Talk:Taguba Report

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Summary[edit]

Wow...am I seriously the first person to write on the Talk page for the Taguba Report? That's a little depressing. I guess that report didn't have quite the impact it should have had. There's more info on The Ladder of Divine Ascent, for Pete's sake...

I filled out the summary section.MarkB2 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a problem that"credible" is in quotations like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.59.28 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs a little work[edit]

A lot of people won't have a clue what an "Article 15-6" inquiry is, especially if they're not American. I don't! It needs to explain and/or link specifically. 81.159.57.7 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the report doesn't say rape...[edit]

Then it dooesn't say rape. Quite a difference between "rape" and "having sex with someone". In absence of either stating rape or a more verbose "forced to have sex" or some variation thereof, rape, a loaded term, does not belong in here.66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the absence of the term rape when refering to an armed MP having sex with an imprisoned woman in itself noteworthy. This wording implies there was consent. None of the male prisoners who were sodomized and sexually assualted have their victimization characterized in a way which implies they may have consented. Frankie816 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only "implies" what you assume. And you know how to spell assume, right?66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annexes[edit]

As far as I could tell the findnews.com link didn't provide any of the Annexes. I did some quick searching and found a nice index site at the Office of Freedom of Information website that had them all 106 up as PDF format. Added External Link --MiloKral (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: A few of the annexes were apparently not released with all the others. Notably Annex 25 & 26 which contains the CID interviews and statements of detainees and the suspect guards that got charged along with other guards. I haven't been able to find a copy of these 2 annexes anywhere and would really like to give them a read. If anyone does know of a publicly available copy, please post a link. --MiloKral (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]