Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 RfC 1.1 Statements by editors involved in dispute 1.2 Outside View 2 Criticism of Bellowed's statement on RfC 2.1 DOJ's view 2.2 Suggestion 3 New edit per RfC suggestion 4 Response to RfC 5 Headline: US prez puts end to CIA torture 6 New Important Source 7 Oxygen Panic, Scuba Analogy 8 Wanted - experienced archivist for Talk 9 New intro 10 Revert of Bellowed 7/24/7 UTC 11 Removed Cheney from intro 12 RFC still there 13 Weasel Words 14 Gag reflex / Death Imminent 15 Agents of the Dutch East India Company example 16 KSM SECTION 17 Reference to Letter? 18 Navy Seals 19 My Opinion 20 Recent revisionism reverted backwards 21 Is it torture?

RfC

archiving, the RFC link call appears to be long down, if you want a new open, open one please.

Criticism of Bellowed's statement on RfC

I'm closing this tread and sectioning off the bits about other things. People have managed to respond to the RFC based on two different editor's views of the issue in the thread above. I don't think the introductory description has been preventing us from getting good views on this issue, and any more heated discussion of such a trivial matter as the RFC summary is likely to cause more harm than good.--Chaser - T 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DOJ's view

And I just pulled up the US Justice Dept's view on what constitutes torture here[7] |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are one to talk about out of place. This section is NOT about the dispute - it is about the neutrality of one line of text on a DIFFERENT PAGE - the RfC Project page. Plus NOTHING in that link of yours says it is not torture. NOTHING. 24.7.91.244 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's not in the link itself. You have to click on the link to read where it says that these people don't believe it's torture.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WRONG CATEGORY why are you complaing about Bmedley's edit! Anyway, it does not state it is not torture - it references a withdrawn memo - which IS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH in the article's body. Not to mention undue weight - a practitioner saying its ok. see talk, read the article, and keep your edits in the appropriate category. Unless you want others to start moving your talk and sorting out the disparate mess of it into the correct categories? 24.7.91.244 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

We recraft the RfC (which I agree on doing!) to a statement we both agree on - and then declutter by mutually agreeing to wipe this entire category (which is just us arguing alone) from talk. There's very little we can agree on, but I suspect that is one thing. I can't create a new consensus on the article with you and the other editors as teh views are wildly divergent with yours - but we can have a consensus on just this RfC matter. 24.7.91.244 00:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

one idea - feel free to help. Editors disagree strongly on whether waterboarding is torture, and what constitutes a source in this case, we would greatly welcome outside views, and of course contributors. 24.7.91.244 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the first line simply state "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique"

--143.166.226.58 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (BiTMAP, too lazy to log in)

Easy. Place the blessed editors on a Waterboard and see how long it takes them to agree it's torture.... Not very long at all I suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempting for us to both engage in a more civil discussion. However, I do not believe that we should rephrase the RfC statement because we disagree on whether or not conservatives view waterboarding as torture. I provided those links and you debated them. An outside editor also provided a source for the claim. As I said before, I think you are in the minority in believing that Cheney and O'Reilly believe waterboarding to be torture.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind. I removed the broad term 'many conservatives' from the sentence since it is not the best term possible. Afterall, I'm an independent and I don't view waterboading as torture. The debate clearly has two sides to it and to characterize the proponents as being only conservative would not be as accurate as the reality.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral at all - - it is a continuation of the argument on that page - editing. Your personal political affiliations should be irrelevant to your editing. 24.7.91.244 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about broad groups. Individuals, especially anonymous ones online, don't count.--Chaser - T 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New edit per RfC suggestion

I have changed the first sentence to become more balanced as suggested by both outsiders who've responded from the RfC. Also, I removed the refrence from the Tunisia incident since it was never done in the context of extracting information--only dunking people's heads under water for the fun of it. That's clearly torture, but since it was done without any interrogation it wouldn't be waterboarding by the CIA's definition so it would be un-neutral to allow it as a source.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Tunisia refrence is back in the article. I'm going to remove it again, since it clearly only states "submersion of head in water" and not "submersion during interrogation" which is waterboarding. What the Tunisia incident describes is water torture, not waterboarding. We need to move the refrence to the water torture article instead.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored it. I fail to see how not asking questions while doing it makes it not relevant or how you reason that if they ask questions at the same that it is not torture. The water is the primary torture element. Unless they have especially bad breath, the fact that questions are asked is irrelevant to its status as torture. 24.7.91.244 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The water is the primary torture element So I guess that means that we should have the squirt gun page redirect to the waterboarding page. Intent is what matters. The Bush admin calls waterboarding an enhanced interrogation technique. When there's no interrogation taking place, then soldiers are only dunking people in water because they hate them or to get their jollies. That's something that everyone would agree to be torture. However with waterboarding we have a significant group of people who classify it as an interrogation technique, not a torture technique. So it's not accurate to use it as a source for the people who think that waterboarding is torture--the reference indicated water-torture, no interrogation involved. Waterboarding does not equal water torture. They are two very different things. But I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this refrence. We'll let other editors decide if it belongs. However, I will oppose any attempt at building off of that source on this article, since it doesn't belong.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

intent is what matters, that is an ignorant thing to say. Pain and Suffering is what matters. Harm is what matters, psychological damage is what matters - CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is what matters. Whether someone is or is not asking questions, in English, or in Klingon, is irrelevant - it is still torture. Maybe you would only consider it torture if the practitioner was standing on one leg and wore odd socks. This is your stupidest reasoning yet. 24.7.91.244 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the various complaints above, this situation has significantly cooled, at least for the IP (Bellowed hasn't been editing for a few hours). Anyway, I would hope that we can restrain from calling each other names on this very controversial article. Commenting on other editors does not advance the discussion. Commenting on the article and the issues editors raise does advance that discussion. As to the issues raised above, lets just try to drop the whole matter and get down to business. And I do mean business. No more calling people anything apologists, no more accusing each other of lying and all that. If anyone wants to edit others' comments on this talk page, I suggest they read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and try to follow that guide.--Chaser - T 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Belated comment to User:Bellowed: One other possibility is that waterboarding is a torture used in interrogations. The reason I say this is that in the military I heard stories from other soldiers about ways of "making prisoners talk" - to get urgently needed tactical information, like where is the prisoner's unit and what are they planning. Punching, scrotum crushing, cigarette burns, mock executions, even killing another prisoner in front of the interrogated man were reported (informally) to me. The purpose was not to vent US soldier's frustration (that would be covered under war crimes) but to elicit "military intelligence".

