Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:49, 22 December 2007

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Loretta Keller (16 Nov 2007). "Torture harms more than the victim". Pasadena Star-News.

Waterboarding was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 20, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Archive 1: 2004 - 20 Jul 2007 Archive 2: 21 Jul 2007 - 31 Oct 2007 Archive 3: 31 Oct 2007 - 8 Nov 2007 Archive 4: 8 Nov 2007 - 3 Dec 2007 Archive 5: 3 Dec 2007 - 17 Dec 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

FYI

Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture. Nomen Nescio 08:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And Elizabeth de la Vega wrote that under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2340, there is no confusion as to whether these techniques constitute torture.

This argument - that a person cannot know whether his conduct falls within the definition of torture unless it is expressly proscribed by Section 2340 - is precisely the one we've heard from Michael Mukasey with regard to waterboarding.

Nomen Nescio 10:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gone over this before. The problem is that the opinions of Dick Cheney et al, are just that: opionions, until challenged by a body that has oversight over their actions, like the Senate/Congress, or a US Court of Law. Their opinions also have no legal bearing on the rest of the world. We will certainly note the minority/fringe view of the current United States government on this, but it would be made clear that its a minority opinion per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and so on. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here

No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is torture

From Innertia Tensor

• 100 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
• John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.

reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."
• U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
• U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004

• For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

• Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
• Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
• Mississippi Supreme Court. In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . , after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

  The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

• Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Lawrence Cohen

• Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
• CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
• Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
• Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
• Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
• Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."

I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

• The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."

And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively. There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.

Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis. After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.

UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is? I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Misplaced Pages is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs. It either does or it doesn't. The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.

I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions. Some are better than others, but they're still opinions. Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth. In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category. Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Misplaced Pages does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Misplaced Pages reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here. I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.

I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions. For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial. That was merely a legal opinion. It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).

There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion. (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.) The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.

It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture." That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.

I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

• Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. ] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, this arguement clearly deserves mocking. Simple logic leads to the direct conclusion that waterboarding is torture. Some group of people WHO ARE USING IT say its not torture. That reeks of bias. We can rely on the US government for laws, but we can't rely on them for facts.--Can Not (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • And a group who are not using it are saying that it is; more bias! Relying on the US (or any) government for facts is usually not indicated. htom (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New Section

I think we should also create a new section that discusses the notable political debate that is going on about waterboarding individuals. For instance, there has been some buzz that Stephen King said that someone close to George Bush, such as Jenna Bush, should have be waterboarded so that they could get a first hand opinion on whether it was torture. Now former Attorney General Ashcroft has responded to whether he would be willing to be waterboarded with the statement: “The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said." . Also this was mentioned last night in the youtube debate see

One of the evening's most emotional exchanges came in response to a question from Andrew Jones, a college student from Seattle.

"Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation," Jones said.

"My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?" he said.

"I oppose torture," Romney said. "I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form."

Prompted by the moderator as to whether waterboarding was torture, Romney said "as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use."

McCain's response was passionate: "Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is."

"I know what waterboarding is, Senator," Romney said.

"Then I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention," McCain said.

What do others think? Remember (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How did no one reply to so many sections before? We must have been all in tunnel vision mode. This would be a good addition (I think similar ideas floated around here and there since the first round of edit warring when the IPs duked it out). Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

minor edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{editprotected}} The White House in Contemprary uses should not have quotes.68.173.12.180 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, that almost looks like its in there as a joke. Lets take it out. Lawrence Cohen 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe the quotes were there because it did not specify whether "the White House" means "George W. Bush" or someone else--i.e., that the statement was vague regarding who exactly gave the go-ahead. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tortology? - Under "Mental and physical effects" is the phrase, "...intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and ...". I believe that tachycardia is the same thing as a rapidly beating heart. (See wikipedia entry on tachycardia.) Suggest changing to "... intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and ..." 82.27.129.238 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Damian Smith 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add to "See also"

• NewsNet5: Senator McCain - Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding Chessy999 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to not just arbitrarily stick that into the External Links (See also is for internal Misplaced Pages pages, not outside sites). It would be a little too POV, to put it mildly. It's a fine source, though, for when we open the article again. Lawrence Cohen 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect link to other language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{editprotected}} Please remove link to Srpski article. It is not about waterboarding. --Rowaa 17 :31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please tell us what the article is about? Several other articles on waterboarding are interwikied to it as well. Badagnani 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak (or read/write) Serbian, but it looks like the Serbian article linked to from this article is about boarding as if to attack the boarded ship. I also don't know how to redirect those links, or how to find the Serbian article on waterboarding. Perhaps our friend above could help us find the right articles. Wilhelm meis 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, I just selected "latinica" and see that the links are all about the Pelopponesian War, Punic War, etc. Thus, it's most likely about what you say, and not about waterboarding. Badagnani 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Serbian article is about (and is now interwiki linked to) Boarding (attack) - no relation to waterboarding. GregorB 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Posting the request for an edit, we apparently missed this in all the other debate. Lawrence Cohen 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what link is being discussed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the Serbian interwiki, but I just realized Luna already got it here. Sorry! Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New Sources

Please put any new sources that should or could be included in this article below (Remember 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)):

1. How Stuff Works article on Waterboarding
2. A journalist undergoes Waterboarding, while recorded on cameraEbright82 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Downgrade Full protection to semi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has now been locked for about a month while lots of information and attention has been focused on the subject. I think we need to reduce the lock to semi-protect so that we can integrate some of this information into the article. If you have a problem with this please state your objection below and what specifically would need to be resolved before you could support a removal of the lock. Remember 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support All the discussion here has been fruitful and collaborative. The IP users who were abusing Misplaced Pages and vandalizing have opted not to weigh in with discussion, so we can assume their vandalism was just that at this time. Probably was a side effect of the massive media attention at the time, with people trolling Misplaced Pages to advance their random political POV (whatever it was). Downgrade to long-term semi. We've been through a few rounds now of IPs fighting IPs in edit wars. Lets leave it semi-protected at a minimum to January 1st. Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose What has changed - Lawrence is really working hard to get a consensus, but I'm not convinced we have one. Fully unprotected if changed, but will request reprotection if major edits happen without near absolute consensus. Though the IPs fought hardest - this was initiated by registered users. I honestly see no replacement consensus emerging here, and believe until we actually finalize the first paragraph verbatim before unprotection, this WILL start again. We don't need to hash the whole article, we do not to agree on the first paragraph. I don't see consensus. I would go for a more direct tone Waterboarding is torture as i think would AGR and some others, Lawrence will seek consensus, and some others may seek to marginalise this basic fact and boot it down below.... Admin lurkers time to weigh in here. This topic has proven over and over again to have rested peaceful in protection and then exploded upon release. Most notably there is a wild contrast between Remember and a few of us - that can not be consensus or even close to it. It is a given that we will end up disputing heavily, but going our best to stay calm about it. until the differences stated by users above are reconciled to consensus, this is a ticking bomb. The person whose view on Waterboarding is torture type leads most wildly diverged in the above USER statements section is asking for unprotection - I think we can not do this. We need consensus, time alone is not a factor here. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your above statement. Is it your position that we need to agree on the text of the opening paragraph before unprotecting the article, but that once this is agreed upon you are willing to allow for unprotection? Remember (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Main protagonists are all participating. Changing to weak oppose - I have HUGE AFG in L. Fundamentally I want to see YOU and RANDY find a consensus with the rest of us, we won't 3RR and you won't either, but we will, and have started things that went nuclear from others. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and I am not that trusting the way things have been. Reasons for AGF have been damaged. There is more to EDITWARRING than 3rr.Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See my proposal below to resolve lead issue. Remember (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Lawrence Cohen. The biggest stumbling point here was should the article intro say outright that waterboarding is torture. However #Sources_that_assert_waterboarding_is_not_torture, the section above, is still empty; I've tried to find these sources, but I couldn't (apart from NN bloggers or such); maybe I didn't look that hard. I could only find people in the third category ("Sources that appear to question the status of waterboarding, but don't say whether it's torture or not"): Michael B. Mukasey and Rudy Giuliani. Is this all? If it is, then I guess the situation is much clearer now. Let's unprotect it and see what happens. GregorB (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is some people do not want torture in lead, regardless of whether it has backing or not. Daly it has proven over and over again that they simply don;t care (not all). I am not talking about just now - but the past 2 years. Also, see the user responses in an above section. Giuliani does not say WB=T. Giuliani says it might be okay in some circumstances. Many in the US seize on that, viciously distort it - and practice OBFUSCATION buy confusing people between Is it torture and is it acceptable. TWO VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. Look at Randy, he just does not want it involved in lead - look at the edit history - there is no safe consensus. This WILL erupt. Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If it erupts, and a minority of people edit war to go against consensus and violate WP:NPOV, they may end up with administrative problems. :( Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor presents a very good analysis. The minority arguments presented appear to be attempting to convince readers that this practice is not that bad, even acceptable in some cases, and in fact should be used. However, that is a separate argument from whether it meets the definition of a form of torture and should be stated as such in the lead. It is, and it should be. If it is not, then Rack (torture) will need to have its title changed. Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia is spot-on with his analysis. The problem is we have one source that says its acceptable-ish, and another that says its not torture and is acceptable. I just casually pulled another batch of sources out tonight that show waterboarding is torture. Not to be silly, but its now 15 to 1 or 15 to 1.5, depending on how you count it on each issue. At what point does the consensus and facts become painfully clear? Lawrence Cohen 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that the fair and balanced-crowd think that unless we have a 100+ to 1 sourced position there effectively is a controversy and we are mandated to teach the controversy. Others may think that any position that is extremely different from the mainstream and supported by only a staggering minority of politicians does not warrant equal time in this article. Nomen Nescio 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding "IS" torture - what article will have to say per policy

Per policy, we can only report verifiable facts that are sourced and attributable. Fringe or irrelevant border views and opinions will get minimal or passing mention, as they are unaccepted fringe theories. As we have no reliable sources that state the attributable fact that "waterboarding is not torture," Misplaced Pages per our policies is only allowed to report an opening lead sentence and paragraph that opens with (wording can vary from this, but the intent and message may not),

"Waterboarding is an act of torture, which takes the form of simulated drowning."

As a call for quite some time has been out for sources which meet WP:RS to state that waterboarding is not torture has sat empty, without evidence or sources which meet our policy standards to say this, Misplaced Pages is not allowed to say anything but that waterboarding IS torture. If people can find sources that quote specific notable individuals who are authorities on torture, or law related to such things, who say that waterboarding is not torture, we can certainly quote them. However, as all the evidence and historical facts in sources contradict them, their fringe and minority viewpoints will be dealt with in minimal passing, per WP:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, which says:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

Therefore, barring people presenting any evidence to the contrary, any attempts to say or mangle this article once it is unprotected to say that waterboarding is not torture is completely incompatible with Misplaced Pages policies and will be promptly removed. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cited Andrew C. McCarthy a number of times before. I'll add Mary Jo White now. Both are notable attorneys. Neither of them say with certainty that it's not torture. They're simply saying (to put it most kindly) that the opponents are speaking without knowing or considering all the facts.

