Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

politically-correct re-wording

why OH WHY does the "politically-correct re-wording" of the simple concept of TORTURE justify a separate Wikipedia article? It's like having an article for "rape" and a separate one for "justified rape". 199.214.27.4 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

you obviously didnt read the article, it makes a complete mockery of it. 68.46.188.243 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TDC

Restored your deletioon of sources that was messing up the article. Apparently you can also delete most, if that is the problem. Now it no longer says most so you must be pleased. Thank you.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton

A POV statement like that does not belong in the intro, and CP is not a WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It is NPOV and the NYT is difficult to see as left-wing.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Since when is the NYT not left-wing? 68.39.157.13 07:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
its common for dumb people to see everything as being one of two groups, either based upon their ideas (good, american, freedom, right-wing) or things they disagree with (evil, terrorists, etc)68.46.188.243 (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques refers to means of aggressively extracting information from detainees the Bush administration advocated as necessary in the War on Terror.

This does not make much sense to those like me who have never seen the expression "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

  1. who uses this expression?
  2. When was it coined?
  3. what does it mean?

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is embarrassingly POV, but the intro is probably the worst. Even those in the CIA who oppose waterboarding admit that it has been extremely effective. 68.39.157.13 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that says that?

"Despite the alternate name, experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective" - The four links were to columnists, not experts. A credible expert would be from groups like [1].--Doug davison 09:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Removed text after further researching the links. Link 1 Is an article about the television show '24'. Link 2 Is a link to CounterPunch, a combative website, self described as 'muckracking'. Link 3 Is an opinion piece from a staff writer. Link 4 Does not contain any experts considering it torture. Douglas 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You will find opninion, when identified as such, is allowed under WP policy. Oddly enough the NYT end The New Yorker (read it you will find it is not limited to 24!) fail your view of RS. I restored the info.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion pieces of dubious veracity are specifically listed as not reliable sources, even if from reliable publications[op-ed, etc]. The '24' link is not the opinion of a torture expert by any streach, as the reference implied. Who are torture experts in each link?

According to WP:VERIFY - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Please resolve this dispute before restoring the material. Douglas 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Claiming the widely cited piece by Mayer is not allowed boggles the mind. Please reread WP:RS if you think respected journalists are disallowed as source.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Mayer is the torture/interrogation expert, or Joel Surnow is? The dispute is whether "Experts" are cited as described in the refereces. I don't see any, in any of the 4 references. Douglas 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that there are relatively few who could be called 'expert tortures' and I am not sure that their expert views should be included in Wikipedia! (visions of Sir Larry playing the sadistic dentist Christian Szell in the Marathon Man)--Philip Baird Shearer 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Id rather not have them to dinner :) The references are to the "Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective" - if this were switched to "many journalist consider" the references would make sense. There are a few experts at the UN and humanitarian groups.

Douglas 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:
  1. If we were to use only those sources that have a degree in the relevant field, i.e. physician, biologist, economist, engineer, et cetera, and are globally recognised as knowledgable Wikipedia could delete most of its sources.
  2. If the previous point were adopted few journalists would qualify as WP:RS, since journalist school does not make one a rocket scientist.
  3. Investigative journalists regularly cite experts on the topics they write about. To insist it is the journalist, instead of their sources, making the claims is silly and surely misrepresents what journalists do.
REspectfullyNomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with using journalists as sources, its just that the article says "many experts consider", implying that they are human rights experts. Maybe if we reword it as many people? Douglas 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A citation is needed for the President approving these techniques. Everything I can find says the CIA approved them mid-march.Douglas 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm jumping in the middle of an old conversation, I realize, but the current state is "Top Bush Advisors Approved Enhanced Interrogation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.119.178 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We do not need a source for every sentence.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can find, this statement is not accurate. It appears the CIA approved it mid-march, with the President issuing an opinion around July. Douglas 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, I don't mean to beat a dead cat, but why don't you guys simply put a ref to the Geneva Convention or one of the numerous torture acts which label it as such. Also, check out the Guantanamo Bay manual on Wikileaks. Jouranalists are fine as references, but there are so many concrete sources on this matter. Visit the official waterboarding site and check out their links.--Wick3dd (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

War crimes (Verschärfte vernehmung)

H. Candace Gorman (a civil rights attorney in Chicago), Andrew Sullivan and Lou Dubose pointed out that "enhanced interrogation" bares remarkable resemblance to techniques the Gestapo called "verschärfte vernehmung," which were found to be war crimes Sources:

If justice comes to those who wait, then wait we will. This criminal saga has its silver lining. Those same Nazis who claimed it was acceptable in times of war to use stress positions, environmental adjustments, hypothermia, water boarding, long forced standing as well as claiming that a lack of uniform allows for the most brutal of “techniques,” were themselves found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death.
  1. there is mo mention what war crimes they were found to be guilty of. So this source does not substanciate that any or all of theses techniques were considered war crimes during World War II.
  2. Futher as the European Court of Human Rights ruled in "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (Case No. 5310/71) it depends on the severity of the use of such techniques. "162. As was emphasised by the Commission, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc." So even if some Nazis had been found guilty of war crimes for using these techniques one may not be comparing like with like.
There is no mention in this article of the phrase war crime. So this source does not substantiate the sentence.
Much better source but despite Sullivans arguments it is difficult to say that one is comparing like with like. See above it depends on the severity and also AFAICT these were people tied in a Norwegian courts so it may not apply to international law (but the Americans should not interrogate any Norwegians in Norway).
skirts around the point does not say that anyone was found guilty of war crimes what it says is "The Nazis failed in their defense. Bush has so far succeeded in exactly the same argument."
The defense failed, and the accused were convicted." The article does not say they were convicted of war crimes. It does not state who was found guilty or what they were found guilty of.
This article quotes Sullivan so given that the Sullivan article is here in full does not add to the argument.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Gestapo to clarify who uses these techniquesDouglas 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SERE