So the question is either (1) whether torture is ethically valid as an interrogation technique or (2) how severe may the interrogators make the discomfort or pain or fear when trying to make prisoner talk? I submit that these are not only legal questions but also ethical questions. --Uncle Ed 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC

• Comment - A small number of individuals in the U.S. government consider it "not torture" and most others consider it "torture." The minority opinion, laughable and illogical it might seem, is worthy of mention, as agents of the current U.S. regime is apparently either using this technique or contracting it out to third parties. Just state exactly who thinks waterboarding is not a form of torture and make reference to official statements of this. The new coinage "enhanced interrogation technique" should definitely not be substituted for "torture" (though it's fine to have an article about the term and its use) as it's a clear effort at manipulating language (and, consequently, opinion) a la Orwell. The lead is strongly skewed in favor of the "not torture" camp, which is quite miniscule vis-a-vis world opinion. Badagnani 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had to support the pov of the "not torture camp" with statements from Cheney and others. And we don't really know for sure if this POV is miniscule compared to world opinion. Nobody has ever provided a source stating that the world overwhelmingly believes that it's torture. All we have on the page is the letter of 100 attorneys and McCain's opinion. That's certinaly not evidence of an overwhelming majority, or even a majority.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop lying again - there is no such statement by Cheney, he was not refering to waterboarding. You offered NO STATEMENTS FROM ANYONE. We had the state department saying it was torture also - but you kept blanking it. 24.7.91.244 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheney never retracted his statement. He clearly talked about submerging someone's head during interrogation--which is the definition of waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique. I also offered the CIA source, Giuliani, O'Reilly, the Alberto Gonzales memo, and several others. You first claimed that I have never provided any sources from the "not torture camp", which was a lie, since I did it weeks ago on this talk page. Then, after I provided some additional sources yesterday, you claimed that none of them contained anything about waterboarding not being torture. I'm not the one lying here.

And since you continue, despite all the evidence, to claim that nobody believes that waterboarding isn't torture, I ask why is this subject so controversial? Why is there so much news and debate about it? If there's debate, doesn't there have to be two sides?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again - the statement was clarified by the whitehouse, Cheney went along with it. The subject is very controversial because a state is engaging in torture, one that was once known as a crusader against such a thing. The ramifications of "Waterboarding is Torture" are immense, a significant number of people, from agents, right up to the President face a real risk of prosecution for war crimes under international law - including one element, the ICC, to which they can't opt-out of the risk due to universal jurisdiction. With such immense ramifications, many, such as yourself, are trying to twist fact - some knowingly, and some unknowingly, in a way that does not result in their leader being labeled as a torturer and their administration as a rogue state. The implications of this are mind-blowing. By the way, SUMBMERGING someones head in water is not waterboarding - read the article, that is dunking, it may or may not be torture (I would think it is) - it is radically different and not as severe. Guilini did not say it is not torture, he said it is acceptable. O'Reilly - where, reference please. The torture memo is discussed in the article, read it. the CIA reference is (or was?) mentioned - but is both anonymous - it could have been sponge bob, and even if not - a torturer saying it is not torture is mentionable and relevant, even required - but does not carry any weight to remove the torture definition. 24.7.91.244 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So submerging someone's head isn't waterboarding? So I guess you're admitting the Tunisia ref, which you support so adamantly, doesn't belong in the waterboarding article since it's submerging the head in water?

And yeah, I know that waterboarding is actually putting cellophane over someone's head and then pouring the water--no facial contact with the water whatsoever--over in 14 seconds, all that good stuff. But Cheney talked about using water in the context of interrogation. Big difference. And Cheney never retracted his statement. But since you clearly don't believe that Cheney claimed waterboarding not to be torture, then I have to ask--why did you never debate this being in the article?

Though the Bush administration has never formally acknowledged its use, Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[11]

Clearly, if Cheney wasn't ever referring to waterboarding, but dunking in water, then we should create a whole new article called Dunking in water and move the Cheney quote there.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not debate that actually, I added the important clarification. You clearly have no idea what the subject matter is about. Cellophane? That's impermeable and wouldn't do it. A DUNK in this context may well be a form of torture, is widely used in interrogation by torture, is not as severe, is not waterboarding, but is close enough to warrant Tunisia. Dick Cheny is not a quiet man, if his administration (and it is very much a joint regime right now) clarified it and he let that stand - it is GONE. It is mentionable only when the full contextual reality of the clarification is included. The fact that someone is also practising (poor) interrogation at the same time as torture does not mean it is not torture. If I am singing dixie and putting you on a rack I am BOTH singing dixie (badly) AND torturing you. I am not just singing dixie. PhD yeah right.... that is not exactly difficult to comprehend. This is why the article describes it as both torture and interrogation. In essense waterboarding is using torture to perform an interrogation. 24.7.91.244 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The three citations that source the "torture" statement are used, in this context, as primary sources. They constitute a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. In other words, original research. To disallow any consideration of a significant minority view that it is not torture violates WP:NPOV, and to state that it is torture in Wikipedia's editorial voice is improper, and rather Orwellian itself. I'm not so sure that the proposed wiki article as a substitute is the greatest solution, but it might work. As Bellowed indicates, claims of consensus must be sourced. A reliable source stating that the consensus has been determined to be on the side that it is torture would be the proper citation for that statement. And not just an op-ed. Someone who did scientific polling, or some other reliable statistical method of determination. - Crockspot 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed has offered no reasonable source to backup claims that it is not torture - or that anyone actually has this opinion (aside from the tortures who have to have this opinion to stay out of jail). If we required the standard you are asking for, would it thus not mean nothing is torture per the UN convention, unless it is all itemized - with each torture method listed individually. I strongly disagree that it is leaning towards OR, it is common sense readying of a number of international and US laws. The law says it is torture. Use of common sense is allowed in writing things, it is very obvious to anyone reading new publications that the world considers it torture - a glance at goggle news will show this, or any other compilation of global news outlets - as opposed to just US opinion and interpretations disguises as news outlets. As an aside the restoration of torture, specifically in the guise of so called enhanced interrogation, is what was turned the world so solidly against the United States, even its allies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, i think it is fair to state that the vast majority of the human race consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. 24.7.91.244 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the official position of the United States government is that it is not torture. Certainly the leaders of the Executive branch hold this view. That is not an insignificant view. - Crockspot 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably, maybe - I wish we knew - but we just don't know as they will neither admit to it, and won't state it is not torture. They are engaged in amazing verbal gymnastics in avoiding it. Media reports continue to leak that there are significant internal conflicts both in the executive and some of its agencies on this very matter. I would think that if they had such a position, it would be made public - as there can be no intelligence value in not mentioning it as everyone is well aware that it is used by the US. The only reasonable explanations for just a position not being known can be that they know it is illegal and torture - or that the jury is out and the internal battle about it is ongoing. If such a *explicit* position existed it should be included in very the first paragraph, but should not affect the use of the word torture except as a rebuttal (eg , the US position however is that this is not the case), as a torturer saying what they are doing is not torture is suspect to the extreme. 24.7.91.244 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The confusion, even obfuscation, about the administration's position is an important point. I think there are several ways to interpret Cheney's statement. First, that he was saying the US doesn't practice waterboarding, which is contradicted by various media reports cited in the article (invariably quoting anonymous CIA contacts). Second, that the US uses waterboarding, but that it doesn't view it as torture or illegal under unnamed "international treaties". Frankly, Snow refused to clarify this, only indicating that Cheney wasn't talking about specific techniques. So I guess that's a third possible interpretation. I think acknowledging this confusion is better than trying to tease out a clear position from the administration's unclear comments.--Chaser - T 05:54, 23 July 2007 (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 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I should emphasize that nobody knows if this includes waterboarding, so let's not take this to assume that it's the case or that they classify it as torture. Actually, I doubt this is the case. I wouldn't mind this information being in the article somehow, as long as the context is that nobody knows if this includes waterboarding or not.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It's in the article now, and Human Rights Watch's statement that the real answers lie in the classified document is prominently featured at the end of the document.--Chaser - T 05:23, 23 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 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. On page two, an air force psychologist says about experiencing waterboarding: "terrifying" and "you go into an oxygen panic" and implied that he felt real fear of being killed. Also, on page 4 the article indicates Rumsfeld vetoed the idea when it came across his desk. I didn't see any other relevant bits.--Chaser - T 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen Panic, Scuba Analogy

