Talk:Donald Vance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

This SOUNDS like a horrid incident, but this is probably not the whole story. All we see is Mr. Vance's side of the story. What is the "official" response to this? Aynoneemoos 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Skeptikal


I don't buy it. I've spoken with a guard from Camp Cropper who had dismissed 6 other guards for even the slightest of incidents against prisoners, none of which were, or even came close, to "sleep drepivation" techniques... -LTC

So LTC, what you are saying is that 6 guards were "dismissed" because of some other incident against prisoners, but they didn't come close to the severity of sleep deprivation. So if I read your comment correctly, a violation did occur against some other prisoners. So what did these guards do?
There is something extremely fishy about this. He has filed a lawsuit against Rumsfeld. He just won a 2007 Ron Ridenhour Prize for exposing this event to public scrutiny today (April 4, 2007). I cannot believe that it has not received more attention in the press. I find this pretty disturbing on many levels.--Filll 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is over 4 years later and Vance's book is not only unpublished, the reference to it is removed from the Wiki article. I suspect he was just a convenient lightning rod and a flash in the pan. 72.19.41.254 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole article is absolute claptrap. People who actually know what went on there are not allowed to speak about it for security reasons. Vance is taking advantage of this fact to make himself into a hero and to line his own pockets. Sincerely - Someone who knows. HealthySkepticism 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So we should take your word for it? If you have any links or factual materials rebutting his claims, please feel free to post them.129.33.119.12 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that Vance would have a somewhat different story if certain people were allowed to speak their piece. HealthySkepticism 16:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't "certain" people speak? You hint that, there is much more to this article, which I'm sure there is, but you hint that we're not hearing the other side, especially from the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.53.31 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, they are not allowed to speak about it for security reasons. There are quite a few people who could likely speak to the conditions of confinement and could refute some of Vance's claims, but they are restricted from doing so. Vance is taking advantage of this fact and making claims that make him sound like a persecuted hero. HealthySkepticism 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The government depends on secrets, and when people step outside and start to expose the corruption their witnessing and talk about the secrets their supposed to keep, the government can and has proved they will destroy you.

I can understand why people can't talk about the conditions at that prison because of security reasons. I think everyone here is more concerned about the things that were being reported to the FBI, especially the guns and bribery. What I don't understand is that other contractors have murdered people, like the blackwater guard who was drunk and killed another guard, the embassy sent him to the U.S within 48 hours and no charges have ever been pressed against him, and he wasn't held within a prison. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.60.105 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. The Northern District Courts of Illinois where the Case was filed, is probably going to issue an order for discovery. When that happens everyone involved in this case will be known. I've seen copies of the complaint and they already know the names of a lot of people, who are going to testify. Also, I think people keep forgeting that he was an informant for the FBI, so those people that got informed on are going to have answer a lot of questions, then those people will break and inform on others, like dominos it will keep going.--WriteisRight 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

April 26, 2007. William H. Steele the commander of Camp Cropper has been charged with "Aiding The Enemy", Having sexual relations fraternizing with a detainees daughter, mishandling classified material, disobeying orders, mishandling government funds. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/world/middleeast/26cropper.html

The charges against LTC Steele include fraternization, which does not necessarily constitute sexual activity. It is clear from news sources that the charges relate to allegations of innappropriate, albeit non-sexual, behavior. HealthySkepticism 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While I believe in a healthy skepticism, the fact remains that an American citizen was detained by the military for 97 days without any kind of due process. How much further his rights were violated remains to be seen but his Constitutionally guaranteed rights were utterly disregarded. Add to that the fact that within 3 weeks the military was informed that he was an FBI informant and even the healthiest of skepticism has to consider the possibility that something dodgy has occurred. Before anyone can remind me that a war is in progress and civil liberties are, thus, duly suspended, let me remind you all: if we are fighting for freedom we shan't find it by denying it to anyone convenient. Concerned06 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


This sounds like the military's standard procedure to completely Overreact, when faced with a any problem. They found out that Mr. Vance was a informant for the FBI, and went nuts. Military records which are availible to all visitors to the ACLU website shows that the military has an extreme distrust of any agency of federal law enforcement. They detain his guy for no reason, except to find out what he has been telling them and when they fealt that all their questions have been answered, they let him go. What really concerns me, is the methods they used in order to get those answers, they completely suspended the rule of law in this instance. The prisoners in Cuba had more rights than the ones Mr. vance was given, which is completely against the mission in Iraq, which is to bring freedom to Iraq. We certainly can't lead by example in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.143.112 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So the previous opinion was "vacated?" Do we have a reference? Does the general non-JD-holding public know what "en banc" and "vacated" means? Please repair. 66.220.111.155 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See potential resources on Talk:Donald_Rumsfeld ...[edit]

More specifically, on Talk:Donald_Rumsfeld#Resources_..._regarding_Donald_Vance_and_Nathan_Ertel ... 99.19.47.119 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Vance. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)