Removed this section as it refered to a CounterPunch article, which is not an edited publication. WP:RSEX—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug davison (talk • contribs)

Addendum: citing WP:RSEX

  • Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (emphasis mine)

SincerelyNomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The connections to SERE are established by an official source (the Senate Armed Services Committee) in the McCain Levin report, if people want to improve on the section.

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf --72.165.229.187 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

International Law

Removed the section on the US qualifying the application of the Geneva Convention. The 1994 communication stated that the US wasn't required to enact any laws that would conflict with the constitution.

Criticism

Removed the section referencing the CounterPunch article. As well as being an reliable source, they jumped to a conclusion that was not stated in [2] Douglas 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I placed the tag on this article because I believe it is overwhelmingly supportive of the view that these techniques are torture. Even the picture is biased; it's a picture depicting waterboarding, which is the most extreme of these techniques. Further, the picture depicts waterboarding in Cambodia--not at all the way it would look if done by the US. There's alot of weasel words and one sided statements without rebuttals here as well. User:Bellowed||3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |)]] 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

" Further, the picture depicts waterboarding in Cambodia--not at all the way it would look if done by the US." Another one of your 'claims'! How would US waterboarding be substantially different? A nicer bed? Better lighting? I hope you have a link for this new outrageous claim of yours. I hope its better than the one where you said Dennis Miller denied that waterboarding was torture, but he actually said no such thing, although he did compare GITMO to Las Vegas. So funny! I'm afraid your false claims aren't helping your reputation much. Bmedley Sutler 08:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The US technique does not involve water actually entering the lungs. The Cambodians usage probably did, and by putting that image there you are implying that the US technique is the same as the Cambodian technique. I believe the misperception of the technique originated with accounts of military training exercises which employ the harsher technique.131.107.0.101 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to read those articles which I posted as links. I also invite you to read my comments on the talk page in full. If you had, you would have noticed that I said that here's alot more here that makes the page un-neutral than just that picture. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This whole article needs to be rewritten neutrally. The only facts appear to be the list of techniques. All of the other sections are based on opinion, not facts. The sections labeled History" and "Legality" need reworked. See the [WP:NPOV] for a description of why this is not acceptible, specifically the "Balance" and "A Simple Formulation" sections. This article seems to say that these techniques are torture. We either need to trim the opinions or include a comparable amount of opinions to the contrary.Douglas (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It is of course not prohibited to add sourced information that say this is not torture. Will provide more sources to establish some of these do constitute torture.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag seems entirely appropriate here. The article reads as if it were political broadside against President Bush rather than an encyclopedia article. The problem is, dogmatic POV pushers will never allow the lightest change that they see as anything short of complete damnation of The Devil Bush. Some would re-write the definition of torture to include anything that falls anywhere short of making a interrogation subject relaxed and at ease. If you look at "old school" torture, like spilling guts into hot coals, ripping off skin, poking out eyes, ripping off finger nails, etc..... this "new" definition of "torture" is a bit on the touchy-feely side. Making someone THINK you are going to hurt them is not torture. Nor is embarrassing them or making them sit still for a long time. My parents did that. LOL. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that your parents chained your wrists to the ceiling and made you stand naked and cold for 40 hours at a time....or did they? But that's not really the point. The point is that torture is fairly well-defined by treaty and statute. Whether any one person finds those definitions touchy-feely is irrelevant. Rodney420 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC).
Wow! This article is SO biased! It needs to be completely gutted and rewritten. But how is that going to happen with the liberal editors saying that it is torture and reverting your edits? I didn't bother to change one thing on this article yet (except for the talk page). It seems as if most think this is biased, so that's progress. So I say we should completely rewrite this.

Ryan1159 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is completely messed up. People are incredibly persistent in asserting controversial claims as fact in the leading section of this article. I will change it again now, but i know it wont last long. And yes, this whole article needs to be re-written. JEN9841 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Headline: US prez puts end to CIA torture

Link

Bush bans torture from CIA questioning

US prez puts end to CIA torture

link

"Officials would not provide any details on specific interrogation techniques that the CIA may use under the new order. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods, stress positions and - most controversially - the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding." Bmedley Sutler 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Important Source

I'm just starting to read it now:

Rorschach and Awe

"America's coercive interrogation methods were reverse-engineered by two C.I.A. psychologists who had spent their careers training U.S. soldiers to endure Communist-style torture techniques. The spread of these tactics was fueled by a myth about a critical "black site" operation." by Katherine Eban VF.COM EXCLUSIVE July 17, 20 Bmedley Sutler 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As this weeks revelations show. More lies from the blood soaked psycho in DC. Torture alive and well. Inertia Tensor 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which Jimmy Carter's quote is presented indicates that he's Nelson Mandela or some other figure whose reputation and reaction to whose comments aren't as mixed as Carter's... That was the only point of changing the wording in the intro to be more NPOV, which someone keeps reverting with (ironically) NPOV as their own justification. Pupununu 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

war crimes

for which some members Gestapo were prosecuted in Norway after World War II "found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death."