An indirect sidebar - As a very active Scuba diver, I suspect I have an idea what it is like (at a much lower intensity), if you are very low on air - but not out - or if you are overexerting at significant depth, your regulator appears not be delivering enough air flow (overexerting) or isn't (low pressure) - it is a terrifying experience. Not the implications (no air), but the feeling of panic and the physical pain as you try and pull more. In the case of overexertion, this panic causes the body to try and pull a vastly faster air flow rate, which makes the situation worse and worse in a vicious circle. In a low air situation, obviously it depletes to zero far faster than otherwise. Divers are thought to STOP. THINK. SLOWDOWN. I encourage you to speak to any diver friends you have... it is horrific. I don't state this for the article's use, just as an interesting aside for editors trying to understand why people refer to a wet rag as torture. Non divers don't really have much exposure to the concept of consumption rates - and how wildly they vary with exertion, stress, panic etc, they can alter many fold. 24.7.91.244 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I learned when I started diving that really surprised me was what triggers the impulse to breathe? it is not needing Oxygen at all. Its actually a chemical measurement of the CO2 content in vessels in/at the lung. The body breathes when the CO2 level rises, it has no means of registering Oxygen content. With a wet rag on the mouth, I would say (via OR) that the body's inability to rid itself of CO2 is what drives the terror and gag reflexes, and causes the body to demand oxygen much sooner than normally, and much more violently. A non diver, or non-medic probably wouldn't get the CIA source saying the average for agents in training is 14s. It truly is an exquisite and vicious torture, and though reasons not generally understood by the layperson, is a lot more than a wet rag or a dunk, just as sea sickness is a sometimes severe physical problem caused by the mind and body thinking the whole world is moving and they are not. As with many things, there is a lot more than meets the eye. 24.7.91.244 06:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wanted - experienced archivist for Talk

This page is even slowing Firefox, an experienced archivist who knows how to archive correctly, without starting a row, is needed here. Thx 24.7.91.244 10:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New intro

Since Bellowed asked, I want to discuss this here. I actually really like User:ArnoldReinhold's new intro. Instead of getting bogged down in subjective definitions, we open the article with indisputable fact. --Eyrian 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My big problem with it was that it was far, far too specific. Articles should always begin with the lead being more genreral and then move to the more specific. I'm sure there's a recommendation on formatting Wikipedia articles which supports this line of reasoning; afterall, this is a general rule amongst all academic papers. The reason we need such a progressive movement from broad to specific, is that it's far too difficult to cram everything into the lead sentence and some very important specifics are left out. Like interrogation. And this can make the sentence un-neutral: there was no indication from that sentence that waterboarding is used to obtain information. Since it contained nothing about its use in interrogation, we only had a partial description of what happens in waterboarding; partial, because it contained no information about its use in interrogation. In that light, AR's lead was last week's sentence in a new form. Becuase it contained descriptions of torture and indicated nothing about the reasoning or circumstances when using such methods, we were back to last week when we had: waterboarding is torture, only in a new form. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's not indisputable about the first sentence? There are two undisputable sides, aferall--the Executive Branch and its critics.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that the intro should be general, but I simply don't see a way to make that happen in a way that addresses both sides. I think there is a legitimate concern over the use of "enhanced interrogation technique", and I'd really rather avoid classification in the first few sentences. The lead still contains all the same info about the ways it is used, just presented in a way that I think is more neutral. --Eyrian 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words. Weasel sentence. Doublespeak, and that wonderful phrase from Edward Heath, being economical with the truth are how I would describe it to be honest. And there are not two disputing sides of note, the executive branch is not saying anything about the matter. And why since this all blew up the US forces had all personnel in Cuba remove any personally identifying marks. Though were too late - a book by an former victim is currently being translated to US English for release late winter with names. There's no trace of usable information saying the Executive thinks it is not torture - there's a lot of circumstantial (and not yet usable) clues that it DOES think it is torture. Please do not try and present it as two sides, or at least help us to understand where you are coming from with sources. With due deference to WP:OWN, I have seen Arnold editing here for a long time, and providing constructive edits on the subject matter for a long time, I do not see him as engaging in flagrant violations of concensus - and this can be backed up by the fact that he did not come blasting into to the edit war on talk recently. Though a loaded phrase in the current context, with AGR I assume good faith editing. 24.7.91.244 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Bellowed 7/24/7 UTC

Despite my sincere efforts to de-escalate, after I went to far in the fighting - Pipe Three E Pipe Underscore Pipe Underscore V V E PIPE Bracket has shown no interest in either the olive branch, nor my suggestion of a time out for both of us. The reason for my ANI proposal was simple, should just one of us bow out it will further POV. Accordingly I have reverted the edits of Bellowed, which I do not agree with. The fact that this article is again drifting back to its pre-Bellowed status, with zero involvement from me, tends to show that consensus remains strongly against the direction Bellowed keeps trying to take it. I do appreciate and welcome other views - which is why we have an RfC, and have I been trying to take them on board in my editing behaviour - and not editing at times for the same reason - rational and helpful direction from outsiders, and Chaser; however I feel I had to revert Bellowed as the use of politically correct doublespeak and weasel words were coming back in. This really proves my point about consensus.. Even 2 days ago when I was grudgingly editing away from the established article trying to build consensus, I was being reverted back to straight torture by multiple hit and run edits (US and Germany). 24.7.91.244 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still intend to try and stay away, and will not be actively editing this for a bit, with the exception of undoing major damage - this does not mean I intend to revert him everywhere - I don't I need to cool a bit, therefore I request that other interested editors spell me for a while as this has been exhausting. 24.7.91.244 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, please be careful and observe my unrelated copyediting. If you want to undo POV work of another person, please do not use broad reverts to roll back the article to a version that predates my work. Instead, manually edit the portions that you want to work with. My edits have nothing to do with the POV issue that you are dealing with. Kanodin 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep - sorry, I have been watching it in awe, you are honestly scaring me! Thank you! Aside from the terrifyingly good command of the language it has been admirable how you just worked away quietly, with rocks and mud flying all around you. 24.7.91.244 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited it back to Arnold's last post, later than your last work (I think?) 24.7.91.244 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Cheney from intro

I removed the Cheney 'dunking' part from the intro. The WH specifically denied that Cheney was talking about Waterboarding, so it doesn't belong in the intro. I think there should be a whole section on this interview, what he said, and then the WH 'spin' trying to claim he meant otherwise. Bmedley Sutler 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC still there

Can the RFC be closed now? Eiler7 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess. 24.7.91.244 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

