Talk:Black site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project Black site is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Useful Sources

Jane Mayer, "The Black Sites," The New Yorker, August 13, 2007: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer

Tim Weiner, _Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA_ (2007, Doubleday), especially pp. 481-482. Weiner identifies 1950 secret interrogation centers in Germany, Japan, and Panama; 1967 in the Phoenix program in Vietnam, and 2001-present in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, and Guantanamo, plus handoffs to foreign intelligence services in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Syria. In Thailand, Weiner specifically identifies a CIA base near Udorn (p. 257): "Once a nerve center for covert operations throughout Southeast Asia, after 9/11 it served as a secret prison for the detention and interrogation of Islamic radicals." Lippard 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enhanced Interreogation Techniques

What's the point of having enhanced interrogation techniques link to tortue? Is this politcal commentary?

After reviewing the link, there appears to be no point to having Enhanced Interrogation Techniques link to the entry for torture. The torture entry contains no information relevant to the practice of EIT. I've removed the link for the time being.AdmiralAhab 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"? Maybe with a helpful explanation on what exactly that fucking phrase even means? I'd like to see someone try to describe waterboarding, coldcell, stress positions, sleep deprevation, slapping and forced feeding as anything other than torture. That would be amusing. Svlad Jelly
Certainly these practices enter a gray area, but calling them "torture" diminishes the actual torture that doesn't attract so much media attention. Michael98101 06:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That is one point of view. Another point of view is that these techniques went well across the line. WP:NPOV means we shouldn't be injecting out opinions, about whether these techniques cross into torture. But quoting or paraphrasing authoritative, verifiable sources, which assert the techniques constitute torture, complies with WP:NPOV.
Cheers! Geo Swan 11:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques is just a euphanism for torture - just like a company announcing they will be downsizing management, instead of saying 'hey half of you are going to be fired on friday'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.76 (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Camp Iguana

I removed the remark that Camp Iguana was used to torture children. I did some research on the minors held by the USA. And I don't believe that is true.

There are some horrific accounts of how minors are treated in Cuba. Mohammed el-Chad and Omar Khadr have been subjected to cruel treatment. But they weren't held at Camp Iguana. Clive Stafford Smith told the BBC that he believed 20 minors had been held in Cuba. Three of them were housed in Camp Iguana. Following their release it sounded as if they were treated far better than any of the other detainees. They were taught to read and write. They got to play soccer, and video games, watch movies, eat take-out food brought from the base's McDonald's. They were allowed to have two showers a day, could turn the lights on and off, whenever they liked. One newspaper compared the incarceration of these three boys as being not much worse than that of a boarding school. In subsequent interviews they described positive aspects, they wanted to write the friendly guards they bonded with.

They also described much harsher treatment back in Bagram. My guess was that by the time those three arrived at Camp Iguana someone had realized they were just innocent kids, who never should have left Afghanistan. But the other dozen minors were held with the general detainnee population, and were treated as harshly as the adult detainees.

Khadr was short-shackled for extended periods of time, until he soiled himself. Other detainees have reported this. But Khadr reported that when the guards returned they used his bound body to use his hair and clothes to mop up his urine and feces. Khadr reports being subjected to brutal beatings at the hands of the IRF. Mohammed el-Chad has a painful skin condition, and had medical treatment withheld. In the early morning after he was moved to a new cell the IRF invaded his cell and beat him so badly they knocked out his front teeth. It turned out that it was a case of mistaken identity. The IRF had been instructed to beat the detainee who had previously been held in that cell. -- Geo Swan 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish connection?

Today's Washington Post hosted an online discussion with Dana Priest, the author of the article that broke the secret interrogation story. [1] The third questioner quotes a local paper that picked up the story:

"Given that only one CIA plane so far has been spotted landing on a military airstrip in northern Poland (this from a story in today's Gazeta Wyborca quoting your article), doesn't it make the vision of a Guantanamo-like camp in Poland somewhat less probable?"

