Talk:Parwan Detention Facility

message: "Many of these captives have been subject to severe abuse."
overall tone, etc...
While I was there as an MP from 2002 to 2003 the conditions were certainly unpleasant but were not unreasonable. In-fact, the PUC's/detainees often had showers (at first the ONLY running water available to anyone which is contrary to the statement in the article) more frequently than we U.S. soldiers did, they lived indoors in a relatively well controlled temp environment (heated in the winter, big fans in the summer) while we soldiers lived outside in tents that were frequently blown down in dust storms (particularly in the 100 day wind thing). Also, they were provided with regular Halal (like Islam Kosher) meals at least 3 times a day while we soldiers often ate AFTER they did if at all. Although there were some problems (i.e., Bagram torture and prisoner abuse) the PUCs were treated better, much better, than we U.S. Soldiers could have expected if the tables had been turned. In-addition, the PUC's were provided with regular medical screenings (while we soldiers often worked while literally sick and tired), they were provided with a Koran (wrrapped in a towel out of respect so our infidel hands would not touch it) and allowed regular daily prayer (we rarely had the opportunity for formal worship or prayer with a Chaplain) - in fact, each cell on the main floor had an arrow on the back of the sally port door (facing the PUCs) that provided direction to Mecca. Also, they were served lamb and tea in accordance with one of their religious holidays (it smelled good and was a far better meal than what I had that day). Yes, they did have a communal latrine in each of the main cells (where a blanket was hung for privacy)- pretty much the exact same thing that we U.S. soldiers had acces to all communal- also, they consistently had toilet paper and toothpaste when we didn't (we were not to use their supplies and didn't). Sure, we would raise our voices to them at times but that is nothing compared with being spat-on or having fecal/ejaculate matter thrown on us by the PUCs. I can go on and on (and have to be careful as much is clasified for at least 10 years) about how reasonable the accomadations were in the BCP but the worst thing is to come home and see how some Americans and others paint us soldiers (U.S.) as brutal and evil when in-fact those people that we were protecting you from would jump at the first opportunity to put an AK-47 round through your skull (in a soccer field) or hack-off your infidel head or fly your plane into your (or your loved one's) office building. Some people obviously do not appreciate what has been given and sacrificed for them. Maybe in ten years or so you will think again as the information begins to be released and will be surprised by what was averted and ashamed that you were not more proud of those who served while your critisized. I am all for freedom of speech, but sedition is entirely something else.
-- propaganda  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joswig (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prisoner Accomodations

message: About a dozen tags were applied to this article recently.  Many of them were  tags.  Having supplied a bunch of references I have removed many of those tags.
I am going to repeat that it is much more conducive for discussion if the person who places the tag explains themself on the talk page, not in the edit summary.
I urge those with an interest in this article to express their concerns here, not in edit summaries.  Geo Swan 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no explanation of the tags after plenty of time has elapsed, I am removing them.  The current article seems quite factual, with very little "voice" to it.  As always, anyone is welcome to contribute content that might show more about the facility than is currently covered!  207.69.137.24 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tag removal

message: Another wikipedian has questioned whether coverage of the Bagram's captive's legal status belongs in  this article.
Well, 
*It is official policy that that Bagram captives are not POWs.
*The SCOTUS ruled that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to access to the US Judicial system because the Justices did not accept the Bush Presidency's argument that US law didn't apply in Guantanamo.  The SCOTUS ruling does not apply to Bagram captives.  Which, I believe, makes this highly relevant.
*Tne Enemy Combatant Review Boards referred to in Eliza Griswold's article are frequently hinted at by DoD spokesmen.  When referring to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings, DoD spokemen frequently state that those procedures were merely one layer in the process through which the DoD determines who was or wasn't an "enemy combatant".  Grizwold's article is the only reference to refer to the other procedures by name.  I think this reference is highly relevant.  Geo Swan 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status of the captives

message: I am going to excise this passage: 
*It is not atttributed to a reliable source.
*It is an opinion, expressed as a fact.
*IMO, it does not comply with the wikipedia's neutrality policy.
This is a controversial assertion.  Apologists for the Bush detainee policy routinely repeat this assertion, claiming that al Qaeda agents are trained to do so by the so-called "manchester manual".  
However, if you read this article you will find that it tells its reader that, if they are ever captured, they should do everything they possibly can to get a medical examination PRIOR TO their interrogation.  Why?  Because that medical examination will help them document that any wounds inflicted on them, during their interrogation, was not a "pre-existing condition" -- what the Bush Presidency spokesmen have claimed about Omar Deghayes blinding or Sami Al Laithy's broken back.
It seems to me that telling readers to get a medical examination prior to their interrogation is the exact opposite of what you would tell your readers to do if you were telling them to lie.  This prior medical examination would undermine any false claims of torture.
My own reading of the two chapters of this manual that deal with capture and interrogation is that it tells readers to inform the judge they were tortured because the author assumed all captives would be tortured.  The manual pre-dates 9-11.  At the time it was written the most likely captors of its intended readers were torture states -- states where torture was a common interrogation technique.  The assumption readers would be tortured once captured was a not unreasonable assumption.
The claim that al Qaida recruits were trained to lie, based on this manual, is not an objective fact.  It should not be inserted into article space, as an objective fact.  I am not aware of those who put forward this claim ever citing a scrap of evidence that a single captive was trained using this manual.
I have no problem with a paragraph that attributes the claim in the paragraph to a reliable source.  But standing unreferenced violates too many policies for it to remain in article space.
So I am going to excise it.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert editorializing -- see talk 

message: Reference number 26: U.S. Operated Secret 'Dark Prison' in Kabul, Reuters, December 19, 2005 
The page has been moved / deleted. I am talking about this version of the article --Zaccarias (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Weblink 

message: I recently started Captives held in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility based on the list released to the ACLU.
I suggest the list of captives who were known to have held in Bagram should be moved to a section of the new article.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: I uploaded an image I no longer thinks qualifies as fair use.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation 

message: >> Afghanistan frees inmates US calls dangerous(Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Parwan Detention Facility. 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/20050313171104/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050310exe.pdf to http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050310exe.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/print/Politics/16-Nov-2009/New-US-Afghan-prison-unveiled
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=103004a
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112051193
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtonindependent.com/55715/u-s-general-admits-most-bagram-detainees-should-be-released
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20091015%2FFOREIGN%2F710149840%2F1135
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/14/afghanistan-prisoners-radicalise-insurgents
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watoday.com.au/world/us-backdown-on-secret-suspects-in-camps-20090824-evkc.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rferl.org/content/New_US_Plan_Reportedly_To_Let_Afghan_Prisoners_Challenge_Incarceration/1822216.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414211437/http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/USLS-080409-arbitrary-justice-report.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/USLS-080409-arbitrary-justice-report.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/HRF-Undue-Process-Afghanistan-web.pdf
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sundayherald.com%2Finternational%2Fshinternational%2Fdisplay.var.2356730.0.0.phpar&date=2008-06-21 with https://www.webcitation.org/5Yksdv8LD?url=http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2356730.0.0.phpar on http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2356730.0.0.phpar
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the parwan detention facility, completed in 2009, is different from the black site near bagram of "taxi to the dark side" fame, since the movie came out in 2007 covering events in 2002. I thought the black site was called the 'salt mine', but dont see a reference to that name, and located a distance away from bagram AFB. confusion ( Martin |  talk • contribs  08:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  some confusion here about dates and structures. 2009 vs  2002