From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should the Bagram Theater Internment Facility have its own page, or should it be part of Bagram torture and prisoner abuse or Bagram Air Base? I assume that the Bagram Theater Internment Facility is the same place as Bagram Collection Point and part of the Air Base.

Michael134.84.96.142 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Bagram Theater Internment Facility" is the current name for what was once known as the "Bagram Collection Point". The detention facility, whatever it is called, has little in common with the air base, except co-location.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 revert -- see talk 2 More one-sided propaganda 2.1 Issues, not personalities please 2.2 tag removal 2.3 Legal status of the captives 3 Captives reported to have been held in Bagram - Keep or delete? 3.1 revert editorializing -- see talk 3.2 Offtopic 3.3 revert editorializing -- see talk

[edit] revert -- see talk

I reverted this edit. I did so because the comments were unencyclopedic. -- were written like part of a blog-like debate -- not an encyclopedia article. I encourage the IP contributor to return here for a discussion of the article's content.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey i dont know how to do this but, i worked in the BTIF for a year and the picture that i saw on this page is something that i never saw there, and the things that are said on here are so not true in many cases if you would like to discuss this find me !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.32.254 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2007 November 14

Greetings!

Personally, I would be very interested in your personal account of BTIF. However, I have something that you may consider bad news. One of the core policies of the wikipedia is verifiability. Personal accounts, often don't comply with the verifiability criteria. When a personal account is published in a reliable source, then it can be cited and referenced in the wikipedia's article space. I am afraid you might find yourself in the very frustrating position of knowing from your direct experience, that material published here is wrong, based on misinterpretations, or based on material that is out of date, or on material that, while verifiable, were based on accounts of people who weren't reliable or truthful.

If you find that some of the material here doesn't correspond to your direct experience, tell us here, and that may give us clues to finding verifiable sources and reliable sources that confirm your direct experience.

Let me repeat that I would be very interested in your direct experience -- particularly if it contradicts material that I added.

Oh, creating a wiki id is useful, because you can have a "watchlist", so you can see when articles you are interested in gets modified. And your correspondents can know who they are talking to.

I hope this helps! Cheers! Geo Swan 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Let me ask a couple of questions:

1. Did you have any experience of the procedure through which captives were determined to be enemy combatants?
2. Your time at BTIF -- it wasn't during the period when there were any deaths in custody?
3. Were you aware of any Koran abuse during your time there?

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Don't write anything that is going to get you in trouble.

[edit] More one-sided propaganda

Much like the Guantanamo article, this has started out as another one-sided screed on a prison run by the evil sadistic Americans. Kevinp2 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Essay-opinion tag because this article essentially advocates Geo Storm's one-sided position that this prison is some kind of horror where innocent people are held and tortured by the American government and military. Geo Storm has used Wikipedia to advocate this type of point of view in hundreds of articles.

As a comparison, I offer Bagram_used_as_detention_center. In this text, which is really a subsection of a different article, the different points of view are adequately represented. I consider this to be balanced, which Wikipedia should be, rather than yet another one-sided US-bashing leftist screed. Kevinp2 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues, not personalities please

I have no problem with a discussion of specific passages someone is concerned lapse from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:VER. We are all human. No matter how hard we try to comply with these policies, being human we may all lapse. For this reason it is important, when raising concerns, to comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. For this reason, it is important to do one's best to consider the concerns of others who our contributions have lapsed. I am prepared to do my half. I am prepared to do my best to exercise tact when I have concerns about other contributions. And I am prepared to do my best to listen to the concerns of others. I only ask that they do their best to avoid attacking my character or judgment, and that they do their best to be specific about the pasasges that concern them.

That these guys reported being held in Guantanamo is backed up by verifiable, authoritative references.

Fleshing out the table will take time.

Two men were beaten to death at Bagram. The treatment of captives at Bagram was at least as bad as that Abu Ghraib, but has received less coverage, because there were no pictures. Many of these captives reported the same kind of beating, and shackling of their arms above their heads, as killed Habibullah and Dilawar. I think that merits coverage.

Could they be lying? Yes. Sure. Does the article assert, as a fact, that they are telling the truth? I don't think it does. It shouldn't. But I don't see what justification there is of a flat out suppression of their reports.

The section from Bagram Air Base that another wikipedian points to as an example -- IMO it is incomplete.

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this before, Geo Swan. I am wasting my breath in arguing with you. Any article that you write on this subject will be one-sided propaganda. I gave you an example of a small section Bagram_used_as_detention_center that should serve as a guide of what an NPOV article actually is. You read it but claim it is incomplete. Of course you think it is incomplete - it does not bash the US to your satisfaction! You are missing the forest for the trees. The point is to write a treatment of the subject that is even-handed and non-slanderous to all parties. You just don't get this basic point. It doesn't matter how many Wikipedia alphabet soup templates you can quote. If you don't get being even-handed, you just don't get it. You will continue to write one-sided articles like this one that deliberately cast one side of the war on terror in an unfavorable light - the side whose difficult and dangerous work allows you to write all this in safety and comfort - while remaining silent on the atrocities and inhumanities of the other. We will just have to agree to disagree and I will have to try to correct the most egregious of your slanders against my country. Peace (the real kind, not the peace of submission that the other side wants from you) Kevinp2 05:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We have had previsou interactions. I understand you found them frustrating. I found them frustrating too. Now maybe I missed some instance where your comments were specific enough that I could respond to them On the issue level. If so my apologies. My recollection is that I told you I would take all civil, specific concerns seriously. My recollection is that, by and large, you just weren't able to be specific.

