Talk:USS Bataan (LHD-5)

= "Black Site" and torture usage = It seems improper to me to list "see also" links for both torture and Black Site. If something is a black site, it does not necessarily engage in torture. The two (so far) are mutually exclusive; after all, nearly none of this controversy has been proven. Actions taken: Removed link to torture. Added a "suspected" disclaimer to the Black Site link and a few more see also links. Govus 20:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bataan's name is back in the news thanks to a report from the UK's relatively reputable human rights organization Reprieve. I've begun a discussion over in the USS Peleliu's talk page about why this should be included, in the hopes of avoiding an edit war. -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In particular, I propose adding the following section and associated references -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked the guy who reverted  this material to return here to discuss it.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reprieve Allegations
In June, 2008, the UK-based human rights organization Reprieve issued a report that listed the Bataan as one of up to 17 ships where they believed terrorism suspects were being imprisoned. The US Navy denied the allegation.

Im sorry but 1 report from one group who "believed" dosnt pass the test. Maybe a link but IMHO you need real truth before it belongs on the page.gatxer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.79.24 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not "one group believed", it's a group of people who try to document what they consider to be human rights abuses. I'd not heard of them up to this point, but on the other hand I'm hardly an expert on human rights organizations. I did go to the trouble of doing a quick check about them (see http://www.reprieve.org.uk/), and they do seem to be a mid-sized organization of some repute. They've even got a basic Wikipedia entry (Reprieve (organisation)) from prior to this particular report, so it's not like they're out of nowhere. Certainly the fact-checkers for important media outlets like Reuters, the Guardian, and Fox News believe it to be worth reporting that the allegations have been made (see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1218265771). In summary: with a reasonably credible group saying this and other credible groups passing it on, the truth or falsity of the allegation actually doesn't enter into it -- the allegation itself is now a notable (if unfortunate) part of the ship's history. -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree. the allegations are important.  also, cite the importance of john walker american taliban.  it is a known fact that bataan escorted walker back to the united states. - platypusrex256  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypusrex256 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this material is STILL not included. On _2 June 2008_ The Guardian reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/terrorism.terrorism), "The US has admitted that the Bataan and Peleliu were used as prison ships between December 2001 and January 2002." and "President George Bush admitted in September 2006 that the CIA operated a secret network of 'black sites' in which terrorist suspects were held and subjected to what he called 'enhanced interrogation techniques', a term described by the Council of Europe as 'essentially a euphemism for some kind of torture'." Game over. 32.176.119.5 (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now added this stuff back to the article Bradqwood (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)