First, stating that it "IS USED" is inaccurate...it's not always used for punishment, for instance. Therefore, phrasing it that way is a weasel word. Second, let's back off all the adjectives, like severe, and merely express the facts. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is used for gathering information and punishing unwilling victims. If it isn't severe nobody will be intimidated. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, merely express the facts - Like Waterboarding is a form of torture used to... 24.7.91.244 10:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is used for that; however not in all cases. The CIA never uses it to punish or intimidate. Therefore, stating that it IS used for this purpose implies that it is done so in all cases. We're not going to hold the US to the standards of the Cambodian govt. and the current edit does just that.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. --Eleemosynary 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "waterboarding is used... or intimidate". I don't think it's always used to punish people, so a disjunction is appropriate. As to a "severe" gag reflex, I don't see any sources indicating that. They do indicate that waterboarding induces a severe fear of drowning to the point of psychological trauma.--Chaser - T 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question lists possible purposes and they tend to overlap. Someone who is subjected to waterboarding for interrogation is likely to be intimidated as well, as are others who know what has happened. So "and" is appropriate. Also, when I floss my rear molars, it sometimes produces a gag reflex. All the sources seem to agree that waterboarding produces a gag reflex causing fear of imminent death. If that doesn't justify the adjective "severe," what would? Here is a source that uses the phrase "uncontrollable gag reflex": [8] --agr 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, "is used" uses the passive voice. It fails to acknowledge that "someone" does the waterboarding. How about: "Historically, individuals used waterboarding for..."? Separate the various options with "or" in order to convey that people use waterboarding for differing purposes. "Or" introduces a logical disjunction, which does not prevent a person from using waterboarding for two or more purposes simultaneously. Some people use it to interrogate, to intimidate; or to punish. As a compromise, perhaps we should do away with the "purposes" statement altogether, or break up the purposes into individual sentences to avoid the "and/or" controversy. —Kanodin 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please read the WP:3RR policy! I believe some individuals are already in violation!. Second of all, I have revert the article to .|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) edition. This does not mean I agree with this version, but it is the least WP:POV piece. Please discuss changes on this page, than insert once a consensus is reached. Thank you. Shoessss |  Chat  03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the version you reverted to being discussed here either. I disagree with Bellowed assertion that it is a weasel word. Some people will not be happy until waterboarding is downgraded to tickling, and I am not willing to see that Politically motivated or politically correct editing further damage this article with revisionism. 24.7.91.244 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This tactic employed the use of violent force and the inducement of terror (Terrorism) to obtain a confession or information. The use of the word COERCE is entirely appropriate as a minimum. I think ideally it should be stronger, obtaining confessions by the use of torture. This is not POV, it is incredibly well documented cited and sourced. There is not one iota of supporting fact to the contrary in fact. As we have hashed out over and over ad infinitum, because something casts a party, the torturers or a regime behind them, in a bad light does not make it unfairly biased against them, and POV. 24.7.91.244 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone wishes to continue to insert gross POV by toning down well documented fact, then editors like me will push the other way and bring this back to the original Waterboarding is a form of torture state that has survived consensus for a long time. After a rather nasty fight, an extremely delicate balance was achieved, and we all backed down - but if someone wishes to re-enter the stage POV pushing, then it is reasonable to expect the rest of us to work to prevent the POVing of the article. Additionally, as the row died down, a rather brilliant copy editor came in - if we go back to the see-saw edit war, all that work will be lost. Before weighing in on a side that wants to dispute the very delicately balanced apple cart achieved recently, you should look back at recent history (1 month) and see what it's going to start up again. Thank You. 24.7.91.244 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed something. There was an edit war over the last two days, resulting in a week block for Eleemonsynary, and now the consensus directly above seems not to favor the version you reverted to. I'm not sure the version that I just reverted to is perfect, but it does not contain original research, such as "severe". Are there any sources for using the adjective severe? I don't think that there are. - Crockspot 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty minor spat compared to..., but yes, I didn't realize the level of it (3RR). I'd welcome you and others to go into the severe issue, I won't edit that as a main protagonist, though I suspect you may be right. As to Coerce, I really think it belongs - severe not so - inappropriate adjective per Chaser I agree. So in summary, I agree there seems to be a consensus against severe, but certainly not on the issue of removing coercion. 24.7.91.244 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemonsynary got blocked for a different article, though I assume the 3RR here also counted to it as insinuated by the blocking editor. Looks like he went for 1,000,000RR there :/ 24.7.91.244 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. So many edit wars to keep track of. I think a version somewhere between the two is acceptable. I don't have a particular problem with "coerce". - Crockspot 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He would have been gotten here anyway (3RR) as I suspect Chaser will not be so forgiving if we all go nuclear again. Severe Make it so, I have to watch myself for WP:OWN so won't inject myself everywhere I want to ;-) 24.7.91.244 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added "coerce", and adjusted for grammar. Maybe this compromise will satisfy everyone. - Crockspot 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. I'd also be OK with "severe" in light of the source above.--Chaser - T 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current version as well.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I think I need to clarify some things here. First, no one has, as of yet, made more than three reverts in 24 hours. That said, the three-revert rule guides against edit-warring, and in favor of discussing changes on talk pages as above. Far better is to revert once or not at all and leave a talk page message about the change to start or continue a dialog and leave the page in whatever version it happens to be in until the dispute is resolved. As to my role, my twin goals are to write quality articles (as an editor) and to create and keep a productive editing environment (as an editor and an administrator). Sometimes, I have to do ugly things like block people or protect articles to do that, but it is generally a last resort. As to this article, I'm involved enough in the content dispute that I would prefer to pass any blocks onto another sysop (though I will report people for policy violations if they create a non-productive editing environment here). Wikipedia sysops sometimes block and so forth to prevent disruption, but we don't have the power to resolve content disputes in that capacity, and we aren't, or at least try not to be, wiki-policemen.--Chaser - T 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gag reflex / Death Imminent

Currently this section reads like the gag reflex makes the subject believe death is comming. I think we need to reword this (preferably keeping its tone the same so as not to start a row)

  It produces a gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage.

Can we find a better way to say that?

How about just dropping the gag reflex bit completely (or using it lower down), also - and dropping ideally and doing something like:?

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing permanent physical damage.

Actually, I'd also like to drop not causing permanent physical damage, as that is a bit suspect (lung damage is possible), and seems to be a bit weasely trying to justify it. so:

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent.

? 24.7.91.244 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there's no sources that state that lung damage has resulted from someone being waterboarded. The intent is to obtain a confession without causing physical harm whatsoever. And that, however, is well documented. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking Lung Damage up with me here, I appreciate that. I'll fork that discussion later; however the final suggested revision removes all that to leave

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent.

Can we go with that for now as that short line represents the only way I can write it in a form that is not disputed here? I know I can source permanent damage (maybe not specifically lung), but for now I'd just like to revise to the above and move on. 24.7.91.244 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that acceptable at all. It dilutes the truth. Pointing a gun at a person's head could make "the subject believe his or her death is imminent." By all accounts waterboarding produces a physical reaction that is much more intense. The source I cited above called it "an uncontrollable gag reflex." There is no reason to remove this fact from the intro.--agr 04:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is arguably the most important part of the article, because it explains the pathology of the procedure. Therefore, agr is right. Either leave in gag-reflex, or say something that specifies that the victim inhales and swallows water--otherwise, waterboarding is simply a shower. I mean, come on--waterboarding simulates drowning. The description of what sensations the victim feels reveals a lot about why the procedure produces suffering; "death is imminent" is a vague belief state.