The biggest problem I see with your POV is not that you want it called "torture" but that you may stamp it as such in a generic fashion without mentioning names. I would prefer it be remembered where people stood.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Its really not my POV; I'm just regurgitating what the overwhelming volume of sources say. And yes, we can certainly not if a given person says a specific view, but the lead has to reflect what the majority and consensus (consensus of sources, not us as editors) says. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you also list your specific pro-torture sources in the appropriate section above? I'm not sure why you hadn't previously. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the Mary Jo White source, it is not valid. There is no claim there that waterboarding is not torture. Can you quote the specific passage there that waterboarding is not torture? Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is somebody's POV, or a that of a large group of people. I'll concede that there is a consensus but it's made up primarily of people who chose certain positions in this current war. Like it or not, some of these divisions will affect how these smaller issues are viewed. It is doubtful that they could maintain these positions if the sides change, and so it's hard for me to take that POV seriously.

I did say that neither of their opinions was that it's definitely not torture. McCarthy's is that we don't know enough to say. White's is that it's the proper position to take.

I saw the section looking for the not-torture position but it became muddled and I didn't think it worth the bother. I'll add it shortly.

I'll also add that the CIA's lawyers reportedly decided that it's not technically torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast array of sources above that say it is torture aren't specifically about the Iraq War. McCarthy does say outright he doesn't think it's torture. Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."

Let's just say I think the "vast array of sources" tends to be biased in one way or another, and most of them will not retain that position if they're pushed. I don't necessarily mean that as a slam against the other side. The U.S. government was once so adamantly against unrestricted submarine warfare that it drove them into WWI. They changed their minds when events called them to take a closer look at it. This crowd would do the same on waterboarding. They just hadn't been tested yet.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem here, in what you've said. The current US government view (as sourced) is just one lone view, and doesn't decide the tone and content of this article. It needs to be a world view. Our country is just one country, and unfortunately, based on weight of sources a WP:FRINGE view that needs to be limited in impact on the article per WP:WEIGHT. Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I felt the need to mention the lesser-relevance of the "vast array of sources". Most of them have not been fully tested. The rest of the world can say anything they like with little or no cost to themselves. Theirs may be a loud opinion but it's not an important one.

It's like asking the Swiss for their opinions on whaling.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any sort of US-centric or Western-centric view on this is unacceptable and will violate WP:NPOV, a core and non-negotiable policy if we give any undue weight to the modern US view. We can do nothing but build articles out of available sources, with no original thought or research of our own. Therefore, we can only say that waterboarding is torture, based on overwhelming evidence. However, we'll certainly note that the current US government won't address the topic, and that some conservative American pundits feel it isn't torture. Lawrence Cohen 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DAMN Larry, you are full of crap.

First of all, you're clearly not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd see how fatally flawed some of your quasi-legalistic reasoning is. Arraying published opinions by other lawyers who don't have any professional duties at stake in making such polemical statements is not, and would never be considered by any decent litigator, "authoritative" in the way you're using the term. At best, it can be considered "persuasive authority."

The fact is that neither you nor your minions can cite one U.S. Supreme Court opinion that states "waterboarding is torture," because it doesn't exist (citing a Mississipi Supreme Court opinion on the matter is inaquequate because that court has no jurisdiction to limit the authority of any nationalized military force or to define operative terms governing such forces -- their statement on waterboarding is extraneous "dicta" and is irrelevant to the issue that the Mississippi Supreme Court was authorized to resolve).

Moreover, citing the naked language of the U.S. Code section is sophomoric and the kind of thing naive first-year law students might do when they write their first paper, but reasoning like that on any U.S. Bar exam would be deemed totally inadequate. Why is that? Because defining a specific concrete thing or set of facts as fitting an abstract legal or linguistic category like "torture" is more than just about making arguments from authority (and even lawyers can't get away with that when push comes to shove). Instead, it requires the reasoned and intellectually honest application of those facts to the salient defining characteristics of that category...and THEN articulating precisely and not overly broadly what those facts mean, even if they don't go as far as to support your intuitions and political predilections (which this entire section of Misplaced Pages seems rife with, to be honest).

If that's too U.S./Western/Common Law-centric and offends your relativistic sensibilities for you and you want to argue that it is considered torture under international law, then cite the finding from the specific currently authoritative and controlling case in international law, and then say that "such-and-such a case defines the act known as waterboarding as torture." Good luck finding that.

And if you can't do all that, then have the intellectual decency and humility to admit that you and your enablers have overreached, that published polemics do not rise to the epistemological standard that you've been attributing to them, and that whether waterboarding can be considered torture in any consequentially legal/human-rights sense of the word is something that remains, at best, inconclusive.

72.244.113.169 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your very pleasant and civil comments. Please read WP:CIV, before posting on this page again. Thank you. As for the opinions you've stated, Badagnani has done a good job of clearing up errors in your thinking. Beyond that, Misplaced Pages articles are not allowed to be beholden to any political point of view. Misplaced Pages articles follow a neutral point of view. Read WP:NPOV. This is just the way this world inside this website works. If you aren't comfortable with that, you might want to post on the talk page of WP:NPOV explaining your concerns. On articles, like this one, NPOV is non-negotiable. Also, we are only allowed to report what reliable sources say. Read WP:RS. If you aren't happy with what the reliable sources say, my apologies. You are welcome to find more reliable sources, and post them here. Most importantly, of course, is that Misplaced Pages will not simply parrot any viewpoint that anyone just happens to say. So, you, me, or another dozen editors can say, "Waterboarding is good because Bush said so, and they're just foreigners," or we can say, "Waterboarding is an abhorrent act, of humiliation and evil." We won't use either version. Why? Because we're not reliable sources. We'll only use what reliable sources say. All of them so far, except two, say waterboarding is torture.

Does the United Nations or Hague say they are? I don't think they've ever bothered to decide. Does the US Supreme Court say its torture? I don't think they've ever bothered to decide. Even if they did, it doesn't matter. They're one opinion. We'd note it in one sentence, and move on. If the overwhelming weight of sources say x is x, we're going to say factually that x is x. If two people say, x is y, we're report the following:

x is x. as the first sentence. Later in the article, we'll make a note that some people may disagree. That's the way it works. Again, also, keep civil. Further attacks could lead you to being blocked from editing. Have a nice day. Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank YOU for the passive-aggression Larry, and for the veiled threat to "block" those who expose your laziness as such. Is your confidence in your position really that frail?

You and your supporters introduced legal sources to this debate as authority for your statement that it's torture. Fine, but if you're going to do that, you open the door to legal criticism of your incorrect use of the sources. I just gave you several specific reasons why your methodology was flawed and you're trying to side-step the points I raised. Fair enough...let readers decide.

I've read several of your other posts on here and I must say that your epistemological position seems to me incoherent: on the one hand you tell those who disagree with you that they must cite reliable sources for the proposition that such-and-such is not x, when the fact is that the burden of proof is on YOU Larry, and those who want to be able to make the statement that "waterboarding is torture." This is a cheap debater's trick and it inhibits the productivity of producing genuine factual knowledge for the consumers of Misplaced Pages. The burden of proof is never on the person seeking to prove a negative, but on the person seeking to prove that a proposition is valid. You cannot seek refuge in "consensus," when there clearly is NO demonstrable consensus on the issue -- which is part of why this issue is so controversial (and by the way, what comprises consensus anyway? 51% agree? 75%? 95%?...the standard is squishy to begin with, but then again, I'm not the one appealing to consensus as authoritative here).

You're also being weasely when you suggest that all you want to be able to do is to say that "x is x," when what you really want to be able to say is that "y is x." Comprende? The fact that something is debatable and can be qualified (or rather buried in the part of the article few will ever read) further down does not justify an editorial decision to report that "y is x," because some other dilettante said so. By now, it's pretty transparent that your intent is to use the lead to advance your political bias on this issue. You know that most readers will never get beyond the first paragraph which is why you're willing to cite "non-consensus" views where nobody will ever see them. How noble of you!

And frankly, to equate that authoritativeness of the U.S. Supreme Court or The Hague or any other who has professional responsibilities for which they have consequential accountability with the authoritativeness of an opinionated journalist or law professor blogger (who, incidentally, hasn't necessarily ever had to pass the Bar) seems childish and dangerous. At a minimum, it does violence to the notion of reason to put those two "sources" on the same level of authoritativeness.72.244.113.169 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand; we so far have no sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, and many (including many that are not legalistic, including the U.S. military's own position) stating that it is a form of torture. The anon's argument seems to consist of "the U.S. wants to be able to do this to 'bad people', thus they will claim, against all evidence and published opinion dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, that it is not a form of torture." It's just not coherent. If you'd like to provide sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, that would be wonderful, because we'd all like to see those. I agree that we should avoid doing violence to the English language, specifically as regards fringe attempts at redefinition of well-defined and well-understood terms. Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You've now twice launched into personal attacks. Please stop immediately. Incivilility is a blockable offense. Our civility policy is mandatory and applies to all users, logged in or otherwise. Once you have stopped, please read this collection of sources that assert waterboarding is torture. Next, read these two sources that assert waterboarding is not torture. You've typed quite a bit there, but to be honest it boils down to: what do the sources say? Legal "interpretaion" doesn't mean anything to us. We make articles based on our own internal editorial standards, not external "legal" standards. Feel free to add more sources to the section on "not torture," if you have some at hand. Otherwise, we have go with what the sources say verifiably and can only report on that in a neutral way, and we also cannot include any original thought or ideas here that aren't attributable to one of those reliable sources. Any attempts to craft the article without adherence to all of that wouldn't be acceptable, ever. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that as laymen we have every right to read the law and understand its plain meaning; indeed we have a duty to do so. It's implicit in ignorantia juris non excusat. Lawyers don't own the law.--agr (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - That's a very interesting opinion, seeing as how the Washington Post states that the U.S. military defines waterboarding as a form of torture.. In your opinion I presume, that if the U.S. practices waterboarding it is not torture, since Americans are "good" and doing it for "good purposes" and not as "cruelly" as other nations might (but if Japanese, Cambodians, etc. conduct it, it would be torture--such as the Japanese who were court martialed after World War II for waterboarding Allied military personnel). I should also point out that your rough language does not do your credibility any favors. Badagnani (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding the international definition of torture, it is very clear; it has been presented here before, but perhaps you have not read through all of the discussion archives (I know, it takes some time). Such a definition does not need to specify every cruel practice that can be invented, as the language is quite clear.

Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it you say "based on overwhelming evidence"? I think you mean based on overwhelming opinions. The article should name names so that we know whose opinions.

It's a tad bit odd to say "the current US government won't address the topic." While that's technically true (and is expected to remain true for the succeeding administration based upon what all the front-runners have said), it has also been addressed in leaks that CIA lawyers say it's not technically torture. And if you say the leaks aren't enough, then it's hard to say that anyone was waterboarded at all.