The sources given are not the most reliable (WP:V "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."). Further the much of information is presented by Andrew Sullivan who has his own political agenda. What is needed is a reliable source that describes what Norwegian crime was that the Gestapo members were found guilty of. Was it an international war crime or a Norwegian domestic war crime? Was it a war crime or a crime committed during a war. Further the mention of Nuremberg needs to be expanded and whether "Verschärfte Vernehmung" was a significant part of assessing the Gestapo at Nuremberg and if it was what were the legal conclusions drawn. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"enhanced interrogation techniques" may also fall under the [international law] definition of torture

  • The "enhanced interrogation techniques" may also fall under the definition of torture,{{Fact|date=November 2006}} as defined by the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, though Bush administration officials deny that this is the case. All countries that are signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture agreed to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and there are No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture (Article 5 text).

I removed this text because a citation has been requested for a year on this. Is there a source clearly stating that "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the article qualify as torture under the UN Convention Against Torture quoted in this text? If so please cite this source and return the text to the article proper.--BirgitteSB 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Using Andrew Sullivan as a source

There is no basis upon which Andrew Sullivan could be considered a "reliable source" for this article, except for maybe digging out the phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung". Yes, he's fairly famous, and writes a lot about this subject, sometimes well, sometimes not, but that is irrelevant. First of all, he is not a recognized authority on the subject, and has no relevant experience or training. Nor is he a lawyer, a doctor, an interrogator, CIA employee, torture victim, military member, etc. He has never even worked as a journalist. He went straight from college to editing magazines then to opinion writing. And his blog, like all others, are "self published sources" and so not considered reliable for Wiki WP:RS. Candace Gorman and Lou Dubose are also pretty flimsy sources, but at least they have slight credentials for the job. Gorman is an attorney specializing in treatment of detainees, and Dubose has done a little journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuboTitan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious exactly what portion of WP:RS would Sullivan be acceptable? Being famous is not enough, unless you are reporting on what famous people are doing, not using them as sources. For example, if Britney Spears publicly took up a cause against "enhanced interrogation techniques", that in itself would certainly be notable enough to mention in the article, but no one in his/her right mind would use her as source material.--BuboTitan 10:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell from the WP:RS, Sullivan's blog and the CounterPunch log are unacceptible for the following reasons, all from WP:RS
  1. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. --Both sites are run as blogs, with no fact-checking above the authors'
  2. Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details.
  3. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.
  4. Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
Again, just trying to wipe away opinion and have this article just state facts.

Douglas 08:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Here's an example of why Sullivan is not a good source. He himself claims he's "just a writer": http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/post-stephanopo.html Doesn't mean he's a bad writer, or that he's wrong on the issue here, but he has never claimed be an expert in any field or a journalist, AFAIK.BuboTitan (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, nowhere in WP is the Sunday Times considered unacceptable. The fact you do is bordering on vandalism/trolling. Second, for some reason you insist only experts are allowed as source. Again you fail to explain why we accept journalist, generally not experts, as source. Third, WP explicitly allows people who have written and are known for their articles as source. Fourth, even the fact that a hundred other sources mention his name does not make you think he can be named as the one observing the Nazi-thingy.
Should you continue your unconstructive edit pattern I will file an RFC and incident report against you for edit warring and removing sourced information from WP.RespectfullyNomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
1) I never said the Sunday Times was unacceptable, so don't throw up smokescreens here. 2) Since you are obsessively adding Mr. Sullivan to the article against the will of the majority of the other editors of this page (actually all of them, as far as I can see), then what you are doing is far more akin to vandalism. This is not your personal page. I and others have given you plenty of reasons why he is not acceptable, but you choose to ignore it. 3) I never said only experts are used as sources, but according to WP:RS, self-published sources (blogs) are highly discouraged but acceptable if the writer is a recognized expert in his field. Look it up. 4) Journalists, as such, are not really acceptable either, but they normally publish in media which are fact-checked in some way. And frankly, I'm not wild about using Lou Dubose in this article either. 5) Please show me anywhere where WP "explicitly allows people who have written and are known for their articles as source". This is absurd. If so, then we could use just about anyone under the sun as a "source" for anything. 6) A hundred other sources mention a lot of things, that doesn't mean they meet any standard. 7) Yes please request RFC for this page. It will save me from having to do it myself.BuboTitan (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with torture

See also Talk:Torture#Merge from Enhanced interrogation techniques?

Incidentally, given how small this article is, it would be better simply to merge it with Torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuboTitan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Respondent above suggests, without any explanation:

"Incidentally, given how small this article is, it would be better simply to merge it with Torture."

