Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Poll: Please participate

Yes, voting is evil. No one needs to flay the dead horse again here. Simple poll:

• Legal status of waterboarding in any legal jurisdiction: does this carry any extra special value for us, over "opinions" of experts? This is specific to the is/isn't torture question, which is not going to go away until we have a consensus that is acceptable to the bulk of the editors here.

Yes

2. If the law specifically mentions "Waterboarding". Otherwise it may not apply. Perhaps... if it does not use the term waterboarding but describes the process as illegal, that might be ok, though at that point our use of it is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
3. If the law has been applied to convict someone of waterboaring then it is appropriate. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as japanese in the second world war (check) and american troops in vietnam (check). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as its explicitly banned for all US military personel to do it as its torture. Of course its been banned in europe since the late seventies (violation of the ECHR). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No

1. Lawrence § t/e 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Our statement that waterboarding is a form of torture should be based on the ordinary meaning of the word. We are a general encyclopedia, not a law journal. The legal status in various countries, where we have sourced information on it, should be noted in an appropriate section in the body of the text. That a country wishing to use waterboarding might attempt to twist its legal definition of torture to exclude waterboarding has no bearing on what we call it. The discovery of a 1991 GAO document, noted below, that shows both the General Accounting Office and the Defense Department routinely used the word torture in connection with waterboarding should end this discussion once and for all.--agr (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Complex answer

1. It depends. A verdict by a competent court, one way or the other, would certainly carry some weight. But the lack of such a verdict does not mean that we have to discard all other evidence. The notion that "nothing is real until a court in my country has determined it" is entirely fallacious, not to say stupid, and is certainly not even acknowledged as a legal fiction in any jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Also wp:weight means if waterboaring was legal in one country but illegal everywhere else the vast majority should be given vastly more space and time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   I don't disagree, but I want to again point out that the question of the classification of waterboarding as torture and its legality are two distinct issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you the classification of torture is a semantic and medical (there are proceedures to measure and quantify if torture has happened to your patient). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The question is indeed complex. Controversial articles should ideally rely on secondary sources written by experts. Written laws, although relevant, are a primary source, and ideally should be interpreted by expert secondary sources. However, it is appropriate to quote a primary source to illustrate issues identified by a secondary source. (This is my current understanding of Wikipedia sourcing - if I'm wrong, please enlighten me.) Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I doubt if there are enough sources for the article to cover the question of the legality of waterboarding in different jurisdictions. Virtually all jurisdictions have a ban on torture (whether adhered to or not), therefore waterboading is illegal if it is to be defined as torture, however the question has never have been submitted to legal judgement in that jurisdiction. The United States is the exception; there the legality of waterboarding has been raised but the question appears to be still open to debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that it is likely that waterboarding is not illegal in some countries. These may not be countries we would prefer to live in, but they exist. In these countries laws may not be so well codified that they can be reviewed and analyzed either. And, I should also point out that the issues of waterboarding being torture and being illegal are not exactly synonymous. It may be considered torture, but legal (like in those countries I just talked about). So, legality is not exactly a statement that it is not torture in at least some cases.--Blue Tie (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe waterboarding is not illegal in some countries then find sources to that effect. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it works the other way around. In order to assert something, it must be established. If it is illegal in a certain country the laws of that country should be cited. That would be either Legislation, Regulation (or Decree) and/or Judicial Ruling. But you are missing my point by looking for sources. I was not suggesting this be added to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to cite to specific laws. Other RS that discuss the matter in question are 100% acceptable. Laws are primary sources and not preferred. Lawrence § t/e 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But your stance is not supported by history, precedent, practice, or consensus. Lawrence § t/e 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested minor and non-controversial improvements

