Talk:Murat Kurnaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias[edit]

A partisan and biased article that aims to treat the subject solely as an innocent party. More balance please. Kurnaz is still under investigation by police and security agencies in both Germany and Turkey. unsigned comment from User:85.97.206.199 07:36, 2006 February 5

I encouraged 85.97.206.199 to create a userid, login and sign their talk page edits.
sure seems biased, I think some of this date is bsJuror1 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
85 called the article "partisan" and "biased". 85 claims that Kurnaz is still under investigation by German and Turkish authorities. Really? I have a google news alert on Murat Kurnaz since March 27th 2005. I have seen zero indications that he was under investigation by German or Turkish authorities. Can 85 offer a single link to an authoritative site that backs up his or her assertion?
Does expressing information from an NPOV require making articles tout the unsubstantiated US line to show balance?
If slavery was legal and if industrial scale slavery was being practiced in advanced societies, I think we could count on the slaveowners hiring the most expert spin doctors. They would try to insist on removing the words slave and slaveowner from the arena of public discourse. They would try to call slaves something like the "beneficiaries of guaranteed lifetime employment". Anti-slavery types would probably call the slaveowners something like flesh-rippers. If slavery was an active item in the arena of public discourse the wikipedia's policy of NPOV would make us avoid using the extreme terms of those on the extreme sides of the debate.
Well, arguing that the article should repeat the unsubstantiated claims as if they were credible, would not, IMO, be following the NPOV policy, it would be distorting it. So, 85, can you cite an authoritative source to back up your assertion?
Please create a userid, login, then sign your talk page comments. -- Geo Swan 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, Thanks for your input. I have been very negligent on signing in. My apologies. You will have to take my advancing years into consideration. In the interests of balance, I should draw your attention to the following reports regarding Murat Kurnaz. Firstly, this part of a report from the German news magazine Der Spiegel entitled "Guantanamo Prisoner Vexing German Authorities" dated January 10 2006-

"...the Federal Interior Ministry regards the Kurnaz problem as less a humanitarian one than one of security. When rumours resurfaced last October that his release was imminent, all German security officials were called upon to gather information that would ensure Kurnaz would be refused permission to enter Germany. The list included details of Kurnaz's habit of using the word "Taliban" as the background logo in his mobile phone, along with quotes from Mohammed Haydar Zammar, the German-Syrian who is currently locked up in Damascus. During his interrogation Zammar, who also recruited the 9/11 pilots, described how he explained Jihad to "two Turks from Bremen" and referred them to the Taliban. One of the descriptions exactly matches that of Kurnaz. Presumably this statement, which remains confidential, is what lies behind the US accusation.The Interior Ministry had already issued a refusal of entry for Kurnaz in May 2004 that is valid until May 11 2007. If Kurnaz is actually released and makes his way from Ankara to Germany he would be stopped at the border as "a danger to public safety and order" and put on the next flight back to Turkey..."

  • full Der Spiegel report at [1]

If the above is correct,it is apparent that the German police and security apparatus (whether rightly or wrongly)still has a continuing interest in Kurnaz....

As far as Turkey is concerned (and let me make clear that I am of Turkish Cypriot origin) its entirely reasonable to assert that Kurnaz is still under investigation. The following report (in Turkish only) from leading daily newspaper Milliyet [2] dated March 2005 states that after being captured in Pakistan and before being taken to Gitmo, Kurnaz was taken in early 2002 to the American air base near Adana, Turkey. There he was interrogated by "Turkish authorities" -in the newpaper's words -presumably by the police and intelligence service. This was confirmed by Kurnaz's lawyer. Its fair to say that the Turkish side continues to have an investigative interest in Kurnaz but obviously I nor anyone else can say for sure...Anyone familiar with the Turkish police and judicial process will know that investigations of those suspected of support for, or involvement in terrorist organisations are rarely, if ever, completely closed. Kingsbury 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

german authorities are have not been investigating kurnaz at the time of his arb hearing. you can read that in the statement of the prosecutor that is provided in the transcript pdf file that is linked to in the article. i seriously doubt that a der spiegel article could contest that information. -- .~. 84.133.110.99 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Displaced person"?[edit]

I am not quite sure Kurnaz qualifies for the description "displaced person". Can however placed that description explain their reasoning? Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(the following two paragraphs are not supported by source material and do not help to clarify any doubts or answer questions on the topic. maybe they should be deleted anyway. -- .~. 84.133.110.99 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

German main criminal and culprit is in the case Mister Kurnaz the former judge Thomas Oppermann:
The former judge and professional criminal, Thomas Oppermann(German Secret Service spy
(BND Board)), repeated often in the past his departures from the law in at least 10 cases. This despite 5 years ::penintentiary in any singular case which equals in all 10 criminal counts to at least 50 years penintentiary for ::Thomas Oppermann. The big criminal, Thomas Oppermann, however wasn't yet persued neither for his spy activities ::for Tel Aviv & Haifa nor ii) because of his collusion with the internment and torture of Mr. Kurnaz in ::Guantanamo. The big criminal, Thomas Oppermann, should be arrested immediately because of his collusion and ::submitted to a strictest rogation including his family. Of utmost importance is the application of all
means for rendition without detention spare
of the family of Thomas Oppermann and its surrounding field. The family of Oppermann should be subjected to the ::severest rendition methods as soon as possible to limit further
dammage.


