Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enhanced interrogation techniques article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

"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.
REspectfully Nomen 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.Respectfully Nomen 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Cleanup needed

Please

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Criticisms Outside of Criticism Section

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)