I used google to look for that article. I found an article, entitled: Tajne więzienia CIA w Europie Wschodniej that mentioned both the WaPo and the CIA. And I used this polish-to-english translator to try to read it. I didn't see any mention of the number of flights. Any Polish speakers out there interested enough in taking a closer look for this article? -- Geo Swan 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A more relevant article is here. This is frontpage news in Poland, as seen here.
At this point, the only relatively solid piece of information is that in 2003 a Boeing 737 plane (apparently the one shown here), widely thought to be involved in CIA-related flights, made a landing at Szymany airport. However, it is completely unknown what was the reason for the landing. At this point, Polish press is not reporting any evidence which could point directly to the existence of any CIA holding facilities in Poland.
I don't understand the questioner's argument. There is only one well documented (by the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, etc.) suspected CIA transport plane, but there is no reason to conclude it's the only such plane. The CIA operates in secrecy. Neither is there any reason to suspect the CIA would land its planes exclusively at a single known military airstrip in Poland. Covert landings at multiple locations, including civilian airstrips are probably likely to preserve secrecy. Moreover, if there are eight currently operating black sites containing around 100 individuals total, one would expect in the neighborhood of 12 people to be held in Poland. A single plane could easily handle that. --Chris Thompson 23:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not from the US so I don't know for sure, but can anyone confirm whether this is at the moment generally regarded as a "scandal" in the US? I personally think it deserves to be regarded as such, but that's my opinion. If it deserves to be called a "scandal", then should it be tagged in the category "George W Bush administration scandals"? Georgeslegloupier 14:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm from the US and I can tell you that the Bush Administration here is having many, many problems all at once. Yes, the CIA Black Sites are a problem, but bigger issues in the public mind are calls for pulling out of Iraq, problems with the budget (program cuts, tax increases), prewar intelligence gaffs, and an assortment of sordid Republican scandals involving corruption of various kinds. Bush is trying to change the tone of discussion by bringing up other issues like intelligent design in schools, his court nominations, and lately border controls. I think the attitude of the American public is that torturing people in European countries is fine since we've been doing that in Iraq anyway. There's an acceptance (in my view an extremely foolish one) that terrorists are evil and have no rights whatsoever. Elite opinion is starting to change, but the man on the street still sees no connection between his civil rights and those of accused criminals.Jburt1 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


As an American expat I do not converse with people "on the street", so to speak, but I am shocked that a fellow American believes that this is not a huge issue with "ordinary" people. Those with whom I communicate regularly and I are appalled that Bush is getting away with so much. His administration is trying to keep the public busy with other issues which (seem to more) directly affect them. He dishonors our forefathers who gave their lives for basic human rights, liberty and free expression of religion. Read President Jimmy Carter's latest book, Our Endangered Values, check out also: www.ccr-ny.org, The Center for Constitutional Rights. For those unaware of what has been happening to our(American) country.Mary

[edit] 8 sites in Europe? Denmark?

I think someone misinterpreted the original Washington Post article. I think it said that there were eight countries, in total, where there were covert interrogation sites.

I question the reference to Denmark. The English article on Denmark only says the plane landed there. These planes land all over, including, this week, Iceland and Canada. Let's confine ourselves to the countries where the detainees are interrogated, not merely the countries where planes carrying them land? -- Geo Swan 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (comp. "hard site")

Black site is a military term (comp. "hard site"). What does comp. mean? I thought perhaps "compare", but the hard site link is a redirect to Abu Ghraib, which left me none the wiser. Mark1 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this parenthetic was not helpful. I removed it. Mamawrites 09:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The comment referred to the most famous "hard site" -- the cell block, set up by Captain Carolyn Wood, where the abuse pictures were taken. It was set up to hold the detainees that the intelligence officials were most interested in. Why "hard"? Maybe because they are so hard on the prisoners? While Abu Ghraib had other cell blocks, with almost 10,000 prisoners, most prisoners are housed in tents. I agree that whoever included that phrase made a mistake. The Fay document makes clear that Captain Wood recommended that Abu Ghraib should have a hard site like the other prisons in Afghanistan.
When I was reading the Fay and Church reports, while I was working on the Carolyn Wood article, I came across a section that described why the Iraqi prisons were so crowded.
  1. American tactics were to send in troops to ocnduct sweeps, to round up suspects.
  2. 85% or more of thses suspects would be found to be completely innocent, wrong place, wrong time.
  3. But the decision to release suspects had to be approved by a committee, that consisted of Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, Colonel Warren, Sanchez's chief legal advisor, and several other senior officers. They schedules conflicted so much that they only managed to meet very infrequently. So innocent men spent months longer in detention long after they were determined to be innocent. -- Geo Swan 10:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It must make us wonder what has become of the morals and ethics in this world, when some seem to have both the power and the selfgiven right to take away human rights from a "suspect" for years without any proof of any kind. Also dont get the facts wrong. The countries of interigation, are not in any way related to the countries where the planes have landed, moving prisoners. For examble, The Icelandic government never gave permission for those prisinor planes to land on an Icelandic ground.