McCarthy and White may be "pundits" but they're both attorneys who've been instrumental in this fight against fascism. It's fine with me if we put everything out there, pro and con, but let's apply some names to these opinions so that no one forgets who stood where.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The sources (many reliable ones) are here, in black and white. We so far have only two sources stating unequivocally that waterboarding is not a form of torture: The Onion and Uncyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen's proposal above is quite sensible, and I support it. Badagnani (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems very similar to the tobacco industry's "the jury is still out" argument, used for decades in an effort to cast doubt, among the general public, on the fact of cigarette smoke's serious negative impacts on health (even though they knew quite well of those impacts all along). You just don't have any sources that would warrant not listing waterboarding as a form of torture in the lead, and seem to now be resorting to a delaying tactic in order to prevent consensus. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The view that waterboarding is not torture (on behalf of the George W. Bush administration, CIA, or whoever, if this has actually been stated) should be mentioned, but this fringe view should not be privileged in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official source that specifically says waterboarding is not torture (at least I can't find one). I also think we do need to mention somewhere in the article how the Bybee memo defined torture for the Bush Adminstration as "acts inflicting...severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical." Physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Mental pain "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years," as well as be the result of one of the specific causes of mental pain contained 18 USC 2340, "namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party." The memo also concluded that even though an act is "cruel, inhuman, or degrading," it doesn't necessarily inflict the level of pain that 18 USC 2340 prohibits, and thus does not subject an interrogator to criminal prosecution. Additionally, it stated that a defense of "necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods" that violate 18 USC 2340.. Remember (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I found what I was looking for: according to a news report by Newsweek, "..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article. I think this is as close to we get as saying the Bush administration concluded waterboarding isn't torture. While it is not an official position, it should be noted that the article accused the Bush administration of having this position. Remember (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's possibly questionable, since its a 3rd party view accusing a group (the Bush Administration) of something that may or may not be legally actionable against them. I'd be hesitant to use this for that reason, and it may not be useable under valid interpretations of policy. Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the article should simply note what had been reported. I don't think this would violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies. Something such as: In mid-2004, Newsweek reported a story based, in part, on anonymous sources by Michael Hirsh, John Barry and Daniel Klaidman that stated that the 2002 Bybee Memo was created after internal discussions among the top White House lawyers including George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel. In these discussions, the story alleged that this group found acceptable certain interrogation techniques including ""water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations. Remember (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding

To increase exposure, I've posted about this situation to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding, the Fringe Theories noticeboard, asking for additional users to watchlist this article. Lawrence Cohen 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm watchlisting but won't make an input till I've had a chance to read the article, sources and discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted videos

CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

15, or more? I suspect we're done now

...in regards to this torture question. The rest is just housekeeping and cleaning.

Not to be blunt, but we've spent a frightening amount of brain power here on something that looking back is glaringly obvious. We have approximately 15 sources now that plainly assert from notable individuals ranging from human rights groups, to Presidents, to soldiers, to Senators, and so on, that waterboarding is torture. We have on the other side one source that weakly asserts waterboarding may be acceptable, and one source that doesn't think it's torture. We can talk in circles and debate this endlessly, but barring some value and weight to sources to counter what has been found, I think this is done with. No amount of debate can overrule policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:SYN, and WP:NPOV.

If someone wants 20 sources, I'm sure that can be done. This wasn't even found with a fancy method that I know of, beyond casual Googling. Irregardless of what some folks of some political ideologies may be feeling about waterboarding, it doesn't change or affect the reality of what this article has to say. To get it to say something else, please provide the sources and I'll gladly change it myself.

Can anyone provide valid policy-supported reasoning why this article can't say waterboarding is torture? If not, lets downgrade to long-term semi protection, clean up and wrap up the article, get it to Good Article status, and move on to the next project for each of us. Lawrence Cohen 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only thing that is left, perhaps, is to decide on the intro. I don't particularly like any of the two versions proposed above (while each has good points), but that's not really important: these are technical issues common to many articles - not something that should be kept from exploding by maintaining the full protection. GregorB (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the last remaining issue remains the lead and that the waterboarding is torture thing is pretty settled. With that in mind, could you please state whether you support or oppose the three suggested leads above and if not, propose your own lead. Remember (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've linked to WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves at least three times. It's an applicable Misplaced Pages guideline that should be a suitable solution. Even if you all don't like it, I think the reasons for thinking so should be addressed, particularly since this section says that the guidelines were considered.

In what way would it not apply? The example given is about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Why would waterboarding need WP editors to render a conclusion if Saddam Hussein would not? That's a big question. I would guess that we could easily find 20 prominent quotes about Saddam being a bad guy.

One item that was addressed only glancingly was on expanding the critics to more than just John McCain. This should be easy to rectify. This comment section includes the phrase "notable individuals ranging from human rights groups, to Presidents, to soldiers, to Senators." Let's see Jimmy Carter's name as prominently as John McCain's. One would think a quote from Nancy Pelosi would exist somewhere. My motives had been criticized for wanting this but I don't think you can question the rationale. (It's important to cite politicians because they're the ones who make the rules.)

I also pointed out three other specific issues. I'd understand if you all disagreed, but I would like to see a reason, or at least expressly state that everyone disagrees even without saying why.

For the long term, I think the article should have a section on why the controvery exists.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just passing by, but WP:NPOV policy is pretty important to me and I think there are a lot of people here who are trying to ignore an important aspect of it. Although I personally believe that waterboarding is torture, I have to agree with Randy2063. The statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" presented as a statement of fact is a violation of WP:NPOV - Let the facts speak for themselves. Ask yourself this. Is waterboarding worse than what Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein did? The leads of these two articles don't open by saying "<blank> was a genocidal dictator..." 74s181 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires that the lead begin as factually and unemotionally as possible. "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowing..." Later it can say "Most experts consider waterboarding to be a form of torture because it makes the subject believe that death is imminent." Or something like this. 74s181 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's torture by definition, quite NPOV. Rack (torture) has torture in the title for such a reason; both are unambiguously forms of torture, according to all definitions. This is very NPOV. It isn't "simulated" anything because the person's life is in danger (according to the sources, they are, in fact, drowning if the technique is executed "correctly") and people have died from undergoing this form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the point.

The title isn't proof of anything. Or are you going to say music torture is also torture?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that, the article does. In the first sentence. Maybe you should try to change it, if you feel strongly that music torture--despite its name, which includes the word "torture"--is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid editing articles when I think my edits would cause an obviously biased article to appear halfway reasonable to the casual reader. Like I said there, an obvious bias is illustrative in its own way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What Hitler did was genocide, by definition. Yet the lead on the Adolf Hitler article doesn't start out by talking about the genocide. The word "torture" is a loaded word, exactly the kind of word that WP:NPOV - Let the facts speak for themselves was written to prevent. The fact that so many people are so emotionally invested in using this word is evidence enough that it shouldn't be used in the first sentence of the lead. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "torture" appears in the article title Rack (torture) in order to disambiguate it, the fact that it is used this way doesn't mean it is correct. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the day that the first international agreement banning "torture" was signed, the word "torture" moved out of the realm of common sense and into the twisted jungle of legalisms. I am pretty sure that there are some states that don't define waterboarding as torture, in fact, I suspect that the whole reason this article exists is because the United States govt. may or may not define waterboarding as torture. Therefore, saying "waterboarding is torture" is not NPOV. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The parallel with "genocidal dictator" does not hold. "Torture" is not a description; it is - in part due to the international conventions you mention - terminus technicus, if you will. It is similar to the term "serial killer", for example; I may understand that the words may provoke an emotional response, but both "torture" and "serial killer" are terms, not (unlike "genocidal dictator") descriptions. Consequently, omitting the word torture would be a bad violation of WP:UNDUE (and WP:WEASEL, I'd say); sources that say waterboarding is torture outnumber those that say it isn't by a margin of 20-1 or more. We've been through all this. Finally, your assertion that this article exists merely to give the US a bad name does not hold the mildest scrutiny. GregorB (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're actually getting close here when you say it has to do iwth international conventions. As there is a legal disagreement over whether it's torture, you're rendering a judgment on which side of that disagreement WP officially agrees. I don't think 20-1, or whatever, is good enough to make such a ruling.

You're wrong when you say, "your assertion that this article exists merely to give the US a bad name does not hold the mildest scrutiny." Just look at the edit history.

As I had said earlier of the edit history:

The first mention of the U.S. was added within two edits of its creation. It was incorrect, of course, as the editor who added that believed they waterboarded people at GTMO. (I don't think anyone responsible or semi-responsible ever made that claim.)

Track the edit histories further and you'll see that this one was later merged from a parallel article called water boarding. That one took seven edits from its start to mention the U.S. Naturally, that editor had incorrectly believed it was used at Abu Ghraib. (No one semi-responsible ever made that claim either.) So, we had two stubs on waterboarding, and they both screwed up their facts.

And of course, if you look at the edit history for torture, you'll see that it took them only five edits to mention the U.S. (They also put "scare quotes" around "war on terror", which is pretty funny in itself.)

So, like it or not, the history of this article shows what drives this.

There were partisan edits, no doubt about that; however I understood "the whole reason this article exists" comment above as saying that the mere existence of this article is geared toward US-bashing. That is simply not true. The article covers a legitimate subject; if it appears to be slanted one way or another it needs to be corrected, of course. GregorB (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW: The music torture article's talk page was already contemplating a title change. I added my thoughts, although I'll concede here that having it called that is very illustrative of the nature of the "torture meme." What the U.S. allegedly does will always be criticized while real torture is encouraged to continue on.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the interwiki links you'll see they're all plainly driven by criticism against the U.S. Go back to the history of the German version, and you'll see that it mentions the CIA in first revision. The first one didn't, but its comment links to this article, which is critical of the U.S.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I was more on-target than I thought when I had suggested that Nancy Pelosi should be listed prominently among the supposed-opponents. Not surprisingly, she seems to have flop-flopped on waterboarding.

Jane Harman deserves special mention at some distance from the true weasels. As I had always contended that most of the critics are something worse than hypocrites, Harman was a rare honest critic before it became politically advantageous to be one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Randy2063 and 74s181 above: The comparisons to Saddam Hussein (the example in WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves) and Adolf Hitler are not relevant. Declaring someone a "bad man" is a value judgement of a person. Waterboarding is an activity, not a person. Furthermore no one is proposing that the article say "this is good" or "this is bad". In order to make a case that the article cannot say that waterboarding is a form of torture, you are going to have to state a principle that is consistent with the treatment of other facts on Misplaced Pages ("the earth is round", "humans and apes have a common ancestor", "a harmonica is a musical instrument", "Neil Armstrong landed on the moon", etc.) and yet excludes the mention of waterboarding as torture despite the overwhelming weight of sources to that effect. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Waterboarding is an interrogation method in the same way that a harmonica is a musical instrument.

Unless you seriously believe the definition of "torture" can be applied to even the mildest physical method of interrogation (even tickling), you must draw the line somewhere, and thus, apply a value judgment about the CIA's lawyers. At least the CIA's lawyers reviewed both the precise procedures and the law. Very few of your "overwhelming weight of sources" can fall into both of those categories.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, what the US government says for their views is just one aspect. The US view is never going to be accepted as the be-all and end-all, no more than North Korea, England, the UN, Wal-Mart, Mukasey, or the most left-wing and liberal source. It's the collective weight and overall views that focus an article and determine its tone. No government gets front and center treatment. Frankly, the United States "espoused" viewpoint that it may not be torture is incompatible with what everyone else says, by and far, so the US government view is effectively by our standards a trivial fringe view. We'll treat it as such. There's really nothing else on this to hash out, unless people start producing sources that we can review. At all. Let's move forward on to other issues now. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And why does WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves not apply? Let's be clear here: are you saying the "collective weight" is against waterboarding in a way that it could never be against Hitler? Or would the answer to that change from 1940 to now? I think we need an answer that stands regardless of how many people supported or opposed something.

