This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the
Guild of Copy Editors,
Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on July 17, 2021. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{
copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our
project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Possible copyvio |
There is a lack of distinction in this article between the BTIF and DFIP. Any comments related to the BTIF should be removed from the DFIP section, they were two separate facilities and should be treated as such.
I agree. I was at the BTIF in 2009 when we transferred it to the Detention facility in Parwan. The reason many people do ot recognize it is because we built the new facility from 2009-2010 and moved the detainees into the facility in 2010. The old BTIF was destroyed in 2010. The BTIF is a completely different facility, different goals and objectives and different mission for the guard force. It should have its own page.
"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)
"taxi to the dark side' took place near Bagram. Damien Corsetti was at Bagram, and was one of the few guards convicted of prioner abuse in the USA. Actually, omar khadr, the 15 year old, was better treated by Damien than by other guards, because Cosetti said "he was just a kid". Still he was near dead when brought in yet still abused by the guards, because they knew everything hurt. Two shots through the torso, and lots of shrapnel. [1] ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
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.
Michael 134.84.96.142 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Another wikipedian has questioned whether coverage of the Bagram's captive's legal status belongs in this article.
Well,
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)
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 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.
Aafia Siddiqui was never held at Bagram. One female prisoner was held beginning in early 2003 for about eleven months, and then released to the Pakistani Government circa Feb 2004. No females have been held since that time.
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
I uploaded an image I no longer thinks qualifies as fair use. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC Documented new abuse cases that happened after US President Barack Obama was elected, promising to end torture.
Afghans 'abused at secret prison' at Bagram airbase IQinn ( talk) 00:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
>> Afghanistan frees inmates US calls dangerous( Lihaas ( talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)).
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/HRF-Undue-Process-Afghanistan-web.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
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))
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the
Guild of Copy Editors,
Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on July 17, 2021. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{
copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our
project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Possible copyvio |
There is a lack of distinction in this article between the BTIF and DFIP. Any comments related to the BTIF should be removed from the DFIP section, they were two separate facilities and should be treated as such.
I agree. I was at the BTIF in 2009 when we transferred it to the Detention facility in Parwan. The reason many people do ot recognize it is because we built the new facility from 2009-2010 and moved the detainees into the facility in 2010. The old BTIF was destroyed in 2010. The BTIF is a completely different facility, different goals and objectives and different mission for the guard force. It should have its own page.
"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)
"taxi to the dark side' took place near Bagram. Damien Corsetti was at Bagram, and was one of the few guards convicted of prioner abuse in the USA. Actually, omar khadr, the 15 year old, was better treated by Damien than by other guards, because Cosetti said "he was just a kid". Still he was near dead when brought in yet still abused by the guards, because they knew everything hurt. Two shots through the torso, and lots of shrapnel. [1] ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
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.
Michael 134.84.96.142 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Another wikipedian has questioned whether coverage of the Bagram's captive's legal status belongs in this article.
Well,
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)
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 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.
Aafia Siddiqui was never held at Bagram. One female prisoner was held beginning in early 2003 for about eleven months, and then released to the Pakistani Government circa Feb 2004. No females have been held since that time.
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
I uploaded an image I no longer thinks qualifies as fair use. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC Documented new abuse cases that happened after US President Barack Obama was elected, promising to end torture.
Afghans 'abused at secret prison' at Bagram airbase IQinn ( talk) 00:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
>> Afghanistan frees inmates US calls dangerous( Lihaas ( talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)).
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/HRF-Undue-Process-Afghanistan-web.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
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))