Many fans of mergism make assertions, as if it were obvious established fact, that merging articles that are somewhat related is always the best choice.
This is not a fact. This is not even "obvious".
I strongly disagree that merging would serve anyone, not even respondent.
One of the most important differences between wikipedia articles and plain ordinary world-wide web pages is that the links of www pages are uni-directional. You can't look at a web-page and seen what links to it, only what it links to. This is a huge failing. Wikipedia articles have the "what links here" button.
This is a very powerful feature, one which should be used more often. I hope respondent checked out Special:Whatlinkshere/Enhanced interrogation techniques before they proposed merging. If we look at the articles that link to to this article, how many of them would have their value eroded if this article was merged and redirected to torture? On the surface, half or more. I'll bet, if examined in detail, we would find if we looked at the articles in the other half, we would find that many of them link to both torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.
Please don't suggest merging articles unless you are prepared to give meaningful specific reasons for that specific merge.
Cheers! Geo Swan 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging with the torture article for the reasons given in Talk:Torture#Merge from Enhanced interrogation techniques?. But even if it were to be merged the article to merge it into is either Uses of torture in recent times#United States or Torture and the United States. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose merging this article with torture. As the article points out, many of the techniques are also used in USAF SERE training. If EHTs are torture, than the military actively tortures it's own servicemembers. This is obviously not the case. If the methods used are also deemed to be mild enough that they are applied to our own troops to help them better withstand REAL torture, than it's not torture. If it were, quite a few members of the USAF and other militaries (including many of those of our NATO allies, the same countries calling this torture) would be in the Haugue on trial.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, although there is a difference between torture/interrogation techniques (however you see it) done on people who have volunteered for the training and people who are forced into it. For example, forcing an overweight prisoner to run 10 miles could probably be considered torture, but running enthusiasts do it all the time, and some enjoy it.BuboTitan (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I recommend merging, perhaps with a minor mention of EIT as a section in torture. Spudhawg obviously fails to consider the issue of consent. In order to have the tortures applies, they must consent to SERE. This consent does not make the actions any less tortuous. I agree with BuboTitan. It is a rose, and by any other name its thorns still wound.Vampromero (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see things, the problem is not merging this article, but splitting it. A part of it should discuss the practices that have been in usage during the Bush administration, and would be better named as Philip Baird Shearer accurately suggests; another article should discuss the term "Enhanced interrogation techniques" as euphemism for torture and its relations to the rationalisation of torture towards the public and the torturers themselves. This one could be named "Enhanced interrogation techniques" and would describe the usage of like terms "Verschärfte Vernehmung", "alternative set of procedures", etc. Rama (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Veracity

Some editors delete sourced material claiming the information is not true. AFAIK it is not up to editors to make that judgement. Heck, we know the statements by the Bush administration defy all logic and contradict known facts. Nevertheless, we are not allowed to make such comments on those interpretations. If one has trouble with sourced material that contradicts personal believes then insert sourced material as rebuttal. Deleting it is however not allowed and might be seen as vandalism.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this call. The very first line of WP:VER states wikipedia contributions should aim for "verifiability, not truth". Geo Swan 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For those unable to accept policy again a summary.

  1. Andrew Sullivan is named by this source[3] so I see no reason to exclude hime from the article.
  2. Andrew Sullivan is a well-known journalist with numerous articles on politics and as such according to ArbCom he is an acceptable source."Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability."
  3. With the above in mind there is no argument in WP-policy to continue sanatising the article.

From now on I consider the removal of sourced material defying even ArbComm, while refusing to explain why vandalism, and will treat it as such. Respectfully.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but:
  1. All that source does is point out that Andrew Sullivan dragged out the phrase "Verscharfte Vernehmung" into contemporary discussion. That's it. If you just want to mention that alone, I guess it's ok, but that would just be a small footnote to the article.
  2. Andrew Sullivan is well known, but he is not a journalist (nor does he claim to be, afaik). His degree was in poli sci, he worked as a magazine editor and a blogger, but never as a journalist. So that also makes your ArbCom quote moot.
I should add something else here too. Candace Gorman and Lou Dubose are barely acceptable as sources themselves, almost along the lines of pathetic. Adding Sullivan would just weaken the glue to the breaking point. Can't anyone find better experts than a lawyer who has an vested interest in hyping up torture allegations, and an author who has barely done any journalism at all? I'll see if I can find some better ones. As it is, the article is extremely weak because of this. BuboTitan 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether a source is POV is not an argument for disallowing it. Also, people who are known for writing articles (even as editor!) fall under WP:RS. To suggest otherwise seems an attempt at removing sourced material on dubious grounds.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think working as an editor qualifies as a "journalist" please produce some evidence to support this. Moreover, I'm not excluding Sullivan because of his POV (as I have pointed out many times), but because 1) he is not a recognized expert, and 2) his blog is not an acceptable source BuboTitan 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a source naming Sullivan, so removing it is vandalism. If you mean that only experts are allowed I urge you to remove all sources that are journalists since they mostrly have no degree in the relevant topic. If you think writing articles about certain thinngs, as WP does, makes you acceptable then there is no reason to continue your edit war.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying Sullivan and other well-known bloggers get their opinion accepted as facts? Opinions need to be presented as such, but this article calls them "experts" and treats them as vetted sources. Douglas (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sullivan is not presented as expert but as commentator. As such his opinion, as mentioned by other sources!, is acceptable. I changed the wording to avoid any confusion on your part.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ourced
In the intro Sullivan is sourced to back up the statement Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective. The other three sources are also journalists or bloggers, not experts. These sources do not verify that experts consider this to be torture.
The reason I'm disputing these sources is that the only verifiable fact they offer is the authors' opinion.
This article needs to be cleaned up. With verifiable facts listed prominently, and everyone-and-their-brother's opinion on it as a subsection. Verifiable facts that would be helpful are things like - what the techniques entail[not what they resemble], when and who were they used, current legal standing[decided cases on these, not nazi cases], and if anyone has outstanding litigation[but not opinion on it]. If this article was called what people think about it it would be appropriate than the current title.Douglas (talk)

Not sure why we need to rehash the facts:

  1. According to you "In the intro Sullivan is sourced to back up the statement Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective." Why you feel the need to make this clearly erroneous statement is beyond me.
  2. The sentence you refer to is supported by the article by Jane Mayer. Unless you suggest we should not be allowed to use established and respected journalists, that report (as opposed to writing an op-ed!) on certain matters, I fail to see your point.
  3. Sullivan is only used to support the Gestapo-stuff. Again, policy explicitly allows opinion as long as we identify it as such, which coincidentally the article does.

Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(re:1&2)I just reread Mayer's 8 pages. I still don't see the experts concluding these techniques are torture. Can you narrow it to a page?
(re:3)Citing blogs or other unvetted sources to establish facts is not acceptable. The Sullivan and Counterpunch articles are only appropriate to state the authors' opinions. The Stolz's article is particular bad. The article is cited for their opinion on the IG's report, instead of referencing the actual report. The article states the conclusion of the IG's report, even though, if you read the actual report it states that no torture had taken place see p.77. Using opinions to build a straw-man based on what they think is similar to the current interrogation techniques would be disengeuous, as in the SERE and Nazi sections. State the facts and let people draw their own conclusions.
Just for the record – I have no doubt waterboarding is torture. My motivation is to get a NPOV article.Douglas (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Will reply in detail in the coming days.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

These techniques being torture, will add more when I find them.[4][5][6]Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better experts! I would replace the Sullivan reference with Lederman and Appleby. I'd avoid McCoy as he comes across as a loon.
We still need to balance this article but we're moving that way.
Douglas (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will provide more the coming days. Exactly what makes McCoy a loon? Regarding Sullivan feel free to contribute to the discussion on that topic.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques to resolve dispute regarding refusal to allow what sources say.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be taking the case. I suggest we place discussion at the case page, as this talk page is getting rather clogged up. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Case closed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


imprecise translation

The German term "verschärfte Vernehmung" does NOT directly translate to "enhanced interrogation" but to "acute interrogation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.104.233 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just ran the phrase verschärfte Vernehmung through the Google translator and it came out as Tightened interrogation. Running enhanced interrogation in the English to German mode created Akute Verhör. Remember, translating is an art form that requires an understanding of meaning in the context of both languages, and literal translations can be quite misleading. I'm more comfortable with Italian so can't speak authoritatively about the German language in any case. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker of German with, I think, moderate English skills, and I can confirm that the first anonymous person is correct. "verschärft" has a connotation of making something harder or worse, not of improving it, as "enhanced" would suggest. Therefore, "verschärfte Vernehmung" would come down to "tightened interrogation". 80.135.75.105 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who is fluent in more than one language knows that there is rarely such a thing as a 'precise translation'. The point is, both phrases are very similar euphemisms for torture. Dlabtot (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • While the phrases are similar they aren't equal, and I am only aware of basically one source [[7]], that translates "Verschärfte Vernehmungen" as "enhanced interrogations". The literal translation would be "sharpened interrogations" (sharp = scharf,-e,-es; to sharpen = schärfen, verschärfen; sharpened = geschärft,-e,-es, verschärft,-e,-es), the US translated it in the Nuremberg trials as "third degree", the Soviets as something that in the English translation became "especially severe interrogations". Nonetheless, the similarities are striking. Larkusix (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to correct myself, I found a second, independent source, that translates "Verschärfte Vernehmung" as "enhanced interrogation". "Charges of torture as a war crime were also brought in a post-WW II tribunal in Norway for the use of "verschärfte Vernehmung" (enhanced interrogation) techniques, including induced hypothermia. See, Case No. 12 – Trial of Kriminalsecretar Richard Wilhelm Hermann Bruns and two others by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett and the Supreme Court of Norway, 20th March and 3d July, 1946. [[8]]." Rona, Gabor,Legal Issues in the 'War on Terrorism' - Reflecting on the Conversation between Silja N.U. Voneky and John Bellinger(January 12, 2009). German Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 5, p. 719, 2008. Available at SSRN: [[9]] It now appears more credible as a legitimate translation. Larkusix (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a recent article obviously influenced by today's use of the phrase.
That method also used severe beatings, which is not the same thing as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. If anything, this proves Andrew Sullivan didn't know what he was talking about.
Even if we were to ignore things like the beatings and focus only on the use of cold temperatures, we can see here that they used cold baths (in Norway!) rather than room temperatures set to 50 degrees. There's a world of difference between those two methods.
On the other hand, if this article is really about the phrase, then it might also include examples of how critics of the U.S. side of the war had exaggerated the severity of EIT for political/propaganda effect.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Please

  1. fix the spelling Celcius>Celsius
  2. link dates for preferences

Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with accuracy, tone and pov in this page

This page has numerous problems with pov and tone issues. In some cases, undue weight is applied to opinions of rather insignificant people. I will try to return with a list of issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Outside of Criticism Section

Moved discussion to more appropriate location.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SERE: Text 11

I'm going to remove the sentence about waterboarding. Since it's been established on wikipedia (the first sentence of Waterboarding includes torture) that it's torture, not an "enhanced interrogation technique".Reinoe (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of scholarship and objectivity

I believe that while, this article does have some merit, it lacks objectivity and furthermore it conforms to a corrupting practice all too prevalent in modern America, comparison to Nazism. The practices of the modern United States and its war on terror have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. The same relationship could be established linking Nazi Germany and the wearing of pants, use of paint or cuisine-yet they too would prove irrelevant. Furthermore the author seems more interested in denigrating the current administration than in an objective description of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's real flaw exposed!