What about tickling? Music torture? Stress positions?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Randy2063 position. I think a read of the five techniques should throw some light on this issue. Particularly what the ECHR said about "pain" and "sever pain". Also it is worth reading the Torture#United Nations Convention Against Torture section and noting the UNCAT forbids a state to "expel, return ("refouler") or extradite" a person to a third state where they may be tortured and section 16 says that a state can not inflict "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" on a person. But nothing in the treaty says you can not extradite a person to another state where they do inflict "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". So if a technique is "only" cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, then the US had not broken its treaty obligations by the use of such a technique in a third country. So to say that waterbording is torture is to support the POV that the Bush administration has breached the UNCAT treaty, which if it is only cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they have not providing that waterbording is only used outside US jurisdiction. I do not think it is correct that this article should make such an assertion in the neutral voice of the article, but that the article should place such an accusation in the form of X says "Water bording is torture" and make X one or more of the most notable people who take this position. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Claims_of_consensus which although specifically for biographies of living persons is sound advice and a specific from of WP:SYN --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment - It's spelled waterboarding. If you have sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, please provide them, as we would all like to see them. The U.S. military, according to the Washington Post, does hold that it is a form of torture, as do many other international authorities, as witnessed by the courtmartials against personnel of various nations (including the U.S.) for committing this practice. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Philip, you're unfortunately making the same mistakes that Randy is making. All this distinct pieces of information may or may not add up collectively to say that the Bush administration's use of waterboarding is or isn't torture. We simply don't care, because thats not how Misplaced Pages articles are written. We only report on what reliable sources say. If a source says, "Waterboarding isn't torture," that is acceptable. If five different sources all indirectly add up to the conclusion that "Waterboarding isn't torture," without clearly stating that individually, that is never going to be acceptable is required to be removed immediately as a violation of WP:SYN, which forbids combining bits of "evidence" to reach a new conclusion that is not supported by Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Lawrence Cohen 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To User:Philip Baird Shearer: you're misconstruing WP:SYN. It warns against using two or more referenced positions together to advance an unreferenced position. But "waterboarding is torture" is not an unreferenced position, and saying so in the article can't break WP:SYN. Of course, saying that the Bush administration has breached the UNCAT treaty (without references to back this up) would break WP:SYN, but the article currently makes no such assertion, so I don't see why would this matter. GregorB (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Still, the whole thing smacks of OR, especially for such a controversial subject. We should stick with sourced facts and statements. Anything else is just asking for a holy war on this article to build up based on political ideologies. Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE LEAD DISCUSSION ABOVE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So far each we only have 3 different proposed leads and only three votes on some of them. If we don't resolve this issue we will talk about it forever. PLEASE get involved in the process of figuring out what the lead should say. I believe that we can can figure out a good lead that a strong majority of editors can agree upon as accurate and NPOV and then we can move forward. But if people don't participate and instead get involved in other discussions this will never end. With that in mind, please vote on the suggested leads above and if you don't like a lead, PLEASE propose an alternative. Remember (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was considering writing a lead myself but it's not an easy job in this particular case, and I'm a bit busy currently (the following weekend, perhaps?). But yes, by all means: do participate, it's the only way to move forward. And I was also thinking: what about opening a subpage for the intro, then try to tweak it? GregorB (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Simulated drowning"

I've said little in this discussion, other than calling for more precise description of the activity described as "waterboarding", because there is public confusion as to what waterboarding actually is. Some of the descriptions say that the activity is actual drowning, various ways of immersing the victim's head in water, withdrawing it occasionally -- an "interrupted drowning", as the victim will indeed die if they're unlucky. Other descriptions say that only parts of the victim's face, neck and/or chest, and perhaps the mouth, nose, and some of the sinus passages need to be made wet, relying on body reflexes to convey the impression to the victim that their body is drowning, using the body reflexes to simulate the feelings that the former actually imposes; the victim is no risk of drowning (although they may be at risk of heart attack, choking on vomit, ....) Confounding the two activities (there may be others, but these two, near the extremes) with a single name does not lend clarity to the discussion.

I think that the lead should reflect at least that there are these two very different general techniques. The former (interrupted drowning) I think is torture (it's a form of mock execution), while the latter may not be (I know that's wiggly, and I mean it to be.) htom (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions from people who have actually conducted or been subjected to waterboarding are very clear about its nature and effects. The sources describing its use in Japan, Algeria, Cambodia, the United States, etc. are similarly clear about such details. Those presenting the concept of a purported "lighter" version of waterboarding are typically journalists who don't have any direct experience other than what they have heard, and are simply recycling what they have gotten from "official sources," in whose interest it is to promulgate the concept of the existence of such a "lighter" version. We know that Japanese, U.S., and other personnel have been courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding, and no distinction was made between a "harsher" or "lighter" version at any time. Of course, with the waterboarding tapes now destroyed there is no way to verify that such a "lighter" version exists. Badagnani (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The descriptions from people who have actually conducted or been subjected to waterboarding..." I read this sentence and immediately had a mental picture of the interogator saying to the prisoner, "if you don't talk, we're going to waterboard you!", followed by some interogation technique, after which the prisoner would think, "ah, so that is what waterboarding means". 74s181 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a video example of such a testimony. Badagnani (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

US Technique

With the debate surrounding US use of waterboarding, I am wondering if we know exactly what the US's technique was. The history of waterboarding in this article demonstrates that the technique can vary. And there is a brief suggestion in the article that the CIA used a "modern form of waterboarding." It is a legitimate question as to whether the various techniques of waterboarding have different risk factors or abilities to cause long-term physical or mental aggravation. Do we have sources that reveal precisely what the "modern form" used by the CIA is? Do we know how this "modern form" might be more or less harmful that other forms? This would be illuminative on the question of torture. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by C.l.schwab (talk • contribs)

We don't really know anything about the US method unfortunately, beyond that it is confirmed as waterboarding in the classic sense per various government statements. The only definitive view of this that would have likely ever been seen, at this time, was on the CIA tapes that were destroyed. It would be nice sourced information to have for the article, but I doubt it will ever come to light. Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrible Article

This has got to be the worst, most one-sided article on all of wikipedia. I seriously can't believe how bad this article is. It should be either completely redone with both sides represented, or it should be deleted. User: Uriah is Boss 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And what are "both" sides? Are both sides of equal value? NPOV is not "all sides get equal screen time". Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What other side? facts please, not conjecture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA man speaks

This story broken by ABC might be of use in this article, and here is the BBC's take on the story. It concerns one operatives view of waterboarding. 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That certainly could be useful, to integrate when protection is reduced from full to semi. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining Torture

Anything unpleasant that a person is forced to endure can be construed as torture. Therefore, if coercion is needed to elicit a response---and if coercion is considered acceptable under certain conditions, then waterboarding should be such an example. Duress is necessarily unpleasant, but duress is not of itself torture. Torture seems more concordant with destruction to the person; intrusion into a person's psyche, even that which may cause lasting anxiety, is not necessarily torture. Recall that anything we must do---facetiousness is not the aim here---such as going to a physically grueling job or dealing with a tense atmosphere at work, could cause distress and even lasting anxiety and a sense of lost self-worth. That being the case, one still must encounter unpleasant tasks---even ordeals---in life as part of life. If we jail a person, that person is anguished by the humiliation and the incarceration. Yet, we must still jail certain offenders. Terrorist suspects and combatants are in the same category as jailed individuals, and if inducing gag reflexes and experiencing the distress of water poured over their noses induces them to reveal vital life-saving information, then that is part of life. Torture is deliberately aggressive and degrading violence. Waterboarding probably is not those things at all. 204.14.15.130 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)WikiPaul

While that is a fine opinion, it's still unfortunately an opinion. We can't use or consider any arguments for content that don't come from Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, because if we approached it with the thought process you've described, or do anything but work from what reliable sources tell us, we're doing Misplaced Pages:Original research, which is completely against our policies. Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. This page isn't for the purpose of general discussion related to the topic, so it doesn't matter what individual Wikipedians feel about waterboarding. Opinions and personal findings are not acceptable encyclopedia material, and discussion that doesn't relate to improving the article in a tangible way is not constructive. Leebo /C 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I had not realized that the discussion page excluded opinion-based/forum-type material; until it is perhaps expunged, my comments above may provoke thought that could be in some way useful in clarifying content on either waterboarding or the related topic of torture. --Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.74.194 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing your opinions and arguments on this talk page. We just have to be clear about what has bearing on the article and what doesn't. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Editprotected}} This is a recommended edit for clarity, not content. In the introductory paragraph, the sentence "Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States" should read "Some nations, including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding." The way it is now mis-cues the reader (i.e., you expect "including John Doe" at the end, as an example of someone that has been prosecuted for waterboarding).Josh.anders (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Remember (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. GregorB (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

...and while you're at it, remove the sr: interwiki link, it's incorrect (see section above). GregorB (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sharp eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, since I don't anticipate any objections. Revised wording seems more clear, any problems with the content would just as likely apply to the old version, anyway, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{editprotected}} Admins, please add nl:Waterboarding to this article. Unit17 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious, support not needed. Lawrence Cohen 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Luna! Lawrence Cohen 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm going to set some archiving of some sections on this page. The talk is getting completely fractured, and hopefully this will focus things a bit. Lawrence Cohen 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Remember (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this cleanup work. It really helps. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness as an Interrogation Technique

Why not mention the three terrorist attacks averted in the U.S. because of information learned from waterboarding? The plot to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago was foiled because of the post-waterboard confession of a known terrorist. Right now this part of the article, "Effectiveness" needs a lot of work to be done on it. User: Uriah is Boss08:12, 13 December 2007 {UTC}

Sources, evidence? I'd love to add that fact, but it's the first I've heard of it. I listened to a long story on NPR on waterboarding last night, and there was no mention of this, and I don't recall reading about it in any of our various articles (unless I just lost it in the shuffle). Link? Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Give me some time, I'll look into it. User:Uriah is Boss 10:06, 13 December 2007 {UTC}

Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article that references the effectiveness of the technique.

Cellophane was wrapped around the Al Qaeda man's face and water was forced up his nose and into his throat to make him think he was drowning.

The suspect lasted only 35 seconds before he broke.

"It was like flipping a switch", said Mr Kiriakou.

"From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.

Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get.

I struggle with it."

...Mr Kiriakou, a 14-year veteran of the CIA who worked in both the analysis and operations divisions, left in 2004 and works as a consultant for a private Washington-based firm.