There were two comments I didn't put in the note you left last night, because I was short of time.

1. I think there may be some valid points buried in the comments in your edit summaries. I'll give them some more thought. And respond to them, as I have time.
2. If you want to discuss your concerns about an article, could you please put your comments on the talk page? It is much more difficult to respond to a point when it is only mentioned in the edit summary.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tag removal

About a dozen tags were applied to this article recently. Many of them were {{unreferenced}} 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)

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)

[edit] Legal status of the captives

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)

I totally agree that the legal status is relevant - it is hugely controversial. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp article discusses the same topics in great detail. I think the tag should be removed.

However, I do find the section somewhat unclear - from the third paragraph on it seems to be mainly discussing Guantanamo. I think someone who is more familiar with this should review the section and try to show how these issues relate to Bagram. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captives reported to have been held in Bagram - Keep or delete?

I am in favor of keeping this section. It has been marked as unencyclopedic, but I think it is relevant to the topic and has notable content (as evidenced by the many detainees who have articles). I checked out What Wikipedia is not and this is clearly not a repository of links (these are not external), a directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information (there is a clear association and relevance).

Lists are okay, and this one seems relevant and useful. The only issue I see with it is that it is rather long and could possibly merit its own article. Michael 134.84.96.142 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no support for the tag, I have removed it. Michael 134.84.96.142 00:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't touch the remaining tags, because it was material I contributed that was tagged.

Michael, have you considered getting your own wiki-id? Not required, but it allows you to maintain a "watchlist", which is very handy.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert editorializing -- see talk

I reverted some editorializing. In doiing so I also reverted a change in the {{offtopic}} tag, from suggested on section belonged. I do not consider that tag editorializing.

[edit] Offtopic

Two other contributors suggested that the section on the captive's legal status went off topic into Rasul v. Bush or Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Maybe this material is unclear? discussion of Guantanamo and Rasul v. Bush are on topic in a section that discusses the captive's legal status is on topic because the Bagram captives, like the Guantanamo captives, are not POWs. I believe this makes comparisons with Guantanamo on topic.

The Bagram captives are in US custody, not Afghan custody, which makes discussion of US law, US precedent on-topic when disuccssing their legal status.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained my edit. First, I feel that Rasul v. Bush is no longer a problem because the article now explains how it relates to Bagram. As for the rest, here is what I found unclear:

The DoD had to convene Combatant Status Review Tribunals for every captive in Guantanamo Bay. The Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the captives Tribunals all re-iterated that the Tribunals were merely reviewing the information that had lead to the captive initially being classified as an "enemy combatant" during earlier determinations.

Are these being held for Bagram captives too? According to Combatant Status Review Tribunal these are exclusively for Guantanamo.

The combatant status of captives taken in other conflicts was determined through Army Regulation 190-8 Tribunals. Army Regulation 190-8 laid out the rules through which officers of the United States Armed Forces complied with the USA's obligations under the Geneva Conventions to convene a "competent tribunal" to determine the status for every captive whose status was in doubt.

I'm assuming "other conflicts" means conflicts other than Afghanistan? So then this could apply to a portion of Bagram captives?

An article by Eliza Griswold, published in the The New Republic, stated that the other captives the USA holds might have an Enemy Combatant Review Board convened:[12] "But, for all these changes, the growing detainee population still lives in overcrowded cages. Prisoners don't even have the limited access to lawyers available to prisoners in Guantánamo. Nor do they have the right to Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which Guantánamo detainees won in the 2004 Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Instead, if a combat commander chooses, he can convene an Enemy Combatant Review Board (ecrb), at which the detainee has no right to a personal advocate, no chance to speak in his own defense, and no opportunity to review the evidence against him. The detainee isn't even allowed to attend. And, thanks to such limited access to justice, many former detainees say they have no idea why they were either detained or released.

Okay, so Enemy Combatant Review Boards are the present "legal recourse" of Bagram captives. And then "other captives" must mean other than Guantanamo?

I am not very well-informed on these details, but I would like to make this section clearer regarding which processes applies where. Michael 134.84.96.142 05:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I only know what I learned through working on these articles.

