S. grated the Guantanamo prisoners the very limited protection under the Article 3 of the Genevra convention but did not grant these men the full protection of the convention or the right of a speedy and fair trail. What they could have done. It is up to the U.S. themselves it was there choice and you are defined by the choices you take. I would also argue that Shakers Aamers treatment does not even fulfill Article 3 and that the United States is one of a few civilized countries in the world who did not signed nor ratified the International Criminal Court treaty. I guess for a good reason? IQinn (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions were designed this way for very good reasons. The men and women who wrote and ratified it thought it far more important that truly innocent people are protected, women and children most of all. As for pride, I'm very proud that this country fights fascism. I would be deeply ashamed to be among those who've been defending fascism for the last 9 1/2 years. They claim to oppose the waterboarding of three Islamists but can't or won't speak out to oppose anything that the Islamists do.

Shaker Aamer's treatment was good enough for Article 3. He wasn't given enhanced interrogation like some of the others. In any case, the rougher treatment was earlier, before the Supreme Court overruled the lower court's decision and said that Article 3 applies.

You're certainly correct that it doesn't have to be limited to Common Article 3. If you look at wikisource:First Geneva Convention (1949)#Article 3 you'll see the penultimate line that reads, "The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention." See that? There's a legal avenue to bargain with our enemies for better treatment for detainees than what they're getting now so that maybe they'll treat their prisoners better, as well as asking Islamists to do the proper things like keeping women and children away from combat.

Our enemies have many supporters in touch with prominent terrorists. America's critics have many friends among them, including lawyers, activists, former detainees, and families of those still in Guantanamo. They all had every opportunity to work toward such special agreements, and yet how many of them chose to do so? None.

If Shaker Aamer is released to England, does anybody think he would be an exception who'd work toward human rights, if not actual peace? Who thinks he would be any different than the other ex-detainees? The rest of them all oppose Guantanamo, but can't ask their Islamist friends to support human rights. None of them, and none of their supporters, care about the safety of innocent children.

As for the ICC, the U.S. won't ratify it because we know that it will be misused by the same people who claim to oppose Guantanamo but can't ask their Islamist friends to stop fighting. This is a world that was going to put Syria on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I don't know how anyone takes them seriously.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well to much propaganda and misconceptions in your reply. As i said you are defined by what you do. Guantanamo is one of the biggest recruiting tools for "your enemies" and it will be for a long time to come. So good luck. IQinn (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No propaganda. As I said, I can find references for what I've said.

Of course we're defined by what we do. I've thought that for a long time about those who befriend and support the detainees at Guantanamo while not making an effort to oppose the use of children as human shields. I'm quite confortable with where I've stood, and that history will record that the U.S. fought fascism while some in the rest of the world chose to hide under their beds.

The "recruiting tool" argument is funny considering that our enemies use *real* torture without a second thought. They cut the hands off of thieves as a matter of policy. They cut off heads to send a message. You can believe the "recruiting tool" myth if you like.

The link you showed seems to be the reaction to the nutcase pastor's threat to burn a Koran. That was a real "recruiting tool". Freedom of speech sometimes comes with risks, but they'd be going nuts over something else if it wasn't this. That's just the way they are.

The article still has problems with the "cleared for release" line. I'll get to it later this week.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again your reply has tons of misconceptions and is almost entirely propaganda. The claim that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool has been shown and our president says so. Yeah "your enemies" torture so that's why we torture our enemies kill that's why we kill. We all have heard people like you who try to justify their own immoral behavior with a justification that other people act immorally. As said you are free to define yourself by your own actions and you did. Secondary sources often use the term "cleared for release". I am still waiting for your explanation what is wrong with the use of it? IQinn (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, and not another distortion, there's nothing wrong with the statement "cleared for release." The problem is that it needs to be explained.

The status box says he's "still in Guantanamo." It should say he's cleared for release. The article should also explain why he chooses to stay. On the other hand, if he's not clear for release then we should clarify that the statement isn't true.

The President has political reasons for calling Guantanamo a propaganda tool. You should note that his own plan for "closing" it was really only a plan to move it to a less comfortable facility in a colder climate within the U.S. He never intended to give every detainee a trial.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have ask you to explain "cleared for release". So how would you explain it?

Aamer chooses to stay in Guantanamo?? Where did you get that from? Seems unlikely, any source?

The President is lying for political reason? He clearly says Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorist but actually he does not mean it? Really?

-- IQinn (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to find a source that explains why Aamer is still in Guantanamo if he's really "cleared for release."

Perhaps you didn't know that politicians often distort the truth. It is funny, though, to think that anyone believes Guantanamo is a "recruiting tool" but the Thomson Correctional Center would not be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So you confirm Obama was lying? I guess also you do not claim anymore that Aamer chooses to stay in Guantanamo. "Funny" i think you overused that word here in the discussion, we do know your POV. Let's concentrate on improving this article here. I further edited the info-box as there are many reliable sources that say that he was "cleared for release" not only Reprieve. I added a reference to it as well. IQinn (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lying? That's a strong word when it could then be applied to a lot of people who oppose Guantanamo, and yet also claim to care about human rights and the laws of war.

When I said he chooses to stay in Guantanamo, I also said, "On the other hand, if he's not clear for release..." My understanding was that Aamer could have returned home to Saudi Arabia if he desired to do so. That means he does choose to remain where he is.

Your own link says so, but supposes it's for detainees with "difficult stories to tell." That may have consoled the people who oppose the U.S.-side of the war but it gets to be a dumber view every day. It's a pre-Wikileaks story.

And, yes, it is funny.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And I thought talk pages were not a forum!1812ahill (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to this article[4], he's been cleared for release but only to Saudi Arabia. He doesn't want to go to Saudi Arabia so he remains in Gitmo. So there is an impasse at this point, at least according to the article I linked.74.209.255.6 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

referencectomy

This edit removed the reference from the section. I also disagree that the passage that made clear how the press characterized Aamer's reports of abuse in 2009 was out of date. Covering how things were viewed is important not irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the same reference was still given at the end of the paragraph. Hmm.. there are lot's of characterizations of the press and the story was still at a point before the torture settlement with the UK government. You can keep it if you want. That is fine with me.PastIP (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

habeas corpus

The article claimed:

Shaker Aamer had a writ of habeas corpus petition filed on his behalf.

On 2008-07-18 Zachary Katznelson filed a "STATUS REPORT" with regard to Shaker Aamer and Jihad Dhiab, before Judge Gladys Kessler.

As far as i can see is the document about ISN 722 not Shaker Aamer. I also have not seen a reference that say so. Someone knows more? PastIP (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Why isn't his wikileaks info covered in detail here?

Here is the leaked information regarding him:

http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/sa/us9sa-000239dp.pdf

It surely casts his claims of innocence in a different light. Why hasn't this been covered here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.207 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BOLD are the relevant policies here. Feel free to include it into the article. If someone reverts, go back to the talk page and discuss the changes and hope to reach a consensus. Ging287 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that it is a unreliable primary source. The US government itself admitts that the assesments are unreliable.[5] (page 9) D/V

Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Cleared for release"

So why is he still there? I am left completely in the dark, both by the article and the above argument from 2011. – Smyth\^talk 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

British resident?

Someone removed it and just reverted me claiming "No, this is factually wrong. He is no longer a British resident." When did that change? Could you please provide a reference. There are just tons of references that verify that he is a British resitent. Just to show one from the last days. [6]. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We cannot really rely on newspaper reports for this because they use various expressions indiscriminately, depending on whether they regurgitate the campaign material or government releases or do their homework. I just went through a number of articles linked to in the present version of the article. Some call him British, some call him a British resident or say that he "has British residency" (which doesn't mean anything), others such as these two call him a former British resident:
Where is the justice for Shaker Aamer?
New allegations of MI5 complicity in Guantanamo abuse case.
A resident is someone who lives somewhere. The documented facts are that Aamer was a UK resident until 2001 when he moved to Afghanistan. He has been a resident of Guantanamo Bay for 13 years and would like to be a UK resident again. In any case, nationality and origin only go in an introduction, anything else is POV-pushing. Mezigue (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"A resident is someone who lives somewhere." is a misconception.

You are cherry picking sources for your POV. The vast majority of sources confirm he is still a British resident. And No, he is not a "resident of Guantanamo Bay". That he is held there against his will does not make him a resident. He is neither a resident in Cuba nor the US.

Is someone a resident of a country is decided by the government of that country. The British government determines who is and who is not a British resident. Shaker Aamer is a British resident in the view of the British government. Original research nor cherry picked references changes that. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am clearly not cherry-picking sources when I pointed on the contrary that the sources all contradict each other. Cherry-picking sources is what you did! And you are wrong on the other count. Countries decide whether someone has the right of residency somewhere, but residency actually means you live in a place. Factually, SA has not been a British resident since 2001. Mezigue (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mautodontha subtilis: and @Mezigue:

The last British prisoner in Guantanamo Bay has landed back in the UK after finally being been released from the notorious jail. Despite a formal request by then foreign secretary David Miliband, American authorities refused to allow him to go.

Aamer, left his home in Saudi Arabia when he was 17 to study and travel in Europe. He settled in London, where he worked as a translator for a law firm and married Briton Zin Siddique, with whom he has four children – the last born on the day he arrived at Guantanamo. He was and stil is a British resitent! - --91.10.22.172 (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mail has it wrong, as it usually does (but many other papers are carrying this mistake). What is your point? Mezigue (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mezigue: If he is not a British resident, why was he released to the UK? --91.10.41.160 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anybody here holds the believe Aamer is not a British resident? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11964872/Shaker-Aamer-the-last-British-resident-held-at-Guantanamo-Bay-is-released.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/shaker-aamer-released-from-guantanamo-bay http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34675324 http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/30/europe/last-briton-in-guantanamo-released/ http://www.france24.com/en/20151030-last-british-resident-shaker-aamer-arrives-home-after-13-years-guantanamo-usa Computer and friends (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well he is *now* obviously. Mezigue (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The USA held nine citizens of the UK in Guantanamo, and nine individuals who were not UK citizens, but who were long-term residents, with long-term authorization to live in the UK. They weren't, to use the US term, "illegal aliens". I think the closest US equivalent might be to holders of "green cards". Shaker was married to a UK citizen, with children, born in the UK, who were UK citizens. Some countries reacted with hysteria, and rescinded their long-term residency permissions, but the UK didn't do that. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

GTMO Review Task Force

Mautodontha subtilis:

This is partly in reply to what you've asked at WP:BLPNB, and partly in explanation about my new edit, but both apply to the same paragraph of the article.

On Shaker Aamer's destination, if he wanted to leave, the U.K. is presently unable to meet the requirements for holding and rehabilitating detainees who support Al Qaeda. He is being held as a combatant under the laws of war. Were he transferred to the U.K., he would be subject to their law as interpreted in peacetime within the U.K. Well, the U.S. is still at war, and wartime laws apply in our decision-making process.

As for legality, Aamer was found by a tribunal to be an enemy combatant and a member of Al Qaeda. Every annual review board, federal habeas judge, and now the Guantanamo Review Task Force, has decided to maintain that status. This was under two presidential administrations, numerous Supreme Court decisions, and following international law.

Yes, critics like to pretend that he should get a full trial. They seem to think that the laws of war should only apply at their whim. You may not like that it works this way under the laws of war, but remember, Shaker Aamer and his supporters all support the war. (Opposing the U.S. side of the war is not the same thing as opposing the war itself.)

Say what you will about human rights in Saudi Arabia, but they're better than what he and his supporters are working to impose. (See: the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab & Boko Haram.) Even Amnesty said it was good that we sent Saudi detainees home. Aamer could have been reunited with his wife and family years ago. He chooses GTMO.

As for the article's handling of the Guantanamo Review Task Force, as you know, I don't think it's all that relevant. It's just one more layer in the laws that decided Aamer should remain in GTMO. The source doesn't specifically mention Aamer. But I don't care all that much if you want it mentioned.

That said, even after your later correction, the meaning is still deceptive.

While they said some of the CSRTs were later shown to be flawed, there is no source that says this applies to Aamer. In fact, we can infer that they didn't judge that of his case simply by looking at the simple fact that Aamer's status remains unchanged even though they've released others. The Guantanamo Review Task Force made their decisions and Aamer is still only cleared to go back to Saudi Arabia.

But if we have to have it anyway, it must at least be accurate. The order must be the same as in the report. Otherwise, you're suggesting that one has more weight in this case. Before my change, it gave the most weight to the least likely element, and didn't include the first one at all.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How can the original text be "deceptive"?

Be also aware that talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You should be asking yourself that question. You just deleted more of the original text.

This is a deception by omission. The source said there were three types of results in their analysis: 1) In many cases, the review agreed with the assessments; 2) They found others "overstated" (and described a number of reasons); and 3) They found "a few cases" where the detainee was a greater threat than the earlier assessment showed.

Your first plucking of this source only took #2. As I said a number of times, this is the least likely to be the case for Aamer, given that his status remains unchanged. After I pointed this out, you added #3.

I put in #1, and for some reason that you haven't explained, you removed it again.

You also erred in changing the page number within the link. Yes, it's on page 9, but page 9 is actually page 13 of the PDF. This is so that the link goes directly to the page.

As for your reminder that this isn't a forum, yes, you're correct. But I was answering the questions that you asked. A lot of people, such as yourself, are under the misimpression that it would be moral to give Aamer a full trial during a war -- and this somehow affects editing priorities for the article. It appears as though Aamer merely needs to complain about his treatment, and it gets added here without the reader ever finding out what came of it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"A lot of people, such as yourself, are under the misimpression that it would be moral to give Aamer a full trial during a war -- and this somehow affects editing priorities for the article."

I never said anything like that and your accusation is false. Statements like that shine a bad light on you.

I strongly suggest you quit editing Wikipedia. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I was merely responding to where you asked, "Could you just explain why they US government does not want to release him to the UK? Because in the UK is a democratic country with a working rule of law and free speech?

If you didn't mean to suggest that "rule of law" meant a full trial then I don't know what you'd meant. The bit about "free speech" was over the top. It sounds a lot like the conspiratorial statements (quoted in the article) made by Binyam Mohamed and Omar Deghayes.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are quoting me out of context. (What is very rude)

"Could you just explain why they US government does not want to release him to the UK? Because in the UK is a democratic country with a working rule of law and free speech? Whereas in Saudi Arabia he could be subject to arbitrary detention and further abuse. In terms of human rights Saudi Arabia is in the same league as North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Somalia, Iran... "

I think a reasonable person can easily understand that your misinterpretation of my words and your out of context quoting is either intentional of a sign of very low comprehension skill.

Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry, but the center part sticks out: "Because in the UK is a democratic country with a working rule of law and free speech?" -- particularly that question mark, which I took as very accusatory.

Add this to a previous statement, "That's all it needs to hold him. (12 years so far). You know any other war in history where any war prisoner has been held for that long?" It surely sounds like you don't want the laws of war to hold him anymore, even if you might have thought it was acceptable earlier.

Note again that, 12 years or not, Aamer's supporters in Cageprisoners support their side of the war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

An apology, followed by continued misinterpretation of my words, not answering my question, followed by a forum like comment. I assume you are a troll. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your words were what they were. But if you don't feel that way, then fine. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Shaker Aamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/resources/library/documents-and-reports/gtmo_heightsweights.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/06/guantanamo-gun-abuse-cia-mi5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920223937/http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/18/guantanamo.solitary.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/18/guantanamo.solitary.ap/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/18/guantanamo-investigation-harpers-interrogation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/U_S_and_Britain_at_odds_over_detainee.html?siteSect=143&sid=10451558&cKey=1237003653000&ty=ti
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/uk-guantanamo-detainee-asks-court-to.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaker Aamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918160812/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2961328.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2961328.ece
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1280712007
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/Community/College-and-University/article/13540/st-andrews-guantanamo-bay-protest-highlights-case-of-shaker-aamer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)