--Exterior37 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on efficacy includes "'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' claims John Sifton of Human Rights Watch."" -- This quote is about the legality under international law, which has nothing to do with effectiveness. Effectiveness is simply "does it work". It has no place there so I'll delete it. Pardon my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.81.26 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead and unlocking

The current votes above indicate that Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead has no explicit votes opposing it (although Badagnani, agr and Randy2063 have made comments suggesting they could oppose) and Inertia Tensor has stated that he is okay with reducing the protection of the page to semi-protect (and he was the only one opposing this motion before I believe). Thus, unless we hear from some people who explicitly oppose Ka-Ping's version of the lead and propose an alternative, I vote that we reduce the page from full protect to semi-protect and put in Ka-Ping's version of the lead. I am not saying that we can't continue to come up with revisions to the lead, but I am saying that almost all of us agree that the new version is better than the old version and that we need to unlock the page so that we can add some of the wealth of information that we have collected and which keeps coming out every day. If you oppose this motion, please state your reasons and suggested alternative course of action below. Remember (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's the plan of action that the fewest people have a major concern with, and the best compromise version by far. We can always figure out any other specifics afterwards easily enough, now that we have a consensus for the lead at last. Strongly recommend that semi-protection be indefinite in duration like any other controversial article such as Iraq War or George W. Bush, for obvious reasons. Great job everyone! Next up: who wants to go for Good Article > Peer Review > Featured Article? Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to help out with Good Article > Peer Review > Featured Article, but after we get this thing unlocked of course.Remember (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a ways off, but given how everyone came together there shouldn't be any reason we couldn't do it. Lord knows there is enough material in the news these days on waterboarding to create a huge, detailed article. Lawrence Cohen 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support My comments above should be viewed as friendly amendments, not opposition. As for next up, I think we have to integrate into the body of the article some of the material developed in this discussion on waterboarding's status as torture and the controversy in the U.S.--agr (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose - I've already outlined, close to three times now, serious deficiencies with this version, which have not been addressed. Badagnani (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, if no lead version is suitable to you, could you please provide a version that would be suitable to you or suggest specific revisions to the lead that would make the lead suitable. So far you have not supported any version of the lead (or if you have you haven't made it explicit) and you and GregorB are the last holdouts. Remember (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Or alternately, can you support the modified take on Ka-Ping Yee's that I put up and tweaked with your suggestions? Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Lawrence_Cohen's_modified_version_of_Ka-Ping_Yee's_lead. Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, ditto. GregorB (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Randy2063 raised concerns with my version of the lead, which I have addressed with edits. I would be very happy with either my version or Lawrence Cohen's modified version of the lead; as far as I can tell there is only one objector to each version (Badagnani has expressed objection to my version; Randy2063 to Lawrence Cohen's version). I do not much care which one is used; I strongly urge that we go ahead and unlock and use either one as the lead. Randy2063, Lawrence, and Badagnani are repeating the same arguments as before and this does not seem productive to me. This article really needs to move forward now. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Wikidemo (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - for the moment. Ka-Ping Yee sufficiently addresed my concerns. There is one more problem, but it's another can of worms I'll put in a separate section. I should note that of the point I raised (re WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves), Ka-Ping Yee is the only one who could respond to it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request is in

We have consensus on the lead and wording, and I've made the request. Consensus doesn't have to be all or nothing, and since only one person actively disagrees and a few of us have minor quibbling details that we've all swallowed, we should be fine. Anyone who edit wars will be subject to WP:3RR, of course. I asked for indefinite semi-protection, the same as other ultra-controversial partisan topics like George W. Bush and Iraq War. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Remember (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

It's done. I've updated the article lead with my modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead, based on all the support comments. Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

US House votes to ban CIA from using waterboarding

This article seems relevant to the discussion. The U.S. House has stipulated that the CIA adhere to the rules set out in the U.S. Army Field Manual. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The US section on this is going to be a very detailed read once we open this up. Lawrence Cohen 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A new can of worms

While reading the posts here, and the notable media commentaries, it appears that much of the support for believing this to be torture rested upon the claim that waterboarding was used in the Spanish Inquisition. After I remarked that there is no context for this, I searched briefly and found that my suspicions were warranted.
As it happens, WP also has an article and section on Water cure#Spain. This is what they did in the Spanish Inquisition. Read the description by a recipient and you may see that it sounds different. The fact that waterboarding as we know it wasn't used in the Spanish Inquisition after all needs to be addressed in the article.
On the other hand, some editors may say it's close enough for Misplaced Pages. If so, then you might need to explain why these two articles don't need to be merged. While you're at it, there's also another article on water torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one source that supports the assertion that a form of waterboarding was used as far back as the Spanish Inquisition and is not the same as the water cure stated on the other wikipedia page. Remember (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From -

"Less often observed is that the practice of waterboarding has roots in the Spanish Inquisition and parallels the persecution of Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. Why did practices similar to waterboarding develop as a way to torture heretics—whether the heretics were Anabaptists or, in the Inquisition, Protestants of any stripe as well as Jews and witches and others? Roman Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists or "re-baptizers" since these people denied infant baptism in favor of adult baptism. The use of torture and physical abuse was meant to stem the movement and also to bring salvation to heretics. It had been held—at least since St. Augustine—that punishment, even lethal in form, could be an act of mercy meant to keep a sinner from continuing in sin, either by repentance of heresy or by death. King Ferdinand declared that drowning—called the third baptism—was a suitable response to Anabaptists. Water as a form of torture was an inversion of the waters of baptism under the (grotesque) belief that it could deliver the heretic from his or her sins. In the Inquisition, the practice was not drowning as such, but the threat of drowning, and the symbolic threat of baptism. The tortura del agua or toca entailed forcing the victim to ingest water poured into a cloth stuffed into the mouth in order to give the impression of drowning. Because of the wide symbolic meaning of "water" in the Christian and Jewish traditions (creation, the great flood, the parting of the Red Sea in the Exodus and drowning of the Egyptians (!), Christ's walking on the water, and, centrally for Christians, baptism as a symbolic death that gives life), the practice takes on profound religious significance. Torture has many forms, but torture by water as it arose in the Roman Catholic and Protestant reformations seemingly drew some of its power and inspiration from theological convictions about repentance and salvation. It was, we must now surely say, a horrific inversion of the best spirit of Christian faith and symbolism.

Randy, water torture, the forced ingestion of water, is different, but this is not a question related to this article, and any merger is inappropriate as they are totally different practices. If society deems to compare the two on the same scale of torture, it's not our decision to make a judgement call on whether it is or isn't. I'm not sure how many times we can go over this, though, on the larger scheme, since we keep giving the same answer. WHO disputes that waterboarding is torture, who is a notable viewpoint, besides the two pundits you cited? If you can't provide sources for us to review, please stop attempting to filibuster with personal arguments and analysis that is not supported by citeable facts and sources. I've asked you myself at least twice now for links. Give us sources: who says waterboarding is not torture, besides the two opinion columns you cited above, of which only one clearly even says "no"?

If you can't supply these requested sources, there isn't anything else to discuss. Either way, consensus does not require unanimous agreement. You're the only person seriously pushing this revisionist history, but I'm willing to oblige you if you provide sources. Who said it? When? Where? URL?

Again, to be crystal clear: Misplaced Pages editors have zero say in whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. If we end up with 50 sources that say it is torture, and 2 sources that say it isn't torture, we are required to say it is torture. There is controversy over whether it is acceptable to perform, and we have sources left and right for that, but that isn't what is contested. The only thing contested is that an ultra-minority of editors on this article seem to believe that we can do anything but allow verifiable information into articles. Two sources is not evidence of anything being seriously contested. Bean counting is stupid, but if that's what it takes to illustrate how illogical this argument is: if 50 people say a film was about love, but 2 say it was about aliens, is this even valid to entertain? Give us sources we can work with, or we have nothing else to cover on the is/isn't torture issue. If you disagree, please escalate this through WP:DR, as anything else on this talk page isn't going to work out with your repeated arguments and new twists (merging) to get this article to not say "waterboarding is torture". Lawrence Cohen 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that Remember's source implies to me there were two different practices used by the Spanish Inquisition, and I'm willing to put that aside for now. As for the rest, I'll answer that in the new section.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Undue weight

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Lawrence Cohen 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think where you and I depart is that you're willing to say something is torture because it's been commonly accepted as such over the years. This is why you think subjective opinion on a film is comparable. But I think Roe v. Wade is a better example. It shouldn't matter what you or I think, or what the average citizen thinks. There are legal distinctions that must be made.

Your view is certainly correct with regard to what the general public may believe but, as I've pointed out, we've seen very little commentary from people who understand both CIA waterboarding and the law. It's not 50 to 2.

I don't mind being a hold-out juror but I don't want to waste too much time on this either.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept legal sources as RS, depending on the source, but then comes the question: in what jurisdiction? What legal decisions name waterboarding? We can't take sources that aren't specific to waterboarding. US-specific decisions are meaningless for anything beyond the United States section of the article, and wouldn't address is/isn't. As far as regular citizens, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, though, if those citizens and their words, opinions, and writing satisfy our WP:RS standards, they are indeed sufficient. Our internal rules decide how we treat material, not outside legal ones, which are secondary. Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that difficult. We could have said it's outlawed by most governments, including U.S. civilian and military law, hence the prosecutions, but that the CIA is reportedly using such a procedure under a controversial interpretation of UNCAT. As odd as that may sound, it happens to be true, and it doesn't rely on what the conventional wisdom wants to believe at the moment.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone is willing to work to improve the article. What sources do we have that support this section? We'd just need to see them to review them all together. Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Split

Do we need an article split, 1)Waterboarding (about the method of torture) 2)Waterboarding and the war on terror (about the current controversy in america). 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, unless press dies down, yes, we will. I'd be shocked if it ends up otherwise, but it's probably too soon. Lawrence Cohen 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch a reliable source?

I see that Human Rights Watch is used as a reference for what could be described as a declaration of medical or psychological fact. Human Rights Watch makes a declaration of the effects of waterboarding but does not quote a study or its source. I question whether HRW is or can be a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia in relationship to this article. --Blue Tie (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The US State Department apparently considers HRW a reliable source. Here is a DoS report issued in November 2007 that cites HRW (on p.4): --agr (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is for most things it says although if it is contested we should say HRW says "blah". On an issue of human rights the HRW is eminently quoteable. 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

State Department may consider HRW reliable in one area but not in other areas. US government waterboarded three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. Their actions tell us they believe it is legal under international law. US government has many lawyers in Justice Department who review legality and advise leaders. We must be very careful. Some lawyers say it is torture. Others say it is not torture. Andrew McCarthy is former Justice Department prosecutor. He says it is not torture. Can you say with 100% certainty that he is wrong?

There is no Supreme Court or World Court ruling on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture. If this question arises in court? Some lawyers on one side and other lawyers on other side? Can you say with 100% certainty that lawyers saying "this is torture" will win? What law school did you graduate from? In what court do you serve as judge?

"Torture" is very strong word. It is not neutral language demanded by Misplaced Pages policy. Only quotation of court ruling could support using this word and only in quotation marks. Reputation of Misplaced Pages project is more important than any editor's agenda. Remember Essjay controversy. Many eyes are watching us. If expert opinion is divided on question of whether waterboarding is torture then we cannot report that it is torture. We can only report that it is controversial and that legal opinions are divided. WP:V WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We are/will acknowledge controversy, but I've yet to see serious controversy over whether or not to call it "torture". The courts do not decide if something is torture; it's one opinion. And then, which court? US Federal? British? French? Japanese, Russian, Somalian, Pakistan? Who decides? Is one's decision more important than another? The overwhelming sources call it torture, so thats what we need to do currently. Your opinions are good, but do you have sources to back them up? If so, what sources? Without sources, we can't do anything, at all. Lawrence Cohen 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - "Torture" was certainly the word used in regard to waterboarding, as regards Japan's use of this technique during World War II. See International Military Tribunal for the Far East findings here. This comprehensive article provides details of how the practice was conducted. The Japanese claimed they didn't know waterboarding civilians was wrong, because the 1929 Geneva Convention applied only to captured members of a military. However, the Geneva Conventions were later amended to include both captured members of a military as well as civilians. Badagnani (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "US government waterboarded three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. Their actions tell us they believe it is legal under international law." - Just because the US government did something does not mean that they believe it was legal under international law. We don't exactly know whether the current US government considers waterboarding torture because they won't provide a specific opinion on this procedure (at least as far as I can find). Remember (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Government has never acknowledged that it used waterboarding on anyone, despite widespread media reports that it has. If the U.S. Government really believed waterboarding was a legal interrogation technique, why not admit its use? Why only waterboard 3 prisoners? Surely there are more captured terrorists who have knowledge that could save lives. Why not let the U.S. military, which is being chewed up by IEDs, use waterboarding to track down who is planting and who is providing them? If anything, the US Government's behavior is strong evidence that they know full well waterboarding is torture.--agr (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If no part of the U.S. government has admitted to waterboarding detainees, how do we know this occurred? I don't think you're correct. They claim they are exempt from the Geneva Conventions, as revised in 1949 to include civilians, because they claim the individuals waterboarded were neither members of a foreign military nor civilians, but "unlawful combatants." Badagnani (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of reports based on leaks or off-the-record conversations with reporters, but, to date, the U.S. Government has never publicly acknowledged that it has used waterboarding in the war on terror. When Cheney apparently admitted that they did with his "dunk in the water" comment, the White House insisted that he wasn't talking about waterboarding. Their consistent position on waterboarding is that interrogation techniques are classified and they do not discuss them. And torture is banned under any circumstances by the UNCAT. The question of the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions is a part of this story that we need to address, but it relates to a different standard, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (CIGT). I believe the current status of this debate is that the U.S. now acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions do prohibit CIGT of even unlawful combatants, however according to the N Y Times, the latest version of the Justice Department secret legal opinion denies that waterboarding falls under the CIGT category, though our article quotes the CIA Inspector general saying it does.--agr (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to debate my opinion on question of "is waterboarding torture?" I am here only to observe and report status of expert opinions. Status of expert opinions is divided on this issue. Therefore we must report it that way. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Offer evidence of your statement--who disagrees where? Lawrence Cohen 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two quotes on the legal angle: "The CIA maintains its interrogation techniques are in legal guidance with the Justice Department." And recently when it turned out that Pelosi was involved, an article on that said the procedeures "had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers".