The statement about ideally not producing permanent physical damage has the burden of proof. As a counterexample, we can imagine cases where a person will use the procedure to asphyxiate a victim. It needs a credible source that attributes purpose to every future case of waterboarding. —Kanodin 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll drop that and instead see if I can source the statement better. Thanks for diving in, I was feeling lonely. 24.7.91.244 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agents of the Dutch East India Company example

Why is this example nothing like waterboarding? —Kanodin 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The text in question:

Agents of the Dutch East India Company used a form of waterboarding during the Amboyna Massacre in 1623. At that time, it consisted of wrapping cloth around a victim's head, after which the torturers "poured the water softly upon his head until the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher, so that he could not draw breath but he must suck in all the water." [34] In one case, the torturer applied water three or four times successively until the victim's "body was swollen twice or thrice as big as before, his cheeks like great bladders, and his eyes staring and strutting out beyond his forehead." "

It doesn't seem to me that this is anything like waterboarding as described in the article. According to the first paragraph, the simplest definition of "waterboarding" is "immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning." But the DEIC's torture doesn't seem to have been geared towards simulating drowning; while it involved pouring water over the victim's head, this seems to have been primarily a way of forcing the water into his body. Slightly more in-depth, waterboarding "produces a gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage." Again, the DEIC's torture doesn't seem to have endeavored to do either one of those. It forced (painfully) water into the victim's body, which is much different than just simulating drowning. Moreover, this was actual physical damage, not just psychological: the victim would become bloated (horrifically), which I'm certain caused either lasting damage or death. No? Korossyl 05:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that the DEIC method is just a form of the generic water cure. Korossyl 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll agree that the VOC agents' method is certainly not waterboarding in its modern form. But I think that historically, it is a significant precursor to waterboarding. In addition to the injestion and bloating associated with water cure mentioned above, it also features elements now associated with waterboarding, like the cloth placed over the victim's face and the added involvement of suffocation - although yes, in this case, suffocation is used in conjunction with injestion rather than by itself as a source of pain. To put it somewhat crudely - if water cure (which dates from late medieval times or earlier) could be summed up as "Drink all this water!", then the VOC agents' method (which dates from the early modern period) would be "Drink all this water or drown in it!", after which contemporary waterboarding would be "Drown in it!". It was for this reason that I'd called it "a form of" waterboarding rather than straight "waterboarding". But since it doesn't seem clear enough, I think it'll be best if I edit the opening sentence to make more explicit the precursor status of this method. DanDs 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Korossyl 01:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the water cure article, which makes it clear for me. I agree with the "precursor" wording. —Kanodin 06:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

KSM SECTION

In light of all the good info on waterboarding and KSM in this month's New Yorker, I added it in, but created a KSM section to contain it. I also moved the Cheney interview to that section. We will probably need to upgrade the ref tags to fact tags...I'll do that whenever I have some more time.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Letter?

This statement has been inserted in the description of KSM's treatment, and the VP's approval of said treatment: "Captured along with Mohammed, was a letter from bin Laden,[34] which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[35]" This seems to be nothing more than a statment inserted as if to say 'so it's ok, because we might have found ObL.' Yes, a letter does seem to have been found, and duly footnoted. But this is a statement of fact that has no bearing at all on waterboarding per se; the statement has been inserted to argue that waterboarding KSL was ok. Not the same thing. In other words, how does this sentence further the description of waterboarding in this article? I'm removing it unless there is a good NPOV reason to keep it. I'll give it a few days. Morgaledh 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree about total removal of the letter fact. It was captured along with KSM before he was waterboarded--obviously there's a connection there. Even the New Yorker-- which ran an anti "enhanced interrogation" piece back in August-- noted that before KSM was subjected to interrogation, the letter was found and speculated that it was the reason for his more brutal interrogation. So even though it was a negative piece on the CIA's methods, they even thought to put that fact in there.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Navy Seals

An editor recently added an uncited paragraph claiming that Navy Seals used waterboarding during training to teach how to handle drowning. There is no citation, so it is impossible to check whether this claim is true. And it certainly does not belong in the lead section. Furthermore, a search to try to confirm it turned up the exact opposite from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html:

In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."

In other words, they tried "a form of waterboarding" as training to try to prepare the Seals for torture at the hands of the enemy. Clearly the trainees knew that they were not going to be hurt by their fellow officers, so the comparison to its use as torture is ridiculous to begin with. But even when the trainees knew with absolute certainty that they were not going to be injured, waterboarding was so successful at "breaking their will" that they stopped doing it. I hope that the editor that added this will remember the importance of using Reliable Sources and not Original Research in the future, and will try to add properly-cited accurate text. Thank you, Jgui 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also reorganized some text and changed a heading to "Use by the George W Bush Administration" since that is when it has all occurred and since it was all being pushed by his administration. A lot of text appeared in the KSM subsection that belonged in the "Bush" section, so I moved it there. I didn't delete any text except this "Nevertheless, ABC News published information that contradicted the aforementioend version of events. ABC reported that: According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in." This fragment made no sense since it was left over from an earlier edit that someone had made; I incorporated the info in the two narratives of how long KSM was able to tolerate waterboarding before confessing. Cheers, Jgui 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

It seems to me, just from this discussion, that ONLY those who are politically minded and have a political stake in torture refer to water-boarding as NOT torture. Those that actually study it think otherwise. It's as if George Bush, Alberto Gonzalez, Rush Limbaugh and try-as-he-might conservatie comedian Dennis Miller are somehowe legitimate and partial obvservers...ha! EVERY human rights organization in the world, including the various UN agencies, correctly understand you don't need beatings, choppings or burning to constitute "Torture". If the US gov't wanted to use red-hot pokers to torture, I can see the same above figures crying "well, it's not REALLY torutre...". Yeah. DavidMIA 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But there is no US law saying chopping people up is torture, so it is not torture. LMAO. ;-) 24.7.56.29 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And please no one put that latest Bushshit (Oct 6 2007) up at the start of the article. Bush saying it is not torture is NOT CREDIBLE. Biased source, Brain dead source. F***ing psychopath - 700,000 dead iraqis, he is catching up on the Armenian genocide. A murderer saying killing someone illegally is not murder is nonsense, and only bears mention as a footer - it can not provide WEIGHT to an argument, and thus neither should Bush's assertions that torture is not torture. Bad news Mr Future Hague Retiree, Murder is defined as EXTRAjudical killing, however the definition of torture is NOT dependent on whether it is legal somewhere, or whether some crackhead murdering bastard in the us government interprets it accordingly. 24.7.56.29 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose him coming out of the blue and say that "waterboarding is torture" cannot be used as a source for this article then? Please read your post again once your head has cooled off. That said, I would have to say whatever his view is on waterboarding is a "significant" source if there was a section describing viewpoints about this method (which doesn't exist). --BirdKr 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisionism reverted backwards

I have halted the recent move to try and delouse the topic by progressively moving the description of torture downwards, and subtle attempts to make it seems that only some authorities consider it torture. Look through the history and archives of this discussion page two things are clear.

• No credible reference or source has ever been produced saying waterboarding is not torture.
• It seems that the editors who have been trying to sanitize, tone down reality, revise fact, or deliberately obfuscate and mislead - have been Americans, this is somewhat suspect in and of itself.