• Spell term consistently as "waterboarding" throughout. In two places forms of the term are spelled with a hyphen: "water-boarding" and "water-boarded". Elsewhere it is an open compound "water boarding".
• Under "Technique", in the third paragraph "According to some experts, information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable..." the "according to some experts" seems like weasel words and unnecessary, although the overall sentence is supported by a citation from Human Rights Watch. I suggest replacing these four words with "As with any method of torture,". There is no point in confining the information as to reliability of supposed confessions to one particular method of torure. All coerced information-gathering would face the same problem.
• Under "Contemporary use and the United States," fourth paragraph, "answer" should be pluralized.
• Under the section "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed", there is a messy sentence where his name is being pressed into too much service: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once." I suggest it be replaced with: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogators. The officers called this 'bravado' and claimed that he was waterboarded only once."
• In the section "Abu Zubaida", his name is once spelled as "Abu Zubaydah". The third paragraph has the phrase "some discrepancies regarding reports about the amount of times Zubaida was waterboarded." Because the times are countable, the word should be "number of times," not "amount of times".
• Under "Controversy in the United States", fourth paragraph, the word "respondents" is once misspelled as "respondants".
• Under "As a political issue in the 2008 presidential election," there is a confused sentence: "For example, Rudolph Giuliani stated in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, he stated ..." That should read: "For example, in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, Rudolph Giuliani stated:"
• Add "Category:Torture devices" to end of article.
  — Objectivesea (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll support that good hard work, nice improvements Objectivesea. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll start implementing these suggestions. henrik•talk 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Lawrence § t/e 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i suggest one extra edit; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the discription of the picture of waterboarding could Vann Nath be wikilinked to his article.

 Done. (When "water boarding" or "water-boarding" were used in direct quotations I did not change them) henrik•talk 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i suggest yet another minor edit; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Enhanced Interrogation Techniques exists as a wikipedia article, could a wikilink be added to following text in the forth section (Contemporary use and the United States).

  In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed that the CIA engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda.

 Done henrik•talk 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New sources

A primary source from the DoD that they use waterboarding. [1] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the story mentioned at the start of the above article about the simularities between the SERE tecniques and what happens in iraq and gitmo. [2] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reminder on consensus

Consensus absolutely does not and will never require unanimous support. Lawrence § t/e 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of wish you had felt that way in November. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in October and November, before we had collected over two hundred sources and viewpoints on Waterboarding, I bent over backwards in organizing so that all views would be considered at least on talk here. Once I saw the body of evidence and RS were incredibly solidly to one side, I made a decision in my mind that would be best for Wikipedia in direct opposite to my own personal beliefs. And I personally stand by that to this day. And I've never believed consensus had to be unanimous, because the idea is insane. Any one person, or five, could filibuster progress anywhere on Wikipedia then. It would be a very stupid idea. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job. And.. you had a consensus version of the lede, which you then compromised in order to get ... what you supposed.. would have been unanimity. In trying to get unanimity you pushed the lede too far in one direction and it fell over. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right, Blue Tie. Neutral Good (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First use of Waterboarding, pre-2000

Has anyone found a use of the term "waterboarding" (or "water boarding" or "water-boarding" (or waterboard, water-board, or water board)) in any reference about interrogation or torture prior to 2000?

I ask about the use of the term waterboarding, not of the act. I am convinced that the act -- whatever it is and was, whether or not it was, is, or will be torture, in several if not many variations -- was done prior to 2000, but I am beginning to have doubts that the act was ever called waterboarding before 2000. What it was called prior to 2000 would be interesting (especially if reliably sourced) but it's not really relevant.

I want, please, a citation to someone using the term "waterboarding" (or variants as above) in this context before 2000.

An article written in 2002 describing acts in 1994, 1944, or 1444 as "waterboarding" does not qualify. An article written in 1994 would.

Thank you. htom (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think you can assume that people have looked for pre-9/11 uses of the word and haven't found any. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Roosevelt was right" source says it was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” in the 1902 congressional hearings. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to find pre-2001 sources then i think that it will be hitting the books time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a search of a newspaper archive and did not find anything. However, I do not think the database (71 million articles) was that good. So I am trying a database that I believe is comprehensive. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So far the oldest article I can find is dated May 13, 2004. In searching though, I found two sources that will be very interesting for this article. One source says that Waterboarding comes from "The dirty war" in Argentina where it was called "el submarino". The other source details the discussions in the US Administration over its interrogation techniques and.. I THINK ... it has a complete official description of what waterboarding is.  !!!! --Blue Tie (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pre-2001 sources:

Navy Training Safety: High-risk Training Can be Safer : by United States General Accounting Office, Toby Roth - 1991

"The GAO reported that the Chinese water board torture is not an official part of the curriculum and some special Naval warfare personnel indicated that the exercise has no place in this training course"

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower - William Blum, 2000

".. tiger cages"—hooded and placed in a 16-cubic-foot box for 22 hours with a coffee can for their excrement—and a torture device called the "water board": ..."

