Talk:Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

Asia: Pakistan / Afghanistan Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Pakistan portal This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistan (assessed as Low-importance).
	Afghanistan portal This article is supported by WikiProject Afghanistan (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

"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)

Close associate of Abu Zubaydah?

Do we have a source for this?RonCram 03:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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

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)[reply]

Newsweek calls him "Mr. Libi" :P http://www.newsweek.com/id/196818

Someone should edit this mess. What in the wide world is "The DIA concluded in February 2002"?? Besides the typo, a more specific reference should be used. 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.119.5 (talk)

What typo? The DIA is the Defense Intelligence Agency. csloat (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's a large section on al-Libi in the latest Senate Intelligence Committee Report [3] 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Book quotes

Instead of having sections for two different books and quotes from them, these opinions should be integrated into the story. The only purpose of the ridiculously long Tenet quote seems to be to make the implication that it is just as likely that Libi was lying about al Qaeda cooperating with Saddam as that he was lying about recanting the story. But nobody (except maybe Tenet) believes that -- and there are multiple pieces of evidence that al-Libi was lying about the connection in the first place (as well as a complete lack of any evidence corroborating that story), and the general consensus of people close to the investigations (including Colin Powell, whose speech to the UN rested almost entirely on these allegations) is that the first story connecting Saddam to al Qaeda was a complete fabrication. The other book quote explains why it was fabricated - to provoke the US to invade Iraq. Instead of having separate sections for quotes from books, the substance of these quotes should be integrated into a narrative about the al-Libi interrogations. I'll try to work on this in the near future. csloat 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

A request for undeletion has been made of the only known image of this man: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_19#19_June_2009. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable should we regard Evan Kohlmann and NEFA?

Recently he published the following:

Personally I am not comfortable with Kohlmann, or guys like Gordon Cucullu, and Thomas Josceleyn. It seems to me that Kohlmann is the most successful self-appointed independent terrorism experts. Sometimes they find sources that escaped the attention of the MSM. But they always put the most alarming spin on documents and events. Kohlmann's rivals, in the self-appointed independent terrorism industry, routinely do not offer the evidence or interpretation that suggests terrorists might represent less of a threat. Of course their careers depend on turning up the fear level.

In these documents Kohlmann suggests that

Al Libi was trained to resist torture, and that he coolly and knowingly chose to tie Al Qaeda to Iraqi intelligence and to Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction because he wanted to manipulate the USA into attacking Iraq for ideological reasons of his own;
Al Libi joined Al Qaeda -- following 9-11.

According to Kohlmann, al Qaeda sources now claim Al Libi joined Al Qaeda. Well, why take these Al Qaeda claims at face value? Some commentators used to point out, during the cold war, that the most extreme cold-war hawks in the "military-industrial complex", and the most extreme cold-war hawks in the old Soviet Union, both needed to have their bosses and the general public fear the other side. Some commentators used to speculate that the hawks on both side clandestinely cooperated, through leaks, or the sacrifice and betrayalof double agents, to keep the fear level at maximum.

If the consensus here is that Kohlmann's new interpretations merit coverage here I think it is important to remember his interpretations are just that. It would be a mistake to repeat any of his interpretations as an established fact.

Really, if Al Libi wanted to tell US interrogators false information in an attempt to trigger the USA to attack Saddam, would he really have waited until after they started torturing him? He could only guess they were going to torture him. The plan of waiting until after he was tortured would have failed if the USA had complied with its international obligations, and never used torture. Geo Swan (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. 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/20110623131402/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.beers.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.beers.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/06/18/world-exclusive-new-revelations-about-the-torture-of-ibn-al-shaykh-al-libi/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/141009
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Source_for_Colin_Powells_Fake_UN_Claim_of_Iraq_al_Qaeda_Connection_Dies_in_Libyan_Prison_90513
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/5310168/Al-Qaeda-chief-commits-suicide-in-Libyan-prison-report-says.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/search_results_taxo.jsp?startDate=11%2F05%2F2005&endDate=11%2F05%2F2005&cf=&ct=&cu=&rpp=10&sb=REFERENCE_DATE&so=DESC&ti=2&tp=vnuTaxoPool&numRet=200&src=&showAbs=true&srchMeta=true&shwTotal=true&metaSrchNum=250&numMeta=20&pi=&pubList=Editor%20and%20Publisher&kw=Smoking%20Gun%20on%20Manipulation%20of%20Iraq%20Intelligence%3F&au=&mt=&mv=&esindct=false

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]