[edit] References

I put the in-text references in the proper footnote format and used citation templates for all references. However, many of the references do not seem to be reference worthy. Were all of them used in the creation of the text? My bet is that only those listed in the text were and that the others are simply related external links. In fact, I'm going to change them to be such. uriah923(talk) 06:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask what order you put them in? They aren't in alphabetic order, or chronologic order. -- Geo Swan 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan / North Africa

Why is Jordan filed under North Africa? --Halal 08:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved. — Jeandré, 2005-11-29t19:03z

[edit] Southern Philippines

Americans are also reported to operate clandestine transfer cells in Southern Philippines,particularly in Zamboanga, Basilan and Sulu. These transfer holding areas are intended for captured foreign jihadists operating in the jungles of Mindanao before they are transferred to Thailand. ----Johnyang2

[edit] Original Research?

The "black sites scandal" related to eastern countries may be an attempt to put pressure on these countries to not allow the USA to open permanent military facilities there. - are there legitimate news sources we can get to confirm that somebody relevant believes this, or has stated it? Sherurcij 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

This section is frankly appalling from an encyclopedic standpoint. "According to government sources" - not cited. "officers are allowed to use what the agency calls Enhanced Interrogation Techniques which violate the UN Convention and U.S. law." - if it's against the law, they're not allowed to use the tactics by definition. Either they're breaking the law or it's not against the law in the first place. They can't be allowed and breaking the law at the same time. None of this is sourced anyway.

This section needs serious attention from someone qualified, and needs much better sourcing. I have therefore added an accuracy dispute until it's fixed. Vonspringer 17:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vonspringer, your logical flaw is that they may be allowed to break the law. Is it relevant that someone is breaking the law if they are never penalized for doing so, and if in fact they receive medals for doing it?

allow - 'to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent.' The definition says nothing about whether an action is legal or illegal. If you allow someone to do something, then you neglect to keep them from doing it. Your criticism about breaking the law is a separate issue. It's like saying that "torturing people is immoral, so how can they be allowed to do it?" Jburt1 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with the article is that if what's being practiced is in fact illegal, then the government as an entity does not allow it. If individual CIA authorities "allow" illegal acts to be carried out, they're not acting in the capacity of the government, they're acting in the capacity as a lawbreaker. The government itself is not neglecting to restrain or prevent, it's government employees acting outside their designated authority. Perhaps the article should reflect who's doing the allowing. If I can think of a good way to reword it, I'll see what I can do.
I'm leaving the accuracy dispute because I have seen no evidence that the government (i.e., people with legal authority to order interogation tactics) have directly ordered violations of specific codified US law. See also below. Vonspringer 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the most likely source for the statements you have a problem with: [2] --Err0neous 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nasty stuff to be sure, but as far as I know it's not illegal under US law. International law is a much more nebulous subject, and if the article wishes to call the tactics illegal under international law then more specifics will need to be given. Vonspringer 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I have further tweaked the section. If no one objects to my changes, I'll take the accuracy dispute off. Vonspringer 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch have a few reports on the torture issue, that might be of use. Here's a quote from and reference for the latest one I found: 'Q & A on Military Instruction Number 10' "...while the Instruction prohibits the use of evidence acquired by torture, it contains few safeguards to make the prohibition meaningful. Moreover, the Instruction does not bar the use of evidence acquired by abusive interrogations that fall short of torture but nonetheless violate the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the Convention against Torture as well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)." from: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/31/usdom13109.htm

[edit] POV

I feel that this article is not obiding by the NPOV policy:

  • Pressure placed on Romania and Bulgaria

The "black sites scandal" related to eastern countries may be an attempt to put pressure on these countries to not allow the USA to open permanent military facilities there.

  • uummmm.. It might just be me, but does anyone else agree that this does not have very much fact to back it up, and is entirely guessing and speculativeMac Domhnaill
I agree. Only the controversy section was bad enough for me to change it myself (I am certainly not an expert about this subject). I would be delighted if this article could be greatly reworked by someone neutral and qualified. Vonspringer 01:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge under the other article's name?