Of all the references we've gone through here, these refer to the only sources I've seen that are familiar with both waterboarding (as the CIA does it), and the law.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting passage here too: "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War." This is possibly good material to build out the United States subsection, which I always said would be the most dynamic and odd one due to the contrasting points. However, I just have to emphasize--even if the US DOJ said tomorrow "Waterboarding is not torture" it would just be weighed against the sources. US judicial policies that change with each administration don't supercede all other sources and viewpoints, and the US interpretation of the month on a subject has no more weight than any other nation's viewpoint.

Do you understand where I am coming from? That the US administration's take on waterboarding deserves no special precedent or priviledge, as this is an article about waterboarding, which is a historical activity that is used world wide? Remember that Misplaced Pages is global. The US is just one country. Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So the the CIA claims what its doing is legal, AND?!? We don't know what this suppossed legal guidence says, and its the job of the CIA to lie to push the aims of the US government. Its just an evidence free claim that should be only mentioned in passing in the legal section (its just a not guilty plea). 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be how it is in the movies, but as I've said before, the CIA has rejected operations in the past because their lawyers turned them down.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW: HRW is sometimes a reliable source but you have to be extremely careful. For example, sometimes they'll just quote the words of a fascist who'd recently been released from GTMO. It's proper to use that as a source as long as we attribute those words to the fascist who said them, and not to HRW since they generally don't really vouch for his veracity.

Don't ever forget that these "human rights" groups need a lot of money. Often, what you're getting is an advertisement.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 ? Lawrence Cohen 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that they need a lot of money. I'm a former member of Amnesty, and I seem to remember getting plenty newsletters with a request for more donations. This isn't so much of a criticism by itself; money is important.

If you read closely, they're generally pretty good at not saying that they vouch for what's being said. My big gripe with using HRW isn't so much HRW but when a Wiki editor takes something HRW says, and attributes it to HRW without being clear whether HRW really stands behind the words.

What I've said probably applies more to an article about GTMO or some other prisoner. If HRW is expressing their own opinion on the law, then what I've said doesn't necessarily apply.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant"

Yes, I understand where you're coming from but the fact that "Misplaced Pages is global" doesn't change the fact that most of the other opinions and examples are irrelevant.

Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures. Their politicians can say anything they like. They're no different than Nancy Pelosi who allowed secret waterboarding when the pressure was on her, and pompously decried it in public after the danger had passed. Foreign governments also haven't had these types of leaks to the media, and so we don't know what they're really doing at the moment.

I wouldn't put too much stock on the idea that future U.S. administrations would operate much differently. As Andrew McCarthy noted, Hillary Clinton and Obama have both allowed for the possibility that they'd use extreme measures if the situation called for it.

The U.S. military's use may sound interesting to you but it's deceptive and irrelevant. The UCMJ also forbids other interrogation methods that would be perfectly acceptable for local police departments.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures."

I boggled when I read this. You do realize this encyclopedia is for a global audience, and that non-Western and non-American sources and views have equal validity, value, and worth here, correct? If you honestly believe that anyone can allow a US-centric viewpoint to hold on an article on a global topic like this, I think you've got the wrong encyclopedia. This isn't Conservopedia. Lawrence Cohen 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about left or right.

The audience here is global but I'm looking at to what extent the subject of contemporary waterboarding is global. If an article on rugby covers a debate on some obscure rule, the opinions from American football fans may not mean so much (to the extent that we're covering opinion anyway).

I don't think the Swiss opinion on whaling is particularly relevant either, since they're landlocked and not particularly hungry.

Europe is a part of this war but they didn't have these two or three high value detainees. Or, if they did, they quietly put them on CIA flights and washed their hands of the matter.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. It might help to get quotes from top foreign leaders (not lower level politicians), and see how they compare to the Clinton and Obama quotes with qualifications that I linked above. I would like to know how many of them say they'd never do this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the stakes for the value of the sources keep getting raised, each time we demonstrate that the sources overall are fine. First it was a question of the qualifications, then the relevance of the sources to the Gitmo situation and detainees, and now we're up to heads of state. In other words, you'll not let this go unless someone can produce quotes from Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putir, or Pervef Musharrif! If we produced those, would we need to then offer signed United Nations declarations? ;)

Unfortunately, I think this boils down to the impetus being on you to provide evidence of what you want the article to say. Sources, please, as we've asked five times now (I'm going to bother pulling the diffs of each request). Who says waterboarding isn't torture? Link the sources. You can put them here, in the section we created for just this purpose, which remains empty since Ka-Ping Yee added it at 03:45, 8 December 2007.

Please post links and evidence, or else I think we're done on this topic for the time being. Lawrence Cohen 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, your sources are all opinions.

That's fine with me. I don't really want to go over all this again. It would have been over a lot sooner had we had a clear resolution on letting facts speak for themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to confound whether torture works with whether waterboarding is torture. It sounds that you are going to go looking for quotes stating that torture (or waterboarding) is effective. Remember (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that torture is an effective interrogation tool, and that is part of the problem here in this backwards discussion. It is the responsibility of Randy to provide sources for what he wants to include. If he adds sourced statements I'm not certainly not going to remove them, so long as they are compliant with RS, NPOV, and the rest. He hasn't yet edited the article, so I'm not frankly sure what he wants us to do. There is clear consensus as to the value of the sources everyone collected. If he wants the article to not say waterboarding is torture, demonstrate that there is a conflict on the is/isn't nature of this. Otherwise, why are we even discussing this? Personal opinions are worthless for article content, and we unfortunately only have personal opinion so far to go by. It's honestly almost getting to be disruptive now. Lawrence Cohen 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the distinction. It's come up before but I would agree with everyone if that's what it was about.

My last point about foreign leaders was merely an observation that there's an imbalance in types of opinions. For example, the opinion of a lawyer for the CIA could be compared to a lawyer for MI6. As it is, the opinions we're documenting are further removed from the subject.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to today's Washington Post, the FBI disputes the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation tool.--agr (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

If you support the current neutrality tag at the top of the page please state your specific reasons below why you believe this article is not neutral. If you do not state these reasons, this tag will be removed. Remember (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion is divided. Quality of opinion matters more than quantity. Andrew McCarthy is former US Justice Department prosecutor. One good lawyer with strong research and strong argument can beat 100 lawyers with weak research and weak arguments. He can beat them like a drum. If we reach place in future where British court say "This is torture" and American court say "This is not torture" then we report it that way. Opinion still divided. But if courts are unanimous then we say "This is torture."

If this case go to court now with 100 lawyers saying "this is torture" and one lawyer saying "this is not torture," can you say with 100% certainty that he will not win? With greatest respect to you Lawrence, from what law school did you graduate? In what court do you rule as judge? If none then how can you be certain?

We must say this is controversial. We must say opinion is divided. But we cannot say this is torture. That is very strong word. We must be neutral. This is foundation of Misplaced Pages. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So I assume that you are saying that stating that waterboarding is torture is POV. This issue has already been decided on this talk page and therefore should not support a neutrality tag. If you want to argue this point again on the talk page, feel free to try to create a new consensus and then we will adjust the page accordingly. Remember (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this to be so, you really should attempt to change the title of Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe next time. For now I work on this one with you. But everyone agrees that rack is torture, yes? Not so here. Not everyone agrees that waterboarding is torture. Keep editorial opinions and conclusions out of encyclopedia article. Use strictly neutral language. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Global warming. By FAR, global warming is more controversial than waterboarding, and many people, including whole government administrations, actively dispute it is happening and/or real. The first line of that article?

"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

Many critics actively disagree with that. There is no controversial weasel language used there to sugarcoat it. Why? Because if a tiny/ultra minority disagree with the overwhelming body of evidence, it violates NPOV to give the irrelevant minority a disproportionate voice here. Next, read Evolution:

"In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."

MANY religious groups consider evolution to be fake. But here we state this sentence as fact. Minority viewpoints get a minority viewpoint treatment in Misplaced Pages articles per WP:WEIGHT. That is NPOV. Because members of a given political party in one country may or may not dispute that waterboarding is torture, does not invalidate that all the other sources consider it so.

I've asked Randy thrice, I'm asking you now: Give us sources. *WHO* disagrees that waterboarding is torture, besides those lone two sources, that are editorials? John McCain calls waterboarding torture. John Kiriaku, a CIA agent interrogator, calls it torture. Nance, who trained interrogators, calls it torture. Human rights groups call it torture. Members of the US senate and congress call it torture. Who disagrees? Sources, please. Lawrence Cohen 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "Because if a tiny/ultra minority disagree with the overwhelming body of evidence, it violates NPOV to give the irrelevant minority a disproportionate voice here." No minority is irrelevant. Biology is not law. Other articles are for other editors to discuss. There are two voices you admit and they are not just editorial columnists. They are lawyers and one is a former US Justice Department prosecutor. With this language that you use Lawrence, you call into question your own objectivity on this issue. McCain is not a lawyer. Kiriaku is not a lawyer. Expert legal opinion is divided. We must report it that way especially in the lead sentence of the article. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Expert legal opinion is divided."

Please provide evidence of this, including links we can verify this statement at. Several editors on this page have made similar statements, but no one has provided me solid evidence yet. Sources? Lawrence Cohen 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on minority and WP:FRINGE viewpoints going unmentioned, Jimbo Wales and policy disagrees with your viewpoint. You said, "No minority is irrelevant." Please read this.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

That is pretty much how we operate. Lawrence Cohen 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If a notable published source states that waterboarding is not a form of torture, I would say we should evaluate that for inclusion into the article. But such a view should not be privileged in the lead. I think this should satisfy everyone. Regarding "who is an authoritative opinion," I provided evidence just above regarding the International Tribunal following World War II, showing that waterboarding was definitively called a form of torture, but it seems to have been ignored. Badagnani (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been ignored, but it appears to have gone unacknowledged for some reason. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From Andrew McCarthy's article in National Review: "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.241.196 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is not neutral? List here

Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral. If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag. Remember (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of the tag in a day or three if no reasonable material is provided. Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a form of torture." Those are the first six words of this article. They are not neutral. Shibumi2 is making an outstanding argument. Nowhere in the article is Andrew McCarthy, or anyone else who believes waterboarding is not torture, even mentioned. That is not neutral. You have presented one side of the argument, and pretended that the other side of the argument doesn't even exist. That is not neutral. By leaving the article like this, you confirm all of the criticisms about Misplaced Pages.