So yes, "water board torture" is not exactly a new term, though was usually referred to as "water torture". The "ing" may be new. I assume that the "waterboarding" phrase was preferred in 2001+, to avoid the word "torture".

I tried to start a similar discussion before. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding&oldid=181937700#Sources_before_2001

Nospam150 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed your previous effort but this is great. You deserve some sort of barnstar. For other editors the link to the oldest reference identified - the 1991 GAO report calls it the "Chinese Water Board". Here is the link: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the GAO report calls it the "Chinese Water Board Torture" and uses the word torture every time it is mentioned (4 times). The report describes it as follows: "During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/ drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment. " The Department of Defense response to the report, on p.53, refers to it as the "Chinese water torture board."--agr (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work Nospam150! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The books and newspaper articles about the Vietnam War usually call it "the water treatment." Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the the term "Water board torture" was not invented in 1991 either. I hope that we can find earlier references.

On this subject, as Waterboard-ING seems to be a relatively new term, I think we should add some "also known as" clauses to make this article more historically correct. Note, the "Painting of Waterboarding" image predates any use of this exact word.

"Waterboarding (also known as Water board torture or Water torture) is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages."

Where:

• It is called "Water torture" in 1969/1970.
• It is called [Chinese] "Water board torture" in 1991
• It is called torture using a "Water board" in 2000.
• It is called "Waterboarding" in 2001.

You could add Water Treatment too, if that was used in newspapers at the time of Vietnam. I only saw the 1997 book with this. Nospam150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to call it water torture -- even recognizing the sources, because I believe they are identifying it as a type of water torture, but not as the only thing that is water torture. There are a variety of tortures with water. Also, I have not seen a source say it is called "Waterboarding" in 2001, and it is original research to say it is called "Water Torture" in 1969/1970. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This makes no sense. It is as if we should state that the piano did not exist in the early 1700s, because it was called a gravicembalo at that time. Suffocation with water, of a prisoner bound to a board, is, by definition, a form of torture now, and was during the Vietnam War when it was called "the water treatment," during the Khmer Rouge regime, when it was called by whatever Khmer term was used--the practice and definitions are the same. Badagnani (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I think it make sense. If A is a subset of "Alphabet", it is incorrect to say "A is the Alphabet". If a 3-wheel Isetta is a type of Car (some may debate that), it does not mean that Isetta = Car. Isetta may be a type of car (depending), but not all cars are Isettas.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This makes no sense. The opening paragraph does not state, "Waterboarding is torture which consists of the suffocation, by the use of water, on a prisoner who is strapped to a board"; it (properly) states that "Waterboarding is a form of torture..."--by definition, the way an apple is a form of fruit or football is a form of sport. Badagnani (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question:How does it make no sense? Your comment makes no sense to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)The question was, in your context, when the word "piano" was first used to describe a hammered string instrument worked by keys. That the piano was previously called the gravicembalo does not establish when it was first called the piano; it was also called the fortepiano and the pianoforte (and going on about the differences between them is going to show that you're missing the point, I asked about first use of the word to describe the method, not first use of the method.)

• resuming htom (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Water treatment" I heard in the late 1960's, to as the name of the activity described below as "Chinese water board torture" and I suspect that it occurs in some of the autobiographical writing of those who served in Vietnam. Good find, Nospam150, and thank you.

Looking at the entire paragraph devoted to Chinese water board torture in the GAO report, I am inclined to think that the authors are being very careful to distinguish between "Chinese water board torture" (which was not authorized, was discontinued, and is described) and something else (marked in bold, below) which is similar but neither named nor described by them:

The Chinese water board torture demonstration is another potentially

dangerous exercise that has been conducted during IsIJD/S training in the past, even though it was not an official part of the curriculum. During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/ drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment. Some experienced special warfare personnel told us the exercise has no place in HID/S training-training that is specifically designed to provide the basic physical and technical skills essential for a career in naval special warfare. An exercise similar to Chinese water board torture is a part of an advanced survival course where, according to special warfare professionals we interviewed, it more appropriately belongs. In the advanced course, the drill is conducted with a psychologist

present at all times to monitor both the instructors and the students.