I think one of the moderators is a friend of the dumbass who wrote this bad joke. I'm a college history instructor and I can definitively state that if one of my freshmen submitted such unsubstantiated, apocryphal tripe I would fail that student. The fact that this article remains unrepaired and said moderator is unwilling to permit any editing/improvements is the best revelation of the quality of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not moderated by knowledgeable, responsible people but by arrogant computer nerds sitting in mom's basement with nothing better to do than demonstrate thier "power". I will submit this to wiki-dispute and move on EH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, this statement criticises the lack of authentic evidence ("unsubstantiated, apocryphal") for the "tripe" in this article but the statement IS able to assert the spuriously worded "Wikipedia is not moderated by knowledgeable, responsible people but by arrogant computer nerds sitting in mom's basement with nothing better to do than demonstrate thier [SIC] power" without referring to any independent evidence. I wonder if the failed student mentioned would lose marks for spelling "their" as "thier" in an essay critiquing poor scholarship. ABCGi (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ban on Interrogation Techniques" needs a correction

The section titled "Ban on Interrogation Techniques" lists and links the wrong Field Manual (FM) for interrogations. The current and only authorized manual for DoD interrogations is: FM 2-22.3 - Human Intelligence Collection Operations (Sep 2006). Whomever loves and nurtures this "encyclopedic" entry, please change it, since the old FM is nothing more than a reference to more nostalgic times.

Also, a dissimbiguation page should be included. The term Enhanced Interrogation also refers to a new course that Army interrogators participate, that has nothing to do with this article but all to do with legal, ethical, effective and professioanl interrogations. The course is titled: EAIT - Enhanced Analysis and Interrogation Training. Searching for information on the course, I came upon this article.

Jerry.mills (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See also and categories

Can these be improved and cleaned up per WP:GTL? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading headline/POV

When I clicked the link for this page, I expected to learn about different techniques used throughout times and cultures, probably moreso on Koreans, Japanese, Germans and Vietnamese for obvious reasons. What I did not expect was to see a page 75% filled with criticisms of President Bush and waterboarding.

I'm not looking to push any political beliefs, but this page needs massive improvements to remove the anti-Bush propaganda and add more information/facts about enhanced interrogation techniques. I really doubt that only George W. Bush came up or uses 75% of all techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiveWire (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a major source that used this phrase before Bush? If so, that should definitely be in here. The current article is structured around the concept that the current administration coined the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.119.178 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Partly seconded. Verschärfte Vernehmung redirects to this page, which begins with "Enhanced interrogation techniques, rough interrogation, and alternative set of procedures are terms the Bush administration uses". This is incoherent.
My impression is that either
  • we have separate articles on the "Enhanced interrogation techniques" of the Bush administration, another about Verschärfte Vernehmung, etc., discussing the use of the term and the specific torture techniques used. The article should have the appropriate redirects to torture, Verschärfte Vernehmung, etc. Or
  • we have one central article "Enhanced interrogation techniques" devoted to the euphemism in different places and times, how different regimes make torture acceptable, and in this respect, the Bush administration is nothing more than, maybe, the most documented case on the Internet (not even certain). In this case, the headline should be changed to underline that euphemisms for torture are common, and cite historical examples (among which the Bush administration is only an example).
If LiveWire can point to specific examples of "anti-Bush propaganda", it could be helpful. I have mostly seen fairly factual statements in the article for now. Rama (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Added one citation needed

Someone said above that it wasn't necessary to cite a source for Bush's authorization of these techniques. I strongly disagree. The current best thinking appears to be that top administration officials approved the techniques, but it is not yet clear is Bush is directly culpable. When considering this matter, imagine for a moment that someone wanted to take Bush to court regarding this. Using only publicly available sources, would they be able to make a case that Bush knew of and approved this program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.119.178 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg

The image Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"methods considered by many to be"

I strongly protest the wording "methods considered by many to be torture" introduced by User:Walterego [10].

The "many" in question constitute a quasi-unanimity, including such international standards as the UN, ICRC, Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, etc.; hence the wording attributes a disproportionate importance to an extremely minority viewpoint, typically of people more or less involved in the practices in question, and as such constitutes a breach of Wikipedia:Fringe theories and WP:NPOV. With similar standards, one could question that the Third Reich, France in Algeria, the regime of Pinochet, the generals in Argentina, practiced torture; or that the USA are a democracy for that matters.