Yet another round of secret US government memos have emerged further verifying the ongoing torture committed by the United States of America which has no resorted to hiding behind secrecy laws when caught out kidnapping and torturing. The facts are overwhelming, The United States are torturers, the United States is waterboarding, and waterboarding is torture. There is nothing on this earth that supports a claim otherwise, so we should not be sanitizing this article and misleading people with US propaganda. Wiki is not Fox Corporation, its mission is not to protect war criminals in the administration, army and intelligence services from prosecution abroad. Its an encyclopaedia of the truth - not twisted facts designed to support criminals. Inertia Tensor 11:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What credible source says waterboarding is torture? John Sifton? His rationale that it's a mock execution is plainly not true. A mock execution is when they line up a firing squad and act as though they're going to shoot. (The Iranians did that during the hostage crisis, but the usual critics didn't seem to mind then.) Whether or not waterboarding qualifies as torture, there's nothing that says the terrorist is led to believe he's being executed.

This isn't to say I favor removing that line. It's important to remember where people stand. I understand that people like to believe John Sifton cares about human rights anyway, and I don't expect to awaken them anytime soon.

This brings me to the new paragraph about the WWII interrogators. I don't see where it says they were talking about waterboarding. Nor do I see them saying the fascists today might be as amenable as the German scientists were.

When you say that the skeptics who've contributed to this article have been Americans, perhaps you mean, the skeptics are from the country that is fighting fascism. It bears recalling that Roosevelt and Churchill were initially called "imperialists" when they did so. Most of the so-called "human rights" activists back then changed their minds after the communists' alliance with Hitler came to an abrupt end. The National Lawyers Guild went from opposing U.S. involvement (which was still mostly limited at that time) to strident support that would later approve Japanese internment.

Here again, I'm not saying I expect you to agree with me on any of this -- at least not at the moment. Just understand that it's not universally acknowledged that any of the critics of the U.S. actually care about human rights. They don't. And in that light, this shouldn't be about anyone's belief in human rights. It's only about what's legal.

-- Randy2063 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time the US was different, it choose to fight fascism when the rest of the world chose to either ignore, or worse - collaborate. It also once lead the way for human rights (excepting the Americas of course). Now it hides behind secrecy laws when it gets caught out kidnapping and torturing. It is very rapidly devolving into fascism, the executive is above the law - one mention of National (in)security and case dropped, not matter how heinous the crime. The courts refuse to hear cases without comment. The government reads library records, spies on its own citizens, and suspends the most fundamental right of them all Habeas Corpus. If that is not fascist, what is? It has sadly become fascist in surrendering the very ideals it strives to protect. Arbitrary detentions, presidential declarations of guilt, internment without trial, torture, genocide in Iraq (what else do you call 700,000 dead?) come on.... I would agree with you as to many critics not caring a wit about human rights, but as you go on to say, It's only about what's legal. Torture is illegal, and torturers don't get to redefine the meaning of it as the US attempts to do. Sources, common sense and references do consider waterboarding to be a mock execution - you can hold your breath a lot longer on your own than you can when being waterboarded because the body believes it is drowning - that is a mock execution. The administration do not get to cancel common sense - it is sickening, the grotesque twisting and torturing of words and laws that the administration and its memos have been doing. There is one comfort though. Before the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave immunity to torturers, it was harder for the ICC to impose universal jurisdiction as the US could at least theoretically prosecute torturers, however now as the US is legally incapable of prosecuting, the International criminal court can very easily follow up later Inertia Tensor 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Habeas corpus is for people in the U.S. according to the decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. The SCOTUS may try to fine tune that when Boumediene v. Bush comes up, but it's all proper as it stands now.

I don't think you understand how far the U.S. went from your stated ideals in WWII. Bush hasn't even come close to attempting the things Roosevelt did.

-- Randy2063 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to nitpick with tortured definitions, do I need to point out that the deliberate legal black hole situation of people being held in Cuba by US forces, in a manner that US courts say it is outside jurisdiction, would imply that the US is illegally holding people, as US jurisdiction and authority ends at your borders. And there is more than a few international laws / treaties that prohibit arbitrary detention. Habeas Corpus is not even needed, as there is no legal authority whatsoever for the US to be operating CONCENTRATION CAMPS on foreign territories. Torturing, Kidnapping, and operating concentration camps - it is torturing common sense. Inertia Tensor 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Being outside a court's jurisdiction doesn't mean absolute lawlessness. That's why the definition of torture is relevant to the subject of waterboarding. I'm sure you must understand that detaining people in a time of conflict is not exactly unheard of. The detention of civilians without trial would even be allowed for by the Fourth Geneva Convention were that ever ruled to apply to this conflict.

I suggest you refrain from the use of catch-phrases like "CONCENTRATION CAMPS." It won't change the fact that the U.S. is fighting fascism. Perhaps you should reread what I'd said above about the National Lawyers Guild.

-- Randy2063 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer I call it Death Camps, or perhaps Torture facilities? Or Gulags (as per AI)? I'm not going to down play reality to appease fascist regimes. The name suits a place where people are held without trial and tortured. It is a lot more than a gaol. Please do not insult my intelligence by stating that the US is fighting fascism - that is complete rubbish - the US has become a fascist state and has abandoned the rule of law. Inertia Tensor 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing detention of some persons known by all parties to be innocent civilians, who were simply purchased from war lords, merely to cover-up state terrorism is completely unacceptable during a time of armed conflict. There are a significant number of cases where innocent victims have been still held after their were cleared so as to prevent their speaking about their kidnapping ordeals and subsequent torture. Some extra-judicial detainees are still held though innocent, in fear that that will go to a battlefield (as some guilty parties have also done). Also, their continued detention in case they might retaliate is unjust - having been kidnapped and tortured, it is reasonable to expect them to retaliate given they have no legal recourse to justice. Applying that principle would mean most innocent people caught up on the War of Terror could never be released. Inertia Tensor 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What AI says in its fundraising propaganda isn't something I'd recommend repeating. Whether or not you're comfortable with the notion that we're fighting fascism isn't particularly important beyond the fact that it frames your introduction to this section quite nicely. (You've clearly ignored the nature of our enemy in this.) It is simply not true that the U.S. has abandoned the rule of law. That should be obvious from my references to Eisentrager, Boumediene and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

You expect the world to believe that the US is fighting fascists, when it has itself become a brutal fascist regime, responsible for 3/4 million deaths in Iraq alone. Inertia Tensor 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do you call it when the president uses signing statements to annul laws, when the judiciary throws out cases under the guise of State Secrets, when the government openly ignores countless laws. Sounds like a King, not a President of a republic to me. The United States only supports the rule of law when it suits it, it only supports Democracy when it suits it (Venezuela, Palestine etc).Inertia Tensor 23:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully expect the world to delude itself until just before it's too late. Some will wait too long because they think the U.S. will fight fascism for them. As I said above, "I'm only saying it's not universally acknowledged that any of the critics of the U.S. actually care about human rights. They don't. And in that light, this shouldn't be about anyone's belief in human rights. It's only about what's legal."

That number of "3/4 million deaths in Iraq alone" is bogus. Whatever the actual number of innocent victims is, most were killed by the enemy. The enemy doesn't get much criticism over it, but like I said, this never was about human rights.

You're completely mistaken about signing statements. The U.S. isn't the only country that uses them. Their purpose is to clarify the terms of a treaty, and this shows that the country expects to honor that treaty. Countries that don't use signing statements probably don't care what the details are because they know they won't be following them anyway.