Actually, his arguments are nice, but not of much convincing power since they lack evidence: what sources? McCarthy is not yet mentioned because that source came up while the article was protected for almost two months because people who weren't logging in were vandalizing. Also, one source from one person saying waterboarding is not torture is not sufficient, as has been explained repeatedly. What are the sources? Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, his opinion has now been added to the article. Remember (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it. Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again what is not neutral? List here

Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral. If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag. Also please suggest any alternative wording. If you are objecting to any phrase related to the assertion that "waterboarding is torture," please note that editors have come to a consensus on this determination and if you want to revise this determination you should do so on this talk page. Remember (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help?

Can editors here settle any disagreements through discussion, or would you like outside help? - Jehochman 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over the word torture

Misplaced Pages does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture in a US Court using the specific legal definition of torture as it applies to the US constitution. All it has to do to say "waterboarding is torture" is fulfil its policies by showing the vast majority of notable and reliable sources say "waterboarding is torture" with torture defined as by a reasonable persons understanding of the word torture. Most definitions of torture will cover being forced to choke and drown until you beg for it to stop, and we have many notable sources that say it is torture by thier reasonable definition. 06:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that we have not found any sources stating that "Waterboarding is not torture." When we get a source that is authoritative that states this, we will integrate the information into the page. Remember (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a source that is authoritative that says this. From Andrew McCarthy's article in National Review: "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.241.196 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Even that isn't exactly a strong statement that "Waterboarding is not torture". As stated in the article: "Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture."

Also it should be noted that the author makes the following assumptions to base his conclusion that waterboarding is not torture:

"It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury...Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen. The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?" So first, he assumes that waterboarding is not painful physically when others have stated otherwise. Also he agrees that prolonged use of waterboarding would be considered torture, which is what people are usually threatened with in an interrogation situation I would assume. Nevertheless, the information is valuable and should be integrated into the article. Specifically it should be in the new section that discusses whether waterboarding qualifies as torture. Remember (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One possible authority on one article does not define the tone of an entire article; it would be the height of a WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT violation to do so. Why is McCarthy's opinion of more worth than all other sources we have listed in the article and on this page that are pending to go into the article? Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a strong enough statement to take those six words out of the lead. Andrew McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former federal prosecutor, is saying very strongly that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. By leaving this article the way it is, you are confirming all of the criticisms about Misplaced Pages.

If you want to refight this fight, go ahead. But I'm not sure that this will be enough to sway all the editors on this page to reverse their previous position. Remember (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Swaying all of them is not necessary. As you are aware, it is sufficient to show that the lead sentence of the article, as it stands, is not supported by a consensus or by Misplaced Pages policy. Shibumi2 is correct. Expert opinion is divided on this issue.

You are completely backwards on consensus. Consensus is not "everyone" agrees; at all. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. McCarthy's editorial opinion is one opinion alone. Why is his of such extraordinary value as to override CIA staff, United States Senators, and historical documents? Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

1)Andrew McCarthy is talking about the Legal definition of torture under US law, not whether it is torture (not the same thing see above). Also his uneducated views on the physical effects of waterboarding should be removed as he has no experience of seeing or participating in waterboarding. 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting here that we should remove any references in the contemporary section to opinions of those who have no experience with the CIA's method of waterboarding? If so, then surely we shouldn't include non-lawyers either when discussing the legal definition of torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"CIA's method of waterboarding" Lets get rid of this piece of silliness, there is no evidence of a "CIA method", maybe if there was say a video of the interigations that would provide evidence. But no there is no evidence of a CIA method" where they give them a teddy bear or something to make it nice torture. 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been established that there are different methods of waterboarding.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem right there. The contstant invocation of legal definitions and other things like that serve no purpose. The CIA, US attorneys, and US government can have an opinion, the same as the French government can, and the Iranian government. Their views are just as valid. Foreign? Yep! Also, Misplaced Pages isn't a legal authority its a general purpose encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages isn't a tool for information dissemination, and verifiability is our goal. Are we adding verifiable information? Do most people consider waterboarding to be torture? Do most reliable sources consider it to be torture? If the CIA, Bush, or Putin say tomorrow they don't consider it torture, we'll certainly make a note of that, but that one statement alone can't and will not trump the entire body of other thought on this. This is the way the verifiability and NPOV cookie crumbles. Lawrence Cohen 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say it that way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The overall consensus of sources is that waterboarding is torture. We thus say, 'Waterboarding is a form of torture' in the article lead. We still don't have any comparable sources to say otherwise. That is what we're required to do. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that a wide array of notable people, experts, and others consider it torture--that is consensus. What comparable sources do we have that say waterboarding isn't torture? Any controversy over that--is/isn't--is not acceptable to present or convey in Misplaced Pages without sourcing. The only controversy I'm seeing is whether waterboarding is acceptable, which the article lead does not address directly. Again, give us sources that demonstratively state waterboarding isn't torture. The section for that on this very page is still empty. If you disagree with this all, please go to WP:DR. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already argued that. The position that opinion becomes fact when it's broad enough is what won out for the moment. I jumped in here to protest the notion that Andrew C. McCarthy's opinion should be excluded for reasons that wouldn't be applied to the critics.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

2)"Expert opinion is divided on this issue" Quite simply it is not, one more time, we have world expert doctors in torture and its effects that say its torture. We have people who have been waterboarded that say uniformally that its torture, as well as statements from people trained to do it that its torture. You have two op-eds that it might be legal and/or justified if done to BAD people. The experts say its torture, end of story, elvis has left the building. 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, a general note to what Hypnosadist said about McCarthy's views of torture under US law. Why exactly would a Misplaced Pages article base a definition of waterboarding as torture, or not as torture, under anything to do with US law? The US is just one nation, here. Waterboarding is a global topic. The article will eventually need to be adjusted so that if someone says they feel waterboarding is ... with whatever the is, is, we're clear that they are speaking about relative to laws in their own nation in that context. Whether or not the US attorney general considers it torture is irrelevant to most other countries. Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why exactly would a Misplaced Pages article base a definition of waterboarding as torture, or not as torture, under anything to do with US law?" This should be obvious. US has waterboarded three high value Al-Qaeda detainees. Pretending US law is not relevant is like pretending it is not relevant in US elections or US foreign policy. It is the reason why waterboarding is in the news. I am very busy this week due to final exams. Holiday greetings to all. Very constructive discussion. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Certain people believe that the US President is not bound by any law or treaty when defending US citizens, does that mean the rest of the world agrees? Nomen Nescio 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi, the Khmer Rouge used waterboarding on thousands of people so should we call re-education? Of course not! 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding new section - Waterboarding's classification as torture

I was going to add a new section to the page to specifically discuss the classification of waterboarding as a form of torture since I think this article needs to explain this issue. Any thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken source - help

Would someone mind checking out the last current source in the Mental and physical effects section? For some reason I can't get it to go correctly, and I think I'm missing something obvious. Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a stumper. Found a line feed in there that didn't belong, but that didn't fix it. I'll look at it tomorrow if it's not yet fixed.

If all else fails we can remove the "cite news" macro but I'd rather not try that yet.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried too, and failed. But I'm not too good at this reference coding stuff anyways. Remember (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. I looked at it again, and it looks like the same formatting as all the rest. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference seems to have disappeared again. I think the reference coding should be simplified (it's very complex right now), and it will probably reappear. Badagnani (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding versus water cure

Water cure describes the technique as "forces water into the throat or nostrils of the subject to inflict the terror of drowning, without causing the subject to drown.... A similar form of water torture is known as waterboarding, where water is poured over the face or head to invoke the instinctive fear of drowning."

Huh? These two articles need to make the distinction more obvious. As I understand it "waterboarding" is the covering of the face while water is poured over it to evoke gagging and fear of drowning, while "water cure" is the forced ingestation of water to expand the stomach. Water_torture#Terror_of_drowning supports this distinction. But does waterboarding necessarily have to be carried out with the subject lying on his back on a board? I added a paragraph about James Parker to water cure; he did something that sounds very much like waterboarding (certainly, it was not pumping water into the mouth to force swallowing and enlargement of the stomach), but he did it with subjects in chairs (presumably with head forced back), not lying on the back on a board, which goes against the current title and lead of this article. Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding?

Waterboarding also mentions "When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach." suggesting that ingestation of water is considered waterboarding. Hmm. Maybe this should be moved to water cure?

Part of the problem here may be that water going in to the mouth will end up in the lungs and stomach, and the use of the face covering does not seem to be restricted to waterboarding (eg. see water cure#Japan "A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face."). Also note that in the same paragraph Chase J. Nielson giving testimony refers to the water cure as feeling "like drowning". Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding? And water cure#Spain notes "Before pouring the water, torturers often insert ...a strip of linen (known as the toca) on which the victim would choke and suffocate while swallowing the water." So, what is the difference? Can the articles make the difference clearer? Or are we talking about the same thing, just that waterboarding happens to be done lying on a flat board? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the BBC, "Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately." So the position of the person, or presence of a board, or cloth in mouth versus face covering, does not seem to be that important; the main thrust of the definition is that the method invokes the gag reflex. Any other definitions/opinions? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at this photo please. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg This is photo of South Vietnamese soldier using American-style waterboarding technique on Viet Cong prisoner in January 1968. Notice no board. Also no gag in mouth. Cloth was simply placed over face. One canteen of water is used. No other container of water visible anywhere. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And according to dictionary.com and the Oxford English dictionary, "water cure" is "torture by forcing a person to drink large quantities of water in a short time" and "a method of torture in which the victim is forced to drink great quantities of water". So unless anyone objects, I would suggest clarifying the descriptions, and swapping over the cases that are misclassified in these articles. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage Magazine is not a valid source to use in Misplaced Pages

Per the following I've removed this advocacy website that doesn't meet WP:RS. See:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily

Frontpage Magazine upon closer review appears to be basically pushing nothing more than a strong anti-Muslim agenda and not much else in the form of editorials with no editorial review. Per those consensus discussions FP doesn't appear to be a valid source so I've removed it here. Lawrence Cohen 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates, formatting

All the existing references are now fully updated; I just finished. If you guys can, please use the citation templates for additions? I use this tool that I found to make it easier:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php

We'll want that for when we take this to Featured Article status. Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I've been bold and put Waterboarding up for a GA review. Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.

2. Factually accurate?: No. Most content appears to be OK in this respect. However, substantial content is not adequately cited. This includes, for example, the assertion that Dick Cheney "seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding", which is cited to a blog (and not a reliable source), or the first paragraph in "Classification as torture in the United States", both sentences of which need citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: No. All major aspects of the topic appear to be addressed, but the article goes into unnecessary detail over the current controversy surrounding waterboarding in/by the US: roughly half of the article is dedicated to that issue. Excessive detail includes the lengthy Cheney transcript, the coverage of the YouTube debates and the long sections about the alleged waterboardings of individual terrorists. These texts are of little informative value about the subject of waterboarding itself. Please remember that this is an international project (this reviewer is Swiss) and the minutiae of U.S. political controversies are of limited interest to people wanting to learn about a torture technique.