Over at Talk:CIA prison system, we are discussing the merge of these two articles. The Wikipedians commenting so far on the merger believe that the other article's name is the one which should become primary. I figured that Wikipedians with this article on their watchlist might disagree... I encourage you to go over there to make your case for keeping the black site name for the article. Mamawrites 06:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Village

I've added content from the February-March edition of The Village, so as to give a more globaly-based coverage of the events. Let me know if I put in too much or too little. Fergananim 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flights and Transfer Points

Should the UK and Germany entries be removed? Do we want to list every suspected overflight or transfer point? There are no claims of detention centers for UK & Germany. See the remark on Denmark above. Acctorp 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the dark prison" article -- related to this one -- has been nominated for deletion

I started an article about "the dark prison", a black site where eight of the Guantanamo detainees were held, prior to being shipped to Guantanamo. It wasn't long before someone nominated it for deletion. Since it is related to this article I thought those interested in this article might like to weigh in on the {afd} discussion. -- Geo Swan 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The obligation on those who place an {npov} tag...

I just removed an {npov} tag placed by a numbered IP. They didn't state what part of the article displayed a biased point of view. I regard this as an absolute obligation on those who place an {npov} tab, because the rest of us should have to guess as to what they think is biased. The {npov} tag displays a message on the article telling readers to look at the talk page for an explanation of why the tag was placed. If you can't or won't say, in a civil, specific manner, what you consider biased, then please don't place the tag.

They also asserted that the existence of black sites was merely alleged. I removed the word alleged because the existence of black sites is not in question. Although Secretary Donald "pants on fire" Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that the "worst of the worst" were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay it is known that the most senior detainees never made it to military custody at Guantanamo. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Hambali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda are recognized as being among the most senior al Qaeda captures. They have never been in military detention. But the CIA has not openly acknowledged where they are. Ergo there are clandestine interrogation centres -- black sites. QED. -- Geo Swan 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of black sites IS disputed, as nobody has factually PROVEN they exist. Regardless of how you obviously feel about Rumsfeld, your logic relies on unproven assumtions. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof?
  • We know that the USA holds dozens of high level al Qaeda suspects.
  • We know they aren't held in Guantanamo.
  • They have to be held somewhere. You aren't suggesting they are held in the twilight zone are you?
  • So, where do you think Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Hambali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda et al held?
  • If they aren't held openly, they are, by definition held in a classified location -- a black site, by definition.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that anonymous contributor was correct, and the article should have an {npov} tag applied to it -- the contributor who placed it has an obligation to initiate a discussion on the talk page explaining their reasoning. If they don't, how would the rest of us know when their concerns had been satisfied, so we could remove their tag? Some naive contributors who place {npov} tags mistakenly think the reason for the placement was obvious, without realizing that other contributors can't even tell in which direction of a controversy they thought the article was deviating... -- Geo Swan 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not talking about an npov tag. I'm not even arguing for an npov tag. I was just commenting about the sites existance being disputed.

Ok so your proofs: 1: We know the US holds dozens of high level al Qaeda suspects. Given. 2. We know they aren't held in Guantanamo. Possibly not true given deception on the CIA's part, but lets call it a given. 3: They have to be held somewhere: Do they? They don't necessarily still live. They could be held in a ships brig off the coast of Iraq, or Afghanistan, in a navy prison. They could have been found not guilty and released. The fact is, we just don't know. 4. Where do I think they're held? I think they're held in a military facility, most likely in the country they were arrested in. 5: the error is here: Just because a location is classified does not make it, by definition, "black". That's a HUGE assumption, that classified = black. Classification is a security measure designed to protect OPSEC. Did you know, that even though they're publically available through internet research, the GPS coordinates of US bases in Iraq are "classified"? What about Camp Doha, Kuwait, the CentCom HQ. It's not an open facility: it requires a Colonel's approval to be permitted on site. Is that a "black facility"? a "black site" by the more common definition would have to meet two characteristics: it would have to be clandestine (i.e. not appear on any budgets, or appear misleadingly), and it would have to be illegal (or else it's merely a covert facility).

I'm not arguing anything about an NPOV tag, as you suggest on my RfA. I'm just suggesting that your definition of a "black site" is flawed. (Camp Bondsteel? Come on....that's the US army's headquarters for KFOR, and it IS an open facility. If you had a specific facility on that base that was considered "black", such as the SFOD-D Stockade at Ft. Bragg, or the "covert hanger" at Eglin AFB that SF and CAG use, that'd be another story.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking up at your argument regarding the npov tag: you're absolutely correct, they should discuss what section is "pov", or provide a reasoning for it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Term

I was just curious as to when this term was first coined. All it says is that it's a military term used by intelligence agencies. Does anyone know when this term was first used? i.e. is it an old term or a recent invention? And what incident (or location) was it first used to describe? (Leninbenjamin 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

  • I would argue that it is not of military origin. Who would give a name to something they wanted to keep secret? More likely they have refered to any such sites by some bland term. --mitrebox 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture/abuse??