I am inclined to think that the distinction that the authors are making may be (eventually) be found to be significant. (And that the undescribed similar exercise is what the government calls "waterboarding"; how different it is we don't know.) htom (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is pure speculation. The paragraph you quote describes the "Chinese water board torture" exactly the way recent press reports that discuss CIA interrogation describe waterboarding. And there is nothing in the quoted text that suggests the "similar" exercise given in the advanced survival course is not torture; on the contrary, we are told it is "conducted with a psychologist present at all times to monitor both the instructors and the students." That hardly suggests it is more benign.--agr (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually htom, has a point. To say that "Chinese Water Board Torture" = "Waterboarding" is actually original research now that I think about it. Though I would agree, it seems to be the same thing, that agreement is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie read wp:nor it says;

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source

the GAO report says;

The Chinese water board torture demonstration is another potentially dangerous exercise that has been conducted during IsIJD/S training in the past, even though it was not an official part of the curriculum. During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment.

our article on waterboarding says;

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent

i say without specialist knowledge;

"Chinese Water Board Torture" = "Waterboarding"

hope that helps you understand wp:nor. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same argument applies to this source [4] which has waterboarding called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.”. It says about the chinese water torture;

“A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit on his arms and legs and hold him down, and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin ... is simply thrust into his jaws, ... and then water is poured onto his face, down his throat and nose, ... until the man gives some sign of giving in or becomes unconscious. ... His suffering must be that of a man who is drowning but who cannot drown

Note of course blue tie that this is a secondary source that says that the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” is waterboarding so no chance of OR anyway. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Torture

How about this for an opening paragraph?:

"Waterboarding is an enhanced form of interrogation that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. The subject may experience the sensation of suffocation and some incidental inhalation of water, the subject imagines the feeling of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent, though he or she is in fact completely safe.In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding is performed in ways that leave no lasting physical or psychological damage, it carries the risks of temporary discomfort. The psychological effects on participants in waterboarding have generally been found to be minor to non-existant," -71.84.8.177 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - "enhanced form of interrogation" is a euphemism recently promulgated by a regime using this torture technique. Most of the rest of the statements run counter to the actual sources we've been considering for the past few months. Have you read the discussion archives? Badagnani (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't feed the troll.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

you believe this to be a sock puppet? --neonwhite user page talk 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a vandal. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How? the page is protected? --neonwhite user page talk 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that BlueTie refers to the previous edit history of the proposer. I am inclined to oppose because I am very unsure of the "safety" of the described method; a little study of a drawing of the internals of the human neck shows that face down may less likely to damage the breathing passages (and be less likely to induce the gag reflex.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would normally Support, but since the proposer is clearly an SPA vandal, I will Abstain. Neutral Good (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It is evident from the proposed decision at ArbCom that they will not resolve this content dispute for us. We are expected to resolve it outselves. I suggest WP:RFM. I would be willing to accept any result that arises from such a process if it will stop the bickering. Neutral Good (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but it's probably best to wait until after the arbitration concludes. Surprising things can happen during the voting process. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its official "CIA admits waterboarding inmates"

This story from the BBC ->[5] and on super tuesday, what a coincidence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly shocking. Interesting passage from that article, and keep in mind the BBC is an exemplary reliable source, so we're certainly going to use this:

"Waterboarding, condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments, is an interrogation method that puts the the detainee in fear of drowning."

Very critical wording there. Lawrence § t/e 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so this passage, and possibly a number of others (I admit I haven't read this article too closely) should probably be updated to reflect this admission: "Many reports say that intelligence officers of the United States used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism.". I figure that part is for example now sort of redundant as CIA themselves have admitted to using this interrogation technique. — Northgrove 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources:

An article in the February 7 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald under the headline US admits water torture. Note that this article reports that three (named) people have been subjected to waterboarding, and the confirmation came in hearings before the US Senate by CIA Director General Michael Hayden. Hayden banned the practice in 2006, but it is still permitted with the approval of the AG and the President.

A similar report from the February 7 edition of The New York Times under the hedline Spy Chief Confirms Three Waterboardings. This article uses more guarded language, but does directly quote Hayden's testimony.

It was preceded by a more detailed Reuters report Bush Approved CIA Disclosure on Waterboarding.