-- Randy2063 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW: AI's fundraising propaganda should be treated with skepticism when used as a reference.

You've been misled if you really believe that about innocent people being held in GTMO for whatever reasons. The Uyghur captives in Guantanamo were determined not to be enemy combatants, not because they're nice people, but because their enemy is China and not the U.S. China doesn't see them the same way you do, and that's why AI (among others) have said we can't send them home.

-- Randy2063 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely well documented that some of those kidnapped and tortured in Guantanamo and elsewhere were acknowledged to be mistakes even by those genocidal psychopaths in the US regime. Those evil butchers have even admitted it to the German Government (The Macedonia/Albania kidnapping). Canadians, Germans, Italians - there is a long list. It may not be on Fox "news", but people would need to be living under a rock not to notice anyway. Only 48 hours back the US supreme court refused to look at one of the cases and hid behind the secrets that a lower appeal court settled for (aka embarassment). Inertia Tensor 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CNN right now is showing an interview with a former US president saying "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, I don't think it.... I know it,", given that waterboarding is the most savage tactic approved by the administration (that we are sure about) - that means WATERBOARDING is what this former ruler is talking about Inertia Tensor 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The capture of Khalid El-Masri was called a mistake, but not everyone agrees. Other than the Uyghurs, none of the detainees who've been taken to GTMO were acknowledged to be mistakes, and there were good reasons to think the Uyghurs should be detained.

You can't act like the U.S. is the only country being judged here. Those countries who stood aside and did nothing but complained, and those who actively or tacitly supported the fascists, they must be judged, too. It's true that the U.S. has made plenty of mistakes, but they are few when compared to previous wars, and especially few when compared to actions taken by other governments. The American record is better than others in these matters. Countries you may think have clean hands probably aren't fighting fascism.

It is often said that President Carter never met a dictator he didn't like. His words on these matters don't impress me. -- Randy2063 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he likes George W Bush. Inertia Tensor 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it torture?

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.

I know that someone would think so with like 20 refrences (9 but my point is there is alot), but by definition it is not torutre because it is strictly a psychological technique and causes no more damage to the subject than when a toddler holds his breath as an act of defiance.

Which is precisely why it's a favoured form of torture by evil bastards. The victim complains to the media, the media examine him... Nothing. Not a bruise. But bloody it hell it works like torture. Get over it, it's torture and it's unremittingly evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article is biased on that reason. I put the NNPOV tag up untill it is more evenly covered <--(unsigned comment by User: Teamcoltra 15:13, 16 October 2007)

I moved Is it torture to the end of talk, new items go to the base, that is how wiki works. Inertia Tensor 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychological techniques are explicitly included in the definition of torture in both the UN Convention on Torture ("Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,...") and U.S. law 18 USC 2340. Unless you have a reliable source that supports your view, it has no relavance to this article and I am removing the tag.--agr 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people call it torture. We can't call it torture, because that's controversial, and the controversy is at the heart of the article. We can certainly describe the many sources alleging it as torture, along with those that do not, but we must not choose a side in the article. Thus, I'm reworking the "Waterboarding is a form of torture" sentence. Superm401 - Talk 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made my edit. I spent quite a while on it, and did my best to make it fair, so please don't revert unilaterally. The primary change was modifying the article so it doesn't describe it directly as torture, but rather refers to outside viewpoints, in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. Also, I removed several of the "is torture" references in the intro, since the cited documents did not mention explicitly waterboarding (even if the document outlaws waterboarding, Wikipedia can't do that interpretation; an outside source is needed). There are only 5 sources left for the torture allegation. However, there is only one major source defending (Cheney), so more should probably be added on both sides. Superm401 - Talk 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fair revision at all. The sources have multiple definitions of torture, all of which would include this. The fact that there are not sources defending torture might tell you that there is no one that does so... if they existed, they would be there.

As noted, Dick Cheney and others, such as Guliani (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/15/debate-torture/) don't consider it torture. Saying that a quote doesn't exist because it's not yet on Wikipedia makes no sense. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT interpreting or engaging in OR here - It is torture

Torture is an inherent value judgment. It's foolish to say otherwise. Again, per NPOV, "However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion."

Almost everyone would agree stealing is wrong, but it's still a value judgment so theft doesn't say that. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

- everybody on the planet outside the US says it is, and a small group of US Gov. supporters in the US defend it. yet even then they DO NOT SAY IT IS NOT TORTURE, they just refuse to say it IS torture. This is classic spin. History and fact should not be distorted to the comfort of the few.

It is not Wikipedia's job to write history. That's original research. And yes, it may be spin to say (or imply if you prefer) that it's not torture. But spin is a POV too. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All of these treaties define torture to include waterboarding. Would you tell me if Bush invented a new torture and say called it Qweblekak would you say it is not torture because the Geneva conventions do not say Qweblekak is torture. Sorry - I can't stomach your argument about non literal mention of waterboarding. Inertia Tensor 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say waterboarding wasn't torture. I didn't say Geneva didn't outlaw waterboarding. I said Geneva didn't identify waterboarding as torture, which the citation claims it does. The fact that you're talking about what you can stomach clearly shows your emotions are getting ahead of your editing.