One of the proeminent traits of torture is that its authors always qualify it with euphemisms, downplay it and deny it. It is thus completely ridiculous to make it appears as if there was any sort of genuine doubt as to the nature of these actions when all but their authors agree that it is in fact torture. Rama (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The UN, ICRC, Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International have been consistent critics of the US during its recent conflict with islamic terrorists. They represent one side of the debate, one taking an expansive view of definining torture. The other POV is the current US govt and its supporters. The former does not constitute a unanimity (calling it a "quasi" unaninity concedes that it is not truly unanimous), they constitute at most a plurality. The ICRC, Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International comprise the same viewpoint, as their political orientation overlaps. It is equivalent to citing several anti-abortion organizations and then asserting that abortion *is* murder. The debate amounts to a conservative vs. liberal interpretation of human rights of unlawful combatants, in which there are many different views as to where the very gray line is between torture and not quite torture. Presenting one POV as undisputed fact violates WP:NPOV. Personally I didn't expect this to turn into a debate, since my edit used the word "many" rather than "some". Saying "many" suggests that it is the majority view that harsh interrogation is all torture. It is most definitely false that "all but their authors agree that it is in fact torture". The wikipedia section on "waterboarding" contains many opposing POVs from sources who were not the authors of the methods, and waterboarding the the harshest of the "enhanced interrogation techniques". The other methods are far lighter, which is the other problem with asserting that enhanced methods are torture. Just because waterboarding is considered torture by many people does not mean that the other methods are torture also. Sen. John McCain is one of the most vocal critics of waterboarding, and he has unambiguously called it torture, yet he supports the use of the lesser methods. The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee issued a statement cited in the article which called waterboarding torture, but not all the other methods (ie sleep deprivation, hoods, loud disturbing noise, isolation, sensory deprivation, shaking, nudity, standing, dietary restrictions, and feeding tubes in response to hunger-strikes). So if this article asserts that "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture, yet most of the sources refer only to waterboarding to be torture, that just isn't so. Furthermore there is already a wikipedia article on waterboarding, in which both sides of the srgument that it is or is not torture are presented. Walterego (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Torture gets qualified because it is such an inherently subjective label when it is used to describe things that are not obviously torture (meaning things that don't cause severe physical pain). Walterego (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your presentation of the viewpoints of a minority of the US administration and of the rest of the world as equivalent is akin to presenting the official discourse of Pinochet as equivalent to that of the rest of the world under the pretext that Amnesty International was a constent critic of his policy. Yes, it was, and for a reason.
This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Both are deeply moral issues, but the comparison stops right here. The organisations that claim that abortion is murder do not have the international credit of the UN or ICRC (in fact, in many parts of the world they would be considered to be fringe lunatics).
Torture is nothing subjective. It is the wanton mishandling of helpless prisoners, in a systematic way, as to terrorise a population.
Your point about "severe physical pain" reveals a medieval imagery that has less to do with modern torture than with BDSM (in which people are willfull participants). Torture in the modern age is not an inquisitional technique to have a prisoner confess a particular point in a trial, as it was in the Middle Ages; it aims at lastingly breaking his will and character as to have him cooperate on the long term, and terrorise a population to coerce it into cooperation with occupation forces. This is what the French did in Algeria. The Soviets brought the art further by developping means of breaking one's character without resorting to your "severe physical pain": prolonged uncomfortable positions, lack of sleep, loud sounds, lack of water and food, temporal disorientation, sensory isolation -- rings a bell?
The bottom line is:
1) read Marie-Monique Robin's work or some other reference book on the subject
2) the NPOV policy of Wikipedia does not consist in pretending that all points of view are equally worthy. Rama (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I realise that your position probably might stem in good faith from failure to comply with another Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Worldwide view. Your point about abortion would fit well there, as this issue is not discussed as you describe it in most advanced countries. I understand that it is difficult to see beyond US politics when one is deep in it; nevertheless, this does not make them the framework in which the matters of the world are discussed here. Rama (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Worldwide view link you give includes this paragraph:
Articles such as "Uses of torture in recent times" tend to dwell on the relatively few (but well documented) cases of abuse in Israel, the United Kingdom, United States, conducted during their foreign wars and incursions, and to a lesser extent, those by other western democracies, while ignoring the widespread and systematic abuses which take place in countries where information about torture is not widely available to English-speaking Wikipedians.
While that by itself doesn't by itself mean enhanced techniques aren't torture, and I personally think that was a charitable way of putting it, it's an acknowledgement of bias. Many of the critics of U.S. policy are willing to ignore real forms of torture elsewhere (sometimes to a degree that makes them complicit).
Looking at the sources that claim this is torture, the immediate problem I see is that most of them are either ignorant to what's really going on or they just don't care. One of the references shows a picture of a man covered with bags of ice. Even you must realize it's utterly ridiculous to compare this to putting someone in an air-conditioned room.
Likewise, is music torture really torture?
Although certainly debatable, waterboarding is the only method the U.S. used recently that could be torture. The rest are a joke.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinion is completely irrelevant, as is the practice of torture in other countries. That worse has been done sometimes some place elsewhere does not excuse torture here and now. I used to know the USA as "the beacon of Liberty", since when has it become "the beacon of there has been worse"?
The point is that internationally recognised and legitimate bodies, which cannot be accused of blind anti-americanism, acknowledge the use of torture of the USA for what it is; and the only apologists of these practices are institutions of the US administration attempting to justify the policy of their government. By the same standard that we apply to other countries, we must say that the techniques used by the USA are torture. Anything less is putting the excuses and euphemisms of a tiny, interested minority on the same level as the rest of the world; which constitutes a grave breach of NPOV.