As I wrote above the Bush Presidency's position remains that captives apprehended in Afghanistan, and a couple of dozen, or a couple of hundred, captured elsewhere, are not POWs, but this other category, "enemy combatant". It is a controversial position. The definition of "enemy combatant" used is a controversial definition. Joyce Hens Green, a US District Court judge, in Washington DC, reviewed the transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. She asked some officials some tough questions about this EC definition. She posed a hypothetical example. If a little old lady, from Switzerland, donated some money to a charity, that she thought was a legitimate charity, but, unknown to her, some of that charities resources were diverted from feeding and housing widows and orphans, to somehow assisting some terrorist project -- could that little old lady be considered an "enemy combatant"? She was told the little old lady could be considered an enemy combatant.

"Enemy combatants" are not POWs. They haven't been afforded the protections POWs are entitled to.

One of the protections the Geneva Conventions entitles a POW is to have a "competent tribunal" make a determination as to whether they have been properly classified. Army Regulation 190-8 lays out the procedure through which a POW has their status determined.

The Geneva Convention says a competent tribunal should be convened if doubt exists as to a captive's status. By default all captives are supposed to be accorded all the protections of POW status, until one of these competent tribunals determines they should have a different status.

• Competent tribunals, like the AR 190-8 Tribunals, can determine that a captive never was any kind of combatant, at all, but was merely an innocent civilian. During the first Gulf War the USA convened AR 190-8 Tribunals for something like 1300 captives, and determined about two thirds of them were actually innocent civilians, and the remainder were all lawful combatants, entitled to the protections of POW status.
• Comptetent tribunals, like the AR 190-8 Tribunals, are also authorized to determine that a captive was not only a combatant, but had violated some specific clauses of the Geneva Conventions, or had committed some kind of war crime. These combatants can then be stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions' POW status. In particular, they can be tried for the hostile acts they committed that violated the Geneva Conventions, or other international agreements -- war crimes.
• The Geneva Conventions state that even if a combatant were stripped of the protections of the POW status, and faced charges and were tried, by their captors, they are supposed to be tried using the same procedures their captors would use to try their own troops, if their own troops faced those charges.

The Bush Presidency's position was that none of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan was entitled to the protections of POW status, and that they could all be tried for any hostile acts they were suspected of committing.

I hope I am not going into too much detail. This brings us to Rasul v. Bush. At this point the captives in Bagram and those in Guantanamo, were receiving the same protections under US law -- none.

There is an almost univeral misunderstanding of the mandate of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Almost every press report states that the CSR Tribunals determined the captives' combatant status. This is incorrect. The Bush Presidency's position is that the CSR Tribunals weren't making any determinations -- they were reviewing and confirming earlier determinations. Implied was that those earlier levels of determination were completely adequate.

The distinction between the privileged belligerent or lawful combatant status, as defined in the Geneva Conventions, and the determinations the Bush Presidency made that captives were enemy combatants is a very important distinction.

• For example, under the Geneva Convention a soldier who has been demobilized is unambiguously a civilan. If they don't grab their rifle from above their fireplace, and take pot-shots at their country's invaders, they remain civilians. It doesn't matter if they served decades in their country's army, and received their country's equivalent of the Victoria Cross, or the Congressional Medal of Honor, once they are discharged, they are civilians.
• While the Bush Presidency routinely described the Guantanamo captives as having been "captured on the battlefield", this is simply not supported by the documents the DoD has released. Very few of the captives documents support the assertion that they were captured on a battlefield.
• Military training that Afghan captives received decades prior to their capture was put forward as "evidence" that they were "enemy combatants", during the CSR Tribunals.

So, to answer your specific questions:

• Only captives who were held in Guantanamo had Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The only reason they received them, and the captives who remained in US custody in Afghanistan, was that the SCOTUS ruled that US law did apply on the Guantanamo base.
• I wrote the "other conflicts" passage. I meant earlier wars and conflicts, like Vietnam, or the first Gulf War. None of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan had AR 190-8 Tribunals. My reading of the various agreements is that captives in Guantanamo, and those held in Afghanistan, are entitled to having a competent tribunal determine their combatant status.
• No, I don't think it would be accurate to describe the "enemy combatant review boards" as a legal recourse.
  • The Presidents of the CSR Tribunals told many of the detainees that the Tribunals were "administrative procedures", not courts of law. Their mandate was not to determine guilt or innocence. The same would apply to the ECRB.
  • I think it would be inaccurate to describe the ECRB as a legal recourse as the captives had zero input into them. Were they convened for the Guantanamo captives, prior to 2004? That seems to be what the Bush Presidency implies with its claim that the captives had already been determined through earlier procedures.
  • The captives never got to see the results of these ECRB. A couple of dozen captive's transcripts include discussions of their polygraph tests, and their tests using "computerized voice stress analysis". These captives describe being told that the tests cleared them.
  • A very limited number of the Bagram captives have had the first steps started in initiating some legal protection.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I rearranged the section to reflect your answers. SomethingFamiliar 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert editorializing -- see talk

I am going to excise this passage:

It needs to be kept in mind though, that it is members of Al-Qaida and other insurgent groups are taught to claim abuse even if there is none, in order to perhaps achieve sympathy and possible release.

• 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)