Based on these relaiable sources, it seems to me that the article section Waterboarding#Contemporary_use_and_the_United_States can be substantially shortened and re-written in a definitive way. There is no doubt that the CIA has used waterboarding. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2004 "Waterboarding" vs 1991 "Water board torture"

Is the "Chinese Water Board Torture" referred to by the 1991 US GAO report the same as what is referred to as "Waterboarding" in 2004. If they are not the same, how are the acts different, and how are the two terms related?

Should the opening line be:

Waterboarding (also known as "Water board torture") is ...

or

Waterboarding is a CIA interrogation technique similar to "Chinese water board torture" in which ...

Either "Waterboarding" is another name for "Water board torture" which is very similar to the Inquisition Toca torture,

Or "Waterboarding" was invented by some creative CIA agents with too much time on their hands and any resemblance to previous torture techniques is coincidental.

Nospam150 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an etymology section at the start of the history section would be better, or starting each paragraph in the history section with what it was called in that time period. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

article on CIA's view of waterboarding - thinks its legality is questionable

Interesting article on Hayden's recent testimony - [6]. Money quote - ""It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said. Though now legally questionable, Hayden said waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time period when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees. "All the techniques that we've used have been deemed to be lawful," he said." This information (or at least a link to the article to reflect the CIA's view) should be added to the article. Remember (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

UN special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak: U.S.'s defense of waterboarding "absolutely unacceptable"

See article. Badagnani (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times reports WH says waterboarding is legal

Here's a link to the article. Finally a statement from the administration on the practice [7]. Remember (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding torturers saying it is legal - so...., the question is whether it is or is not torture. criminals do not get to define crimes. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I included this link not to point out that it is legal, just to point out a source to add to the article that shows that Bush administration's definitive statement on waterboarding. Remember (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA allowing contractors to use Waterboarding

Just wondering if you have seen this article yet from the Wall Street Journal, which says: "CIA Likely Let Contractors Perform Waterboarding"

"The CIA's secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program.

Many of the contractors involved aren't large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said. Their identities couldn't be learned.

"The broader involvement of contractors, and the likelihood they partook in waterboarding, raises new legal questions about the Central Intelligence Agency's use of the practice, ..." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241180470751381.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Broaden

This article is way to American-centric. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, considering that technique has been used for a long time and in many different circumstances. Could we consider using WP:SS to reduce the undue weight given to current US practices (which are only one example of many) once this is unprotected? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SS would help. We do have zillions of extremely good recent sources, and rather fewer old ones. This is not an issue of undue weight, but if anything of systeic bias (and is this case, of systemic bias in the sources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's undue weight because in historical perspective this is just one example. I don't disagree that we have more sources on it; that's obviously true. But when we are trying to present a picture of waterboarding as a general practice it does not make sense to have more than half of the article be examples from the last five years about the US military. Much of the merit of summary style is that it allows basic articles to be balanced and anyone who wants more current information see it as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's inevitable that most of this article is going to be about the recent use of waterboarding by the U.S. against certain people and the political controversy that resulted. But the level of detail in a lot of the article can be reduced--the quotes are too extensive, we don't need to say much about KSM/Abu Zubaida other than that the U.S. gov't. has acknowledged using waterboarding on them, the presidental campaign section can be reduced, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus there is no reason to delete accurate sourced info, i still say the way to remove the US bias is to split the US section of to US waterboarding controversy and leave this article to cover the method, effects and history of waterboarding. At the same time we could do the much needed re-write of the US section now the CIA says it has waterboarded. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Hypnosadist. There should be a separate article on the issue in the United States. I've only heard press coverage about the US regarding this issue, not any other country. Spencer^T♦C 15:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this article doesn't need to tell the story of how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated; he's got his own article, where that information can be found. All this article needs to do is note that "the U.S. has acknowledged using waterboarding against three suspected terrorists after September 2001: KSM, Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri." As for "deleting sourced information", do you really think that having a 10-sentence quote from Rudolph Giuliani is essential to the article? There are an excessive number of quotes and the quotes are excessively long. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"All this article needs to do is note that "the U.S. has acknowledged using waterboarding against three suspected terrorists after September 2001: KSM, Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri."" Thats just not true, it does not give any context to those statements.

"do you really think that having a 10-sentence quote from Rudolph Giuliani is essential to the article?" To this current article, No. To the article US waterboarding controversy they would be very notable quotes as part of the Presidential Race of 08. There is just no need to delete when a split would enhance the encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors in opening paragraph.

Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]

Lung and brain damage is lasting physical damage. The inhalation of water and later respiratory ailments that can arise are lasting physical damage. Broken bones are deemed lasting physical damage due to the fact that breaks remain prominant and complications can occur with them for many decades after the injury is occured. Psychological effects may be deemed 'physical damage' under almost all legislation in common law countries as well as most codified countries.

Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians,[8] war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[11] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14]

Any interrogation method that involves applying physical force to a prisoner, restraining them and asphyxiating them especially, would be deemed torture by any sensible educated person. The contention of whether or not it is torture, in my opinion, is merely indicative that there have been trolls present claiming it's a legitimate interrogation method. The fact of the matter is, if there were a census to be held and we were to vote on whether it is torture or not, there would be an overwhelming majority affirmation that it is.

Thus, I suggest someone edit these passages to remove all weaselism, or we'll get straight to the voting. 58.107.154.192 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussions above and in the archives. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --neonwhite user page talk 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable

I am stunned that the clear fact that 'Waterboarding' is torture is even being debated. The problem here is that Wikipedia is so very US oriented. It makes Wiki unbalanced and frankly, it sometimes make it look very stupid. It is probably symptomatic of a wider isolation of many in the US from world opinion. If these were U.S. citizens being tortured there would be an outcry of (Justifiably) indignant rage. 'Only in America' as the saying goes. This hypocrisy is at the very heart of the plummeting reputation of the U.S.A. around the world. 'Practice what you preach' and 'Do unto others as you would be done to yourself' also come to mind. Anyone on this website who argues that 'Waterboarding is not clearly and blatantly torture, is very, very stupid almost beyond words. All this myopic hypocrisy will come back to haunt the U.S.A, especially when it come to preaching down to other countries about Human Rights and the Environment. A store of problems for the US and American citizens in the future....... So sad, and so utterly, mind-bendingly stupid. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.99.110 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Born in the USA, live in the USA, and I agree. I'm afraid the melting pot is distilling itself. --Mbilitatu (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing morality issues. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble 'Neon White', this is clearly and unequivocally NOT a 'morality' issue, it about fact and logic. Misplaced loyalty and patriotism should not blind anyone into accepting the unacceptable. Their is a lot of waffle on this page about what it was called and when this practice started and when it was called this or that. All, frankly, of little in any relevance. Any procedure that is physical, and causes pain or discomfort or fear of imminent death in the subject are torture. Simple isn't it? The fact that a few yahoos think that the current conflicts justify it's use is irrelevant. I might add that it also makes a mockery of the U.S. Constitution, putting the U.S. into the same category as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. This is clearly not a moral issue, it is most blatantly a factual one. Expending pages of diatribe one what something was called at what date is a total red herring. Unless this Wiki page truthfully and accurately describes 'Waterboarding' as a form of torture, it is holding up the whole principle of Wiki' being of any relevance as a useful source of information. Morality doesn't enter into this issue. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.135.239 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again this is not a forum for dicsussing personal views on the subject, talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? Wikipedia is about verifiable statements, not true ones. Your definition of torture is rather sloppy; not providing supper on Tuesdays may make a prisoner feel discomfort, but it's not reasonably considered to be torture. What you dismiss as waffle and of little relevance is what makes an encyclopedia reliable: the grains of reliable fact are sorted from the blizzard of opinion and guess. You "know" what waterboarding is; we're trying to discover and verify from reliable sources what it is. Your conclusion may be correct, but we are not supposed to jump after it. htom (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issues here are factual or moral. There isn't a huge debate on the procedure. The debate is on what we label it ... torture (with all that comes with that label) or "enhanced interrogation technique". These are perceptual issues, conceptual issues. What is being debated here is which perspective to choose, which label to choose. I imagine that the bulk of the world thinks that this perceptual argument is as silly as debating whether or not The rack is torture or an "enhanced interrogation technique".--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eeesh...There is plenty of sloppy and inaccurate crap on Wikipedia for sure. However, some facts are clear and obvious enough that any reasonable adult accepts them as clear facts. We aren't talking about minor points of academic interest here. We are talking about an issue that is seen as typical of 'Western Hypocrisy' by the Arab world, - quite correctly too as it happens. It's as corrosive as the sort of stupidity we saw at Abu-Graib. It's for the idiotic yahoos who think that it is NOT clearly torture to come up with something concrete to the contrary. Perhaps they might like to volunteer to try the experience.....? Perceptual/conceptual....are you crazy..? Crucifixion....perceptual...??? I think there are a few people in here that need a severe reality check and perhaps a break from the keyboard into the daylight. There is no real issue about what this procedure entails (It's an old procedure, just given a typically stupid euphemistic modern name.), just an issue about the absurd denial that it is not torture... If it's so acceptable, perhaps it should be introduced as a standard induction procedure for all Wiki editors..... PP.

