This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
I shortened the lede to eliminate references to enhanced interrogation and to the CIA. The reason is: the Senate Report and other sources indicate the abuse of prisoners went far beyond anything authorized by John Yoo in the torture memos as enhanced interrogation. And the CIA was not the only offender; indeed it was perhaps the lesser offender. Most abuse occured at places like Abu Ghraib, under the auspices of the military. These refinements can be discussed in the body of the text, but the lede should limit itself to an introduction to the subject. Finally, I could not find the word euphamism in the lede, to which a previous editor appeared to object: was it the edit summary that was objectionable? ElijahBosley(talk ☞) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was the lack of reliable sourcing. The first sentence and its sourcing still need work. We should hue closely to the sources about the Panetta Review and be careful to avoid synth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2014
I added, another editor deleted, a third editor re-added, and a fourth has re-deleted, a stub tag. On reflection I agree this article is not exactly a stub. Perhaps we can agree on calling it: unfinished. That's in part, because we don't know the end of the story yet, or the significance of this aspect of it. I am not sure that the wrestling over who should have access to the Panetta report is of more than passing significance. That happens a lot in Washington. Certainly if the information the CIA was hoping to keep away from the Senate is ultimately made public, the bureaucratic wrestling over it may seem a little silly, a current event that is no longer current, of little enduring historical value. Worth maybe a sentence, or maybe as much as a whole section, in the larger article to come on the Senate Report. But maybe not a stand-alone article. So, in sum, I guess I am saying lets wait and see. ElijahBosley(talk ☞) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this merger tag but not seeing where the discussion should be, I started this section. This stand-alone article is a bit much for a report nobody has seen that is notable mostly because the CIA infiltrated Senate staffer computers to find out who might have seen it. We still don't know what the report says. So in sum, I SUPPORT cutting this down and merging it.ElijahBosley(talk ☞) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Panetta Review existed long before the Senate Intelligence Committee began investigating the matter, and is no more connected to the Senate report than, say, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, which I'm sure no one would support merging into the Senate report article. I'm sure the Panetta Review will get more coverage as the fallout from the Senate report continues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for merger. After reading DrFleischman's comment, I think we should ideally have a stand-alone article about the CIA's torture program that incorporates many of the report's findings. It seems silly to put reporting about the torture program but unrelated to the torture report into the torture report article. Panetta Review and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are the closest articles we have, but Panetta Review is an article about a report and not directly about the CIA's program; EIT is not narrowly focused on the CIA's activities. I have created a separate post of the talk page of the torture report: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture#Standalone article about CIA torture program.-Ich(talk) 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article Enhanced Interrogation Techniques--already too long--does address the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. The problem with narrowly focusing just on CIA abuses is they can't be separated from DoD abuses. An earlier Senate Armed Services Committee report (genuinely bipartisan) said DoD abuses were the direct result of the CIA abuses, that techniques and personnel migrated between them, and that the legal opinions establishing a law-free zone created "a legal and moral climate encouraging inhumane treatment." One huge page is sure to get broken up into sub-pages. Until it is clear that is better, I would go with Dr. Fleischman. Seprare pages with links "to main article" between them. My initial support for merging just this page is, um, evolving into an oppose for merging everything into one gigantic article.ElijahBosley(talk ☞) 17:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