4. Neutral point of view?: Generally yes. Much effort has been made in this respect, and commendably so, but the excessive detail mentioned above has the potential for WP:WEIGHT or WP:COATRACK problems.

5. Article stability? No. On this day alone, the article has undergone substantial changes in numerous sections.

6. Images?: OK.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sandstein (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article deserved to fail Good Article nomination. I strongly object to NPOV problem in lead sentence of article. I have one final exam remaining tomorrow and will visit this subject in great detail upon completion. Expert opinion is divided on issue of whether waterboarding torture as practiced by United States CIA interrogators. We must use NPOV. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Err what experts? The regime that practices torture is undue weight. There are those who say it is torture, and there are those who refuse to say a thing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal definition of torture

Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann is attorney of US Army Judge Advocate General office at Guantanamo Bay. Hartmann denies that waterboarding is torture. Andrew J. McCarthy is attorney who worked for many years as prosecutor for US Justice Department. McCarthy denies that waterboarding is torture. McCarthy also observes that Congress declined to identify waterboarding as torture in 2006 when passing new law about torture. John Yoo is law professor at Stanford University. He is former assistant attorney general for Justice Department. He say that CIA enhance interrogation techniques are not torture. Waterboarding was known at that time to be part of enhanced interrogation techniques. Alan Dershowitz is law professor at Harvard University. He says that waterboarding is not torture in all cases.

McCain is not an attorney. Kiriakou is not an attorney. Most sources cited by "Waterboarding is torture" advocates on this page are not attorneys. They do not understand international law or US law with depth of meaning as attorneys understand it. Expert opinion is divided on this issue. I urge editors here to consider quality of sources rather than just quantity. These are not just attorneys. These are some of the most prominent attorneys in United States. John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz serve as law professors at two of United States most prestigious law schools. Do not pretend that they should be ignored. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that unless waterboarding is legally defined as torture, we shouldn't call it torture, and that opinions of attorneys are more highly valued than others in this subject matter? Also, your opinions are specific to the United States in the above examples. Do you agree or disagree that this is not an article just about waterboarding as it relates to current US politics? Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes on your comment -

General Thomas W. Hartmann did not say that waterboarding isn't torture, according to the source you provided he said: “I’m not equipped to answer .”

Andrew J. McCarthy did not say that waterboarding isn't always torture. In fact, he stated "There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture." But did state that just doing it one or twice or "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive" would not qualify in his opinion but that "reasonable minds could differ".

John Yoo never said that waterboarding wasn't torture because we have NO statement from him on this issue. What we do have is the Bybee memo which states its conclusion that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture toture is defined as "acts inflicting...severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical." Physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Mental pain "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years," as well as be the result of one of the specific causes of mental pain contained 18 USC 2340, "namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party." It is unknown whether even under this definition Yoo would not categorize waterboarding as torture.

Alan Dershowitz does not say that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, he suggests that waterboarding IS torture in his article by stating things such as: "Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur?". He is arguing that waterboarding is justified, not that it doesn't qualify as torture.

Please provide sources that say waterboarding is not torture if you want to support this assertion.Remember (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about John Yoo, but Prof. Dershowitz does consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. However, he believes there are circumstances when torture is permissible: "The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832.

Furthermore, the term "torture" is not some newly coined legal term, it has a long history, and as an encyclopedia we can rely on its plain English meaning. Here is how Dr. Johnson defined it in his A Dictionary of the English Language, p.746: "Torture, n.s. Torments judiciously inflicted; pain by which guilt is punished, or confession extorted; pain; anguish; pang." --agr (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

John Yoo SHOULD be ignored, he is a culpable member of the administration that revived torture by the US. Grossly undue weight. A torturer does not get to redefine a crime he is PERSONALLY culpable of as part of the regime. War criminal. Wiki is about PLAIN ENGLISH - who gives a rats ***e what some administration lawyer says to protect their own **** from winding up in the Hague. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Andrew McCarthy's expert opinion was first discussed on this Talk page on December 6. But McCarthy wasn't even mentioned in the article mainspace until December 18. I think it says a lot about the lack of objectivity by the partisan editors who are trying to own this article. The arguments by Shibumi2 are powerful and persuasive. Expert opinion is indeed divided, and the article lead is too important for that fact to be deliberately covered up by political partisans with an agenda.

If John Yoo should be ignored, then every critic of waterboarding who has a political agenda should also be ignored, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, every Democrat in Congress, etc.

His arguments "sound" persuasive by sidestepping key policy requirements of Misplaced Pages. As for our objectivity, please remain WP:CIVIL. McCarthy was not added to the article, because the article was locked and protected from editing for months because people made non-stop edits without support, fighting each other. Lawrence Cohen 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages certainly can't simply ignore John Yoo. But we can note his role working for an administration that allegedly employed waterboarding. Furthermore his published positions pointedly do not mention waterboarding. For example here Yoo defends his "torture memos" saying "definition of torture in the August 2002 memo is narrow" and that "Under this definition, interrogation methods that go beyond polite questioning but fall short of torture could include shouted questions, reduced sleep, stress positions (like standing for long periods of time), and isolation from other prisoners. The purpose of these techniques is not to inflict pain or harm, but simply to disorient." We can argue that elsewhere, but waterboarding is clearly in a different category. HE goes on to say that in 2005 the Justice Department "issued a new memo that superseded the August 2002 memo. Among other things, the new memo withdrew the statement that only pain equivalent to such harm as serious physical injury or organ failure constitutes torture and said, instead, that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain." It's hard to find support for the proposition that waterboarding isn't torture in those statements. --agr (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For all advocates of "waterboarding is torture" argument it is more than sufficient to shoehorn all of this into the second paragraph of the article and the first footnotes of the article:

Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations.

I am "being bold" and editing the lead paragraph to reflect the fact that expert opinion is divided. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was already reverted by another editor. You can be bold by making changes, but your edit summary that the "issue is resolved" isn't appropriate. It's not your decision alone. Lawrence Cohen 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit summary for the revert: "rv expert opinion is not split on if its torture just if its legal to do it in america." John Yoo was expressing an opinion on whether enhanced interrogation techniques, which included waterboarding in 2002, were legal UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. The naked partisanship of the politically motivated editors who are trying to own this article is painfully obvious.

Shibumi2's version of the lead paragraphs was superbly crafted. It accommodated everyone's concerns and accurately reflected the divided state of expert opinion. It is unevenly divided: more of the experts believe waterboarding is torture. Shibumi2 reflected that fact by listing them first and acknowledging that they are in the majority. It's obvious from his hasty edits on this Talk page that Shibumi2 is not a native speaker of English, which means that he invested a lot of time and effort into makeing his mainspace edit a perfect one.

Respect that effort, people.

Now that I've created an account, I'll be able to edit this article in four days. Let's invest those four days trying to reach an amicable agreement about the lead sentence of the article, that doesn't completely ignore Shibumi2's position and mine, for the sake of your partisan agenda. Neutral is good. Pretending that one side of the argument doesn't even exist, and that the other side of the argument is the only one that exists, is not good. It is a deliberate defiance of the founding principles of Misplaced Pages. Those principles are not negotiable. Neutral Good (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides John Yoo's statements, what sources do we have along these lines? Please list them. One person certainly doesn't represent a controversy. Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They have been listed here repeatedly. In addition to Professor Yoo, Andrew McCarthy states unequivocally that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all cases. Taken in the proper context, Thomas Hartmann's remarks can only be reasonably understood to mean that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all circumstances. All three are prominent attorneys. If I invested half as much time in this as you clearly have, I could probably find a dozen more. Neutral Good (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Yoo's comments on torture

It seems, from his public statements, that Yoo does believe torture is permissible, if "good" people are doing it for a "good reason," against "bad people" (or the children of those "bad people"). Note that the term "torture" is used, and Yoo responds in the affirmative when asked if it is permissible.

From http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,hentoff,71946,6.html :

On December 1, 2005, in a debate between Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel and John Yoo, Cassel asked Yoo:

"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

John Yoo responded: "No treaty."

Doug Cassel: "Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo ."

John Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A clever misdirection, sir. In the discussion you've just cited, Professor Yoo was discussing whether TORTURE would ever be PERMISSIBLE, in the memo that has been previously cited, Professor Yoo was exploring the question of whether ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, which included waterboarding in 2002 and were believed to be legal under US laws forbidding "torture," would also be LEGAL under international laws forbidding "torture." Please don't feign stupidity. When discussing "torture" in 2005, Professor Yoo was not necesarily discussing enhanced interrogation techniques; and when discussing "what is permissible" in 2005, he wasn't necessarily discussing what is legal. Also, I respectfully submit that if World Net Daily is too partisan to be accepted as a reliable source, then so is the Village Voice. Neutral Good (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Enhanced interrogation techniques," however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture. Thus, the term itself is an evasion. Regarding the source provided, I don't believe the public testimony of Yoo is in question. Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

" 'Enhanced interrogation techniques,' however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture." Until you can prove that it was "invented" specifically for that purpose, that is just your unsupported opinion. And you know where opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. They belong nowhere. My opinion is that it was "invented" to carefully, legally and fairly distinguish harsh but lawful interrogation techniques from the hysteria (and partisan motivations clearly displayed here) that surround the use of the word "torture." As McCarthy so insightfully pointed out, the law has taken great care to distinguish torture from perfectly legal forms of interrogation. You and your friends are deliberately trying to erase this distinction. Shame on you. Neutral Good (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"does not believe it inflicts pain"

Can we remove the quote from the online Commentator? (someone named Jim Meyers?). Evidently he "does not believe "waterboarding" inflicts pain." Are there really people that subscribe to this thought? People that expect that if they were waterboarded, it would not be painful? We should remove this, as the author is not notable or an expert of any kind on this subject? There are much more notable journalists who would also not belong in this article. Nospam150 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive blanking without consensus

Would the editor who blanked a massive amount of text, without consensus, in this edit, from this talk page please restore it? A good deal of that is still under active discussion, namely the sources that state that waterboarding is or is not torture, and in this light it doesn't make logical sense that it was removed. Thanks so much in advance. Badagnani (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid it. When I had done the trimming archives before it was either ancient pages or resolved trivial ones. Do not blank active talk page discussions from this page again; it would be vandalism and would be reported as such. Lawrence Cohen 06:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't blanked. It was archived. Now you're not only trying to own the article, you're trying to own the talk page. Neutral Good (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Lawmakers: Mukasey must reject "waterboarding", Reuters via Yahoo News, October 29, 2007
2. CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees
3. Cite error: The named reference HRW open letter WB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Davis, Benjamin (2007-10-08). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff". University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. "Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners". CNN. 2007-10-10. Retrieved 2007-12-18. The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War". Democracy Now!. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-12-18. I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture — burning, electricity and beating, and so on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
7. "Torture's Terrible Toll". Newsweek. 2005-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."
8. Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 225–226. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'".
9. Bell, Nicole (2007-11-03). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |(empty string)= and |coauthors= (help) "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
10. "CIA Whitewashing Torture". Human Rights Watch. 2005-11-21. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "There is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, despite the administration’s reluctance to say so,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.
11. "Amnesty International Response to Cheney's "No-Brainer" Comment". Amnesty International. 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees