Talk:Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "Excessively Harsh Interrogation methods"?
GeoSwan entered a paragraph about al-Libi lying because of excessive interrogation methods... do we have a source for this? I haven't heard this claim with regard to Libi and I wondered if it were just a generic claim about torture leading to false information or if there were a specific connection to Libi here. Thanks --csloat 04:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- From the Washington Post article I added to the external links:
- His capture was notable because it sparked the first debates within the U.S. government over how rough CIA officers could be in questioning al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That debate, involving the FBI and the Justice Department, led to the formulation of a policy under which CIA officers were given permission to use "enhanced interrogation methods" for some al Qaeda detainees.
- Geo Swan 23:04, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Thanks! --csloat 03:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Close associate of Abu Zubaydah?
Do we have a source for this?RonCram 03:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- "He had worked closely with Abu Zubaydah at the group's Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan, and was believed to have detailed knowledge of the terrorist network's plans." NYT 31 July 2004.--csloat 03:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts" New York Times, November 6, 2005
-
- "A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document. The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons."
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=7e35bbb61b8d1d0c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
[edit] Wrong al-Libi
Someone posted a link to a blog that talked about an al Qaeda leader named al-Libi, who was assigned to be an assassin. But they got the wrong al-Libi, because the blogger got the wrong al-Libi. The blogger confused Abu Faraj al-Libbi with the subject of this article Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
Arabic names are complicated. I won't claim to fully understand them. But, one thing I can explain is what al-Libi means. It means the person named is from Libya. It is not (usually?) really part of their name. -- Geo Swan 09:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Principal source or only source
was al-Libi the principal or only source for allegations of Iraq/al qaeda collaboration? according to newsweek, "A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Hussein's regime has changed his story...U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda."[1]Anthonymendoza 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- i also found this quote from Condoleeza Rice in 2002: "We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.[2] i'm not trying to downplay the importance the white house placed on al-libi, i was just wondering if he was the principal source or the only source.Anthonymendoza 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please name the other sources for this information. The assumption that there might be other sources does not help much. In the meantime, read this article, which notes that "two U.S. counter-terrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they believe the information about al-Iraqi [the militant who allegedly arranged the "poisons and gases"] came exclusively from al-Libi." It also notes Larry Wilkerson's assertion that the entire section of Powell's speech that addresses this question came from al-Libi. The balance of evidence seems to be that Libi was lying about the connection; the assertion that there might be corroborating voices whom we cannot name or quote simply doesn't seem helpful in this context, although I suppose it gives a shred of possibility to those who wish to continue believing in a Saddam/AQ conspiracy.--csloat 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- name the other sources?? if i had access to classified information, maybe then i could. the two officials said they "believe" the info on "al-Iraqi" came exclusively from al-Libi. a national security spokeperson said "that those views came from 'an aggregation' of sources." and the article acknowledges there are still many details about this case that remain unknown and classified. there's no question al-Libi was the principal source for powell's speech, which is what i believe wilkerson was referring to. but as for the claim in general that al qaeda and iraq were working together on chemical weapons, there appears to have been other sources. i think this is important for wording purposes. it's important to note as well that al libi didn't completely recant until jan 2004, nine months after the war started. why did he wait two years to recant? there is so little we know about this case. even the senate report on prewar intelligence redacted all info on al-libi. so the "balance of information" is small.Anthonymendoza 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name a place where other sources are indicated? I don't disagree with your edit naming him as the "principal" source, but I'm confused as to what others there might be, as nobody refers to them anywhere, and when Newsweek published information that libi was the exclusive source for the powell speech, nobody, not even powell, published a response. As for Libi waiting to recant, I have no idea why, nor is it relevant to anything. Perhaps he was still being tortured. Perhaps it was then that he dealt with an interrogator who actually wanted to hear the truth rather than just whatever supported the administration. I agree, the balance of information is small, but what is known is that the CIA and DIA have concluded that the information about posions and gases that he provided was not credible.--csloat 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- beginning on page 330 of the senate report on prewar intelligence. the portion on al-Libi, or at least i assume it's about al libi, is completely redacted. the report indicates 12 sources of "varying reliability". this and the salman pak allegations seem to have been used in conjunction with al-libi's claims. if, of course, the redacted info refers to al-libi. this report is the only information i can find on the matter. Anthonymendoza 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who the "12" sources are or whether they speak to this specific information. Of course, there was misinformation regarding Salman Pak coming from unreliable sources other than al-Libi, notably the INC-coached defectors; my comments here are directed to Libi's influence on the specific claim about "poisons and gases" that was repeated by the administration.--csloat 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a large section on al-Libi in the latest Senate Intelligence Committee Report [3] 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who the "12" sources are or whether they speak to this specific information. Of course, there was misinformation regarding Salman Pak coming from unreliable sources other than al-Libi, notably the INC-coached defectors; my comments here are directed to Libi's influence on the specific claim about "poisons and gases" that was repeated by the administration.--csloat 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- beginning on page 330 of the senate report on prewar intelligence. the portion on al-Libi, or at least i assume it's about al libi, is completely redacted. the report indicates 12 sources of "varying reliability". this and the salman pak allegations seem to have been used in conjunction with al-libi's claims. if, of course, the redacted info refers to al-libi. this report is the only information i can find on the matter. Anthonymendoza 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name a place where other sources are indicated? I don't disagree with your edit naming him as the "principal" source, but I'm confused as to what others there might be, as nobody refers to them anywhere, and when Newsweek published information that libi was the exclusive source for the powell speech, nobody, not even powell, published a response. As for Libi waiting to recant, I have no idea why, nor is it relevant to anything. Perhaps he was still being tortured. Perhaps it was then that he dealt with an interrogator who actually wanted to hear the truth rather than just whatever supported the administration. I agree, the balance of information is small, but what is known is that the CIA and DIA have concluded that the information about posions and gases that he provided was not credible.--csloat 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- name the other sources?? if i had access to classified information, maybe then i could. the two officials said they "believe" the info on "al-Iraqi" came exclusively from al-Libi. a national security spokeperson said "that those views came from 'an aggregation' of sources." and the article acknowledges there are still many details about this case that remain unknown and classified. there's no question al-Libi was the principal source for powell's speech, which is what i believe wilkerson was referring to. but as for the claim in general that al qaeda and iraq were working together on chemical weapons, there appears to have been other sources. i think this is important for wording purposes. it's important to note as well that al libi didn't completely recant until jan 2004, nine months after the war started. why did he wait two years to recant? there is so little we know about this case. even the senate report on prewar intelligence redacted all info on al-libi. so the "balance of information" is small.Anthonymendoza 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please name the other sources for this information. The assumption that there might be other sources does not help much. In the meantime, read this article, which notes that "two U.S. counter-terrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they believe the information about al-Iraqi [the militant who allegedly arranged the "poisons and gases"] came exclusively from al-Libi." It also notes Larry Wilkerson's assertion that the entire section of Powell's speech that addresses this question came from al-Libi. The balance of evidence seems to be that Libi was lying about the connection; the assertion that there might be corroborating voices whom we cannot name or quote simply doesn't seem helpful in this context, although I suppose it gives a shred of possibility to those who wish to continue believing in a Saddam/AQ conspiracy.--csloat 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rm unexplained tag as per talk page...
Someone put a {cleanup} tag on this article. Well when the {cleanup} tag expands it directs interested readers to go to the talk page to see the discussion around the tag.
So, who has the responsibility to start that discussion? It should really be the person who placed the tag. The rest of us aren't mind readers. If the person placing the tag doesn't offer an explanation of their concern, how can the rest of us know when their concern has been addressed.
So far as I am concerned maintenance wikitags that are left unexplained for an extended period of time are just cruft, that should be deleted on sight. I've explained this opinion in more detail here User:Geo Swan/opinions/responsible use of maintenance wikitags.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