Also, you reverted even the non-controversial parts of edit (e.g. fixing references) showing you only glanced at it before unilaterally reverting. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the new AG is unwilling to state whether he thinks it is or is not torture we can safely assume he doesn't want to tie his hands. Clearly if he says it is torture many people within the Bush administration will protest on account of possible criminal liability, should he state it is not torture he is sure he won't get the job. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have a hard time seeing how this is NOT torture, I think the fact that this is so controversial is evidence of NPOV. The controversy is being discussed everywhere from CNN to Congress. Why not just leave out the word torture (perhaps replacing it with "coercion" for lack of a better word) and let people make up their own minds that it's torture (as I'm sure most people will by the end of the first sentence). I really don't understand the insistence on using the word torture here. To me personally, that insistence makes as much sense as insisting the Abortion article start out "Abortion is the murder of a fetus by. . . ." I can't understand how people don't see abortion as murder, like I can't understand how people don't see this as torture, but those are highly emotional POV words and should probably not appear in Wikipedia in those contexts. And finding thousands of people to back up your POV does not change that it's POV. Not to mention that ten citations immediately following a controversial emotionally-based word just plain looks bad. If you want the assertion regarding it being torture in the article, why not make a separate section ("Controversy" or something like that) rather than following the word "torture" with ten citations? Also note, as someone who came here just to find out exactly what Waterboarding is (and determine for myself if it was in fact "torture"), I kind of wondered about the credibility of the article based on the first phrase and the ten references following the word torture (which gives the feeling of a childish assertion "see, it is too torture cuz all these people agree with me"). I'm sure others feel the same. Sorry that some of this repeated what others have said, but I felt it was relevant to my point. Xsadar 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the ridiculous pile of references is because there have been a few POV editors seeking to water this down, make it politically correct instead of factual. They have steadfastly insisted it is not torture, but drawn a complete blank when asked to back up this assertion. The references make it very clear that there vast evidence for this definition, especially for those who (luckily) didn't endure the previous heated rows in Talk (see archives) - the references are an attempt to make it clear and put an end to the circular rows. Inertia Tensor 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the article, not the references convince me that it's torture. I see no evidence in the references that it's torture, but only a ton of opinions, which will only increase the circular POV aguments, because it's using POV to argue that the word fits (admittedly I didn't read the cited sources, just the descriptions, but the descriptions imply POV, so if any of the sources are valid the description needs to be reworked). Also, torture is a subjective word. Look up torture in Wiktionary. You'll find that it has to meet subjective criteria in every definition: "extreme", "cruel or outrageous", or "undue". While most people, including myself, would argue that it meets those criteria, that's our POV. However, I think it would be perfectly fine to state in the article that certain entities define it as torture. Anyway, I'm not going to stick around to fight it out, because it's not worth my time. I just wanted to inform you that a controversial word followed by ten POV references looks really bad and hurts the credibility of the article. What may actually be helpful if you insisted on keeping the word torture would be scientific (not political) references that describe the ill effects of waterboarding. But a whole slew of POV references just make it look more POV. Xsadar 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more comment, on a lighter note. Even if you keep the word torture and all the same sources, I would recommend putting all ten sources into one long footnote. A list of ten footnotes for one word looks kind of ridiculous. Also, admittedly, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought if there was only one footnote. Just a thought. Xsadar 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of Waterboarding as torture is very very important, right there - as of all it's properties, adjectives, verbs and descriptions - that one word is the most descriptive of it's nature. There is a huge controversy around waterboarding, not because it is almost universally held as torture, but because it is practised in the first place - I would equate this to saying that that though the fact that it was highly controversial that the US Army participated in the My Lai Massacre, it was the fact that they did it that was controversial - not that is was held to be a massacre. Inertia Tensor 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why does everybody keep asking questions like "Do you consider waterboarding to be torture?" I agree that most of the controversy seems to be about the practice, but there is also controversy regarding the definition. Xsadar 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the US itself has put people on trial for using waterboarding on US soldiers.[9] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points on this matter. First, I don't think the word torture is inherently controversial. If we say "The rack is a torture instrument" or "The Nazis practiced torture," then these are factual statements with well-understood interpretation. Unlike, say, "Stealing is wrong." Second, whether waterboarding is torture has never been controversial until recently, as far as I know. If the article were written ten years ago, and it used the word torture, I think everyone could agree that it would be correct. The only sticking point is this recent stuff from the USA. So my final point is that I don't think the statements I have seen by various politicians constitute a verifiable source for any claim that waterboarding is not torture. They seem to project an attitude that it is not torture, but no one has actually made the claim as far as I know. If we read into their statements a specific claim which they have not made, then we are performing original research. For example, we could easily say how John Yoo's arguments might be applied to waterboarding, but absent verifiable evidence that he did apply his arguments to waterboarding in that way, it's OR.

So my reading of this situation is that, while NPOV requires that we include any notable opinion that waterboarding is not torture, OR and V mean that we can not interpret the weaselly statements of various US politicians to constitute such an opinion. Worldworld 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be different had this article been written ten years ago, but I'm not so sure that the answer would be affirmative.

Ten years ago, when most people heard the word "torture" they probably thought about stuff like this. Waterboarding is pretty mild in comparison.

But over the last few years, the things that the enemy does has been more or less compartmentalized by the critics, if not outright excused, and the conversation has become limited almost solely to techniques the U.S. uses. Waterboarding just happens to be at the extreme end of that rather limited list.

So, in comparison to putting womens' underwear on detainees, of course people are more likely to call waterboarding torture.

I do agree that we have to be careful in using opinions from politicians, although I'd be wary of any politicians anywhere in the world. We should also be careful when taking the word from so-called "human rights" organizations when they're so heavily dependent on fundraising. That doesn't leave very much.

-- Randy2063 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't really need to guess - several countries made court decisions specifically classifying waterboarding, and other milder forms of water-related interrogation, as torture. There's a lot of good citations in [10].

A lot of the formal, juridicial attitudes toward torture grew out of World War II and abhorrence of the Nazi and Japanese use of torture; so the legal classification of torture is fairly broad, and it is prohibited without reservation by international treaties. Many people seem to have taken a different attitude after 9/11 - the idea is that some of the methods which are classified as torture, are not so bad, and they are acceptable if they help in the war on terror. Whether you agree with these ideas or not, they don't change the fact that waterboarding is a form of torture under established international legal standards.

Calling it torture does not mean that it is necessarily uncivilized, or cruel, or useless, etc. Torture had a defined place within judicial procedure for centuries during Medieval times. However, it just doesn't make sense to me, for us to say that "some consider it torture," when there is literally not one published legal or political document which makes the claim that it is not torture. Worldworld 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look closer at those court decisions but I wouldn't put that much stock in its validity. Although I recognize that you were directing me toward its references rather than the PDF itself, I'll say the pompous site it's on doesn't look very promising. (I seriously doubt they truly care about human rights.)

The often cited example of prosecution of Japanese war criminals is disingenuous. The column by Andrew C. McCarthy I linked earlier points out that they did more than just waterboarding there. I'll add here that, when talking about U.S. soldiers, they were uniformed soldiers fighting in a war between two or more "High Contracting Parties" and were therefore clearly due the privileges of the Geneva Conventions.

Where you say the legal classification of torture is fairly broad, McCarthy also points out that the Senate added a signing statement on the limits to the definition of torture when they signed that UN treaty. Perhaps they anticipated that other countries would try to stretch the definition to cover the U.S. in ways that they'd never apply to our enemies.

The U.S. hasn't officially called it torture. McCarthy also said the Congress has had the opportunity to do so, but they didn't. I suppose other countries may have, but few of them have been tested in any meaningful sense. It's a lot like the landmine treaty that they've signed with great fanfare now that they don't need landmines any longer. They're very good at pretending to care about human rights when the cost is virtually zero. It doesn't really mean very much, and it should never be the guideline. It would be like asking Liechtenstein to sign onto the commission on whaling.

I'm not saying it's not torture. What I am saying is that these aren't words we should just throw around. Where you say "calling it torture does not mean that it is necessarily uncivilized, the opposite is also true. Calling it uncivilized doesn't mean that it is torture.

-- Randy2063 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You bring up several good points. After reading the McCarthy article you linked, I'm definitely inclined to say that some amount of controversy exists. At the very least, the article itself is a verifiable source for the view that it is not torture. Moreover, it "connects the dots" verifiably on some of the bills passed by congress etc. On the other side you have stuff like the paper I linked (which is biased, but definitely presents a lot of evidence and some serious viewpoints). Worldworld 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that it acknowledges some amount of dispute. I'll agree that your paper has more support, and that there are even a few good points.

It's sad to think that this topic requires lawyering, but that's probably what it'll come down to.

-- Randy2063 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the current state of the article, I'm now wondering if my comments did more harm then good, or if this would have happened with or without my comments. If this is my fault, I'm sorry. Also, perhaps you're right, Worldworld, that it's best to simply say it's torture, because the vast majority would say that it is, and not just "some" as the article now states, and it's not very verifiable that anyone (of consequence) claims that it's not, regardless of the current controversy. But I don't know. My original complaint though is minor compared to the state of the article now. Much of the information that's been moved to the opinion section definitely belongs in the introduction (where it was before), so I'm going to put it back where it belongs. The current state takes almost everything remotely related to torture out of the introduction so it states little more than the fact that water is poured over the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsadar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)