01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Can the above rambling post be deleted?? I'm not sure what the policy is on deleting nonsense statements on a talk page. -Bluefield

Possible release in 2002[edit]

This story from the Beeb [3].

"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is liable to face calls for his resignation when he gives evidence to a German parliamentary committee next month about a German-born Turkish citizen held in the US's Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

The question he has to answer is why Germany failed to accept a US offer to release the man, Murat Kurnaz, in 2002, instead of allegedly trying to cancel his right of entry into Germany."

This should probably be covered when it starts. Hypnosadist 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initially Germany wasn't allowed to give consular support because the U.S. said that only Turkey is authorized to do this for a Turkish citizen. Turkey apparently didn't care. Later Germany suggested that under those circumstances Kurnaz should be released to Turkey and not to Germany. In reaction to this the U.S. revoked their offer to release him at all, despite Germany's foreign minister's personal intervention in favor of Kurnaz' release. Later there was a discussion if he'd even legally be allowed to enter Germany because his residence permit expired due to his long stay outside of Germany. In 2005 the court decided that his residence permit is still valid because he was detained through no fault of his own and therefore unable to return to the country in time. --51.154.206.231 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exculpatory evidence[edit]

If the evidence was declassified, and apparently seen by someone, does anyone know where we can find it? Or was this seen only by Judge Green?
-- Randy2063 20:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am most interested in finding out more about "R-19."
-- Randy2063 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption[edit]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article regarding Kurnaz[edit]

Someone may want to incorporate this..


"Evidence of Innocence Rejected at Guantanamo" by Carol D. Leonnig Wednesday Dec 5, 2007; A01

...

USA considers Murat Kurnaz's innocence to be proven," a German intelligence officer wrote [in 2002] in a memo to his colleagues. "He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks."

...

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green, who was privy to the classified record of the tribunal's decision-making about Kurnaz in 2004, concluded in January 2005 that his treatment provided powerful evidence of bias against prisoners, and she deemed the proceedings illegal under U.S. and international law. But her ruling, which depicted the allegations against Kurnaz as unsubstantiated and as an inappropriate basis for keeping him locked up, was mostly classified at the time.

In newly released passages, however, Green's ruling reveals that the tribunal members relied heavily on a memo written by a U.S. brigadier general who noted that Kurnaz had prayed while the U.S. national anthem was sung in the prison and that he expressed an unusual interest in detainee transfers and the guard schedule. Other documents make clear that U.S. intelligence officials had earlier concluded that Kurnaz, who went to Pakistan shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to visit religious sites, had simply chosen a bad time to travel.

The process is "fundamentally corrupted," said Baher Azmy, a professor at Seton Hall Law School who represents Kurnaz. "All of this just reveals that they had the wrong person and they knew it."

He added: "His entire file reveals he has no connection with terrorism. None. Confronted with this uncomfortable fact, the military panel makes up evidence" to justify its claim that only real terrorists are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

...

In January 2006, another military review panel decided once again that Kurnaz was still "a danger" and should remain at Guantanamo Bay. Internal Defense Department e-mails show that this administrative review board, roughly comparable to a parole board, did not look at the material that Kurnaz's lawyer had submitted to make its decision.


GreatGreenArkleseizure (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is here. Some of it might be added into the article, except that the part you quoted was from his sleazy lawyer.
There is a little bit of news here but "a substantial amount of information about Kurnaz remains classified." So it doesn't really mean all that much.
Note that the press still uses pictures of the temporary cells from when GTMO was first opened for detainees. To be fair, the reporter probably had nothing to do with that choice but it shows that the paper itself is selling a POV.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this...[edit]

I reverted these three edits.

I thought the last two were misleading, and sailed pretty close to editorializing.

The claim the DoD found incriminating letters is (1) unreferenced; (2) at odds with what Joyce Hens Green wrote about his dossier. Green was the judge who got to reivew his entire dossier, including the classified portion, when his habeas corpus was before her. If this incriminating letter existed she should have known about it.

I suggest the anon IP re-read the March 27th, 2005 Washington Post article:

But in nearly 100 pages of documents, now declassified by the government, U.S. military investigators and German law enforcement authorities said they had no such evidence. The Command Intelligence Task Force, the investigative arm of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the Guantanamo Bay facility, repeatedly suggested that it may have been a mistake to take Kurnaz off a bus of Islamic missionaries traveling through Pakistan in October 2001.
"CITF has no definite link/evidence of detainee having an association with Al Qaida or making any specific threat against the U.S.," one document says. "CITF is not aware of evidence that Kurnaz was or is a member of Al Quaeda."
In recently declassified portions of her January ruling, Green wrote that the panel's decision appeared to be based on a single document, labeled "R-19." She said she found that to be one of the most troubling military abuses of due process among the many cases of Guantanamo detainees that she has reviewed.
The R-19 memo, she wrote, "fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record." Green reviewed all the classified and unclassified evidence in the case.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation against Kurnaz[edit]

None of the claims made against Kurnaz by the US government were ever substantiated, yet many are reproduced uncritically in the section that refers to the memo written by David Lacquement. Uncritical repetition of an unsubstantiated, defamatory allegation is generally considered to be defamation in itself. Unless someone can find a primary source to substantiate the claims against Kurnaz, it would appear that some additional text needs to be added to that section to clarify the situation. 86.159.154.179 (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding uncritical reproduction... Doesn't it fall on our readers to provide the criticism, when we have no sources that provide criticism? I suggest it is not possible to quote Lacquement's memo, and then provide a critical interpretation of it, without references, and still comply with the wikipedia neutrality policy and it policy on original research.
Some of the US claims have been refuted. Selcuk Bilgin was not a suicide bomber, for instance. Like Murat Kurnaz dozens of captives faced the allegation that an alleged association with the Tabligh movement implied an association with al Qaeda. During another captive's proceeding his Personal Representative reported he had asked for a document explaining to him how Tabligh al Jamaat was tied to terrorism. His Personal Representative told his Tribunal that he could not find any document tying the Tabligh movement to al Qaeda. You can see this documented in Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.
Should it be repeated here, and in all the dozens of articles of captives who faced the allegation? I dunno. I know may people would argue that this would be overkill.
Please take another look at Lacquement's memo. Let me suggest that may readers will recognize that, even if the allegations were true, they fall very far short of establishing that he was a combatant. Why not trust readers may reach that conclusion for themselves? Yes, some others won't. But I suggest that would not be because the article failed to offer unreferenced criticism of his memo.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another interesting article on this subject: https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-60-minutes-didnt-tell-you-about-murat-kurnaz/ Titus Atomicus (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks release today[edit]

His Guantanamo Bay file showed up today on wikileaks, under the name "Murat Karnaz". --91.32.72.83 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

responsible use of tags[edit]

On June 24 2011 an IP contributor added a {{povcheck}} tag to this article. When instantiated that tag tells contributors "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page."

However no one made any attempt to initiate this discussion. If no one initiates that discussion in a reasonable period of time I suggest this tag be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tablighi Jamat[edit]

I removed the section of the article that claimed US government officials have accused Tablighi Jamat of recruiting members for Al Qaida.

The reference that was used was a NYT article; which blatantly conflicts with Stratfor's report (Stratfor is the world's biggest global intelligence company and interacts with governments from all over the world) on Tablighi Jamat, which can be found here.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorism


There is a *huge* difference between a group actively recruiting members for Al Qaida and a group having "links" to recruiting members for Al Qaida. Many mosques in the United States have "links" to recruiting members for Al Qaida - there is no sense in painting every worshiper at these mosques as having been tainted by the worshiper who ended up joining Al Qaida - it's a completely spurious relationship.

If this guy was inspired by The Communist Manifesto, The Communist Manifesto would probably be tainted by it.

On the other hand, if he was inspired by a book written by Ayn Rand, such a fact would not be discussed in the public sphere, seeing as how it seems to be irrelevant for the picture we're trying to paint him as.

Wikipedia is supposed to be objective - let's please keep it that way; thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.84.108 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Holford[edit]

Murat Kurnaz was interrogated esp. by Gail Holford, as written in Kurnaz book Five years of my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.154.249 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization needed[edit]

Some of the lede needs to be moved down into a biography section, and that biography needs to precede the after-the-fact legal conundrums. I will attend to a revision later this week.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. A lot of revisions, a lot of added material. Some typos remain and footnotes, particularly legacy date reference errors, need cleaning up. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs content from secondary sources[edit]

I am concerned that this article relies too much only on Kurnaz' accounts. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on primary sources, such as his own memoir and his OpEd piece, as compelling as they are. The US practices of extraordinary rendition, abuse and interrogation of prisoners at Guantanamo, and events there have been documented by other sources. The claimed suicides were debated in the press and there have been investigative accounts that could have been drawn from, rather than simply having Kurnaz' account. The "suicides" were documented on particular dates, and that basic information at least should be added here.Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added other reports and disputes about suicides at GTMO.Parkwells (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question of detail[edit]

Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian detainee, also has published a memoir about his time at Guantanamo. Editors should consider his article in terms of how to approach this content here. I think there are too many details - as the treatment of Kurnaz was not unique. Perhaps more can be summarized.Parkwells (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Murat Kurnaz. 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:

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) 07:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murat Kurnaz. 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:

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) 17:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murat_Kurnaz&oldid=1208059332"