I noticed while I was looking at this article that there were no refrences to the prisoner abuse that has been occurring at many of these detention centers; I added in a few, but could somebody expand them and cite a few news sources? thanks. 206.15.236.254 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mary McCarthy

Is it quite appropriate to refer to Mary McCarthy as a "Democratic activist"? While I'm aware of the $7,700 she's donated to Democratic candidates and causes, I don't believe this represents the most relevant portion of her involvement with the "black site" issue. It also ascribes a political motivation to an action that, to date, the individual in question denies having any involvement in. I'd like to propose for consideration that the sentence be amended to read, "On April 21st, 2006, Mary O. McCarthy, a longtime CIA analyst, was fired for allegedly leaking info about black sites to Dana Lewis of the Washington Post."

I feel this more accurately reflects events as they occured. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need source for torture claims

  • A presidential directive allows the agency to capture and hold specific classes of suspects without accounting for them to the public, or revealing the conditions they face in the prisons, which have been proven in some cases to include torture and other prisoner abuse [citation needed].

Two questions:

  • What is the proof that these prisoners have been tortured?
  • What definition of "torture" is being used here? Testicles crushed, ears cut off as under Saddam? Victims beaten to death as by the Taliban? Or relatively "mild" tactics like stress positions or scaring you with dogs? Or humilitions like making you naked and teasing you about your genitals?

Note that I am not excusing or advocating any of these practices, just asking for a bit of perspective as well as sources. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All of those seem to fit the definition, yes. I'm not sure anyone who has undergone such experiences would use the word "mild." That there are worse forms of torture does not seem to be a point anyone is arguing.--csloat 04:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant amount of proof prisoners have been tortured. For instance, this document [3] has more than 800 footnotes detailing its sources. If you don't trust that document, go directly to the primary sources listed.

The definition of torture used in this article is the same as the definition used in the Wikipedia article on Torture. Much of the torture used by US forces and their agents is psychological, you're right, but see the Wikipedia article on Psychology of torture for details on how even that can damage an individual for life. Regardless, there is also plenty of evidence that US forces and their agents also engage in forms of physical torture including Waterboarding and beatings. See for instance, these pictures and articles from the Abu Ghraib collection: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs54.jpg http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs01.jpg http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs31.jpg http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs08.jpg http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs07.jpg http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html This was not an isolated incident. See for instance Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse. I don't know enough about the Guantanamo situation to comment on whether torture is going on there. Someone else can probably comment. --Chris Thompson 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Torture at gitmo is well-documented too. New info is still coming out. Look for the book Inside the Wire by a former Guantanamo Bay translator. Also, the book The Torture Papers documents quite a lot of the evidence of torture at prisons including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.--csloat 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no doubt torture has happenned. This does not mean that an article can't be provided, but the sentence shouldn't be removed (please no American exceptionalism) Tazmaniacs 05:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse-me, I haven't even read which part you were alluding to. This is the intro, and there is a source, it is Dick Marty's report, which is sourced in the main-text. Please don't stop reading at the intro. Tazmaniacs 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular References

I stumbled accross this page from some other random site.

This page has very few references and is making some pretty bold claims. It is filled with so many poor and circular references that it has no credibility at all. Given the facts, a number of the conlusions it seems to draw are some amazingly long leaps.

No wonder so many people have problems with wikipedia.

[edit] "Recognized" seems like an obfuscating euphemism to me

Someone updated this article to reflect today's admission by President Bush that the USA had been maintaining secret interrogation centres. Someone else changed its wording, so it no longer said he "admitted to", but rather he "recognized" the existence of the secret prisons.

WTF? "Admitted to" is the description on the news up here in Canada. "Recognized" seems like an obfuscating euphemism to me -- and, sorry, expressive of a biased POV.

What, like the President didn't know about the secret sites, until today?

I changed it to say Bush "acknowledged the exiistence".

IMO a neutral point of view doesn't require us to use obfuscatory euphemisms. And, sorry, but the expression "recognized the existence" seems to be expressive of a biased POV to me. -- Geo Swan 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Tazmaniacs

[edit] Question?

It the opening paragraph it says:

"Black site is a military term that has been used by United States intelligence agencies to refer to any classified facility that is officially denied by the US government."

My understanding is that the policy is to neither confirm or deny. Can someone confirm what it is and either correct me or edit accordingly?