I think you misunderstood my point. I agree it is obvious beyond all doubt that waterboarding is torture. Be that as it may, this debate exists. And I think it exists because interested factions are trying to control the perception by trying to influence the label. Thus, I think this Talk page is mostly arguing over the perception of waterboarding. I don't think there is any reasonable debate to be had over waterboarding itself. Sorry about the confusing post.--Mbilitatu (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a refief...! I think that what clearly needs to happen here is for the burden of 'Proof' to shift to those who are seeking to suggest that the obvious facts should be re-interpreted to fit their politically slanted views. PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.180 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Politicians" -> Carter

On two occasions, I believe, an interview with Jimmy Carter on CNN is used for the argument that "water boarding is considered torture by various politicians" or something to that respect. The source, the interview with Carter, however, makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. That source therefore makes it inappropriate for that statement in the article. I would suggest if you would like to keep "politicians" in that you use perhaps something McCain has said about waterboarding. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but due to the attacks on this article its still protected. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is clear consensus, I or any other admin can edit the protected article accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get concensus on a split (see section above) and then this could be delt with in more detail. Meanwhile this story from newsweek is mentioned above as a source for McCain's views [8] and the ref could be added to make "politicians" mean more than one politician. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another article by someone who experience waterboarding

Recent article by a person who was waterboarded in a controlled setting calling it torture. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great source! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also helps with the etymology of waterboarding as well. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

proposed addition

I can't figure out if my addition is related to the supposed content dispute under arbitration, so I'll leave my submission here in the hopes that it is integrated by a more knowledgeable admin. I propose placing it before the last paragraph on opinion polls in the section "Controversy in the United States".

Numerous military authorities have decried the use of waterboarding. In 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the senior uniformed lawyers of the four armed services for written commentary on waterboarding; all four stated that the practice was inhumane and illegal. They were subsequently supported by several retired colleagues. Similarly, in December 2007 twenty-eight retired generals and admirals wrote an open letter to the House and Senate intelligence committees urging them to prohibit the CIA from engaging in harsh interrogation techniques. The same month, the Armed Forces Journal wrote an editorial declaring, "Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. ... And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work."

Thanks, BanyanTree 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about legality

I noticed this piece in the Vietnam War section of the article: "Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War."

Sadly, the resulting link is not more detailed. Where these generals talking about internal Department of Defense policy, or was there a law at the time making waterboarding illegal? Certainly, generals don't make laws.

There was also a mention on The Daily Show about illegality in WW2. Apparently, there was a case where interrogators using waterboarding were sentenced to death under US law. It aired sometime in the past week or so and [10] would have the clip. It's obviously not a very good reference, but it might be a good starting to point to find that information, which may be helpful in the article. The-Bus (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the U.S. soldier from the famous Vietnam waterboardin photo was court martialled, found guilty and thrown out of the army. He would've been subject to US military law, and as far as I know Judge Advocate General's Corps officers are partly responsible for both drafting new laws and amendments, and also advising on the practice and applicability of existing laws. Of course, it would be good to have more information on this specific case, so feel free to investigate further. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across HILAO v MARCOS, which states, "In the next round of interrogation, all of his limbs were shackled to a cot and a towel was placed over his nose and mouth; his interrogators then poured water down his nostrils so that he felt as though he were drowning. This lasted for approximately six hours, during which time the interrogators threatened Sison with electric shock and death. At the end of this water torture, Sison was left shackled to the cot for the following three days, during which time he was repeatedly interrogated." I, of course, found this through the 2004 memo by Daniel Levin. But I really doubt the United State's stance here is important for the lead's definition of waterboarding. Various United Nations officials, particularly those involved with human rights and torture, have unambiguously stated waterboarding is torture, I think there is more validity to what they say than what the U.S. Attorney General does. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit please

{