Incidentally, "the rest" to which you refer includes "techniques" so innocuous that people have died under them; "shaking", for instance, which Israel banned for a reason -- I assume that Israel is not soft on terrorism, is it? Uttering sentences like "The rest are a joke" is beyond contempt. Rama (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "could have been worse." It's a matter of recognizing that if someone harshly criticizes U.S. interrogation policy while demonstrating little interest in the worst torturers imaginable then it's obviously not torture that they're opposed to.
Harsh interrogation does not have to include torture. It would be inhuman to fight a war whose victims include many innocents, and then not go to the legal limit when collecting intelligence. There's a line between the legal and illegal methods, and there's another line between the illegal methods and outright torture.
Whether shaking is legal or not, it's not torture unless done to extreme, and we have no evidence that such extremes are part of enhanced interrogation.
Is air conditioning torture? At what temperature does it become illegal, and then at what temperature does it become torture? What air conditioners are capable of reaching those limits? Has the U.S. directed or permitted interrogators to exceed them? Who says so? The detainees? Their lawyers? Some politicians in Europe?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was at a grocery store this morning, and it was uncomfortably cold inside. Would it have been illegal to interrogate someone in such a store for an hour? Would that legally have been considered torture? What if it was just ten minutes? Do we have references about the law for any of this, or is it all just politicians at campaign time and organizations in their fund-raising letters blowing smoke?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinions are irrelevant, must like mine. Neither you nor I are an internationally recognised authority on the matter like the UN or the ICRC.
The fact is that internationally recognised authorities have stated that the USA practices torture; some US officials attempt to dismiss the point. By the same standards which have us saying that Pinochet used torture, that Saddam Hussein used torture, that the French used torture in Algeria, that the Red Khmers used torture, we must say that the United States use torture. Rama (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The UN report does not claim that anything constituted torture other than waterboarding. Its exact words were "that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (emphasis mine). It's phrased that way throughout, and that's probably because they recognize there's a difference between illegal methods and outright torture.
One ICRC report was based on an interview with Abu Zubaydah who claims he "had been waterboarded at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times in a day." That's quite different from every other report we've heard on his waterboarding. It's an obviously self-aggrandizing tale, and (in the Mayer article) the ICRC doesn't claim to believe that it actually happened that way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your point is moot anyway since waterboarding is part of the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques". Rama (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? Take a look at the article. It suggests that many or most or all of these techniques are torture, and that all of them are illegal.
I've long given up arguing for the possibility that some forms of waterboarding may not be torture. But I would like to see distinctions made between those who genuinely do oppose torture, and those who will simply defend America's enemies no matter who they are. I know it isn't the job of Wikipedia to judge those but we can remember where people stood. In that vein, it wouldn't be fair to say that the ICRC was willing to jump in further than they did. Some of their spokespeople may have, and we should name those.
Another problem with this article is how it moves so easily between CIA techniques and those of the U.S. military. (The SERE connection is naive but there's not much we can do about that now.) Techniques that are illegal under military law are not necessarily illegal under various treaties the U.S. has ratified. Furthermore, the U.S. hasn't ratified Protocol 1 of the GCs. It's possible (although I hadn't looked closely) that some of the complaints by politicians in other countries might have been legitimate had those rules applied.
Then there are the claims about Omar Khadr. The sources don't say he was tortured, only that he claims to have been. Is it fair to blame the entire Canadian government for a position that they haven't jumped into with both feet? It might sound okay if you believe Khadr's supporters will be remembered for caring about human rights, but that's not a certainty. I'd like to see names whenever possible.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The article qualifies a set of so-called "techniques" including waterboarding, which is consensually regarded to be torture. The article itself should not say anything, merely honestly report what authoritative sources say.
Your complex of persecution about America is irrelevant.
Your personal legal theories are irrelevant. I will nevertheless dignify them by recalling that the First and Third Geneva conventions also forbid torture, and that the Nuremberg trials have overruled attempts at defending inhumane behaviour with the letter of the law.
Omar Khadr as an individual case is not the matter: whether he is a genuine instance or not, his claims of having been torture are made credible by the existence of a system of torture. And nobody is blaming the Canadian government. Rama (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point. I only see one technique -- waterboarding -- that the prominent sources are willing to say amounts to torture. The article reads (e.g. "and many other experts classify them (plural) to be torture") as though these people are saying that a number of techniques (and perhaps all) can be classified torture. That simply isn't what the references say.
Even if some of the other techniques may be illegal they're not necessarily torture.
I'd better also spell out where it mentions Khadr: "For its use on Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, the government of Canada added the U.S. to a list of countries that employ interrogation methods that amount to torture." But the reference points here and here. None of those sources say the Canadian government assumes Khadr is telling the truth. None of them say Khadr was actually put through any these enhanced techniques.
We can't really say "For its alleged use" either, as that would imply the Canadian government is alleging that. It's always possible that the actual document is willing to go further than what was reported. If so, we should see it. Some specific names would also be nice.
Keep in mind that the Canadians also detained a couple of Islamists who claimed they were tortured. They must know to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
And FWIW, I was not saying torture is legal. I am saying it's not always torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point. The package "Enhanced interrogation techniques" includes waterboarding, a "technique" consensually regarded to be torture. Hence the package is torture. Period.
I am not interested in what you say about the matter. If I want to read revolting things, I can find texts better written and more historically relevant than your personal opinions. Rama (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "package". If it were a package then we'd be saying that only three detainees were put through the enhanced interrogation techniques.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding is included in the article, it is therefore a part of these so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques". If you are unhappy about how the Bush administration handles its buzzwords, complain to them. Rama (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enhanced_interrogation_techniques/Archive_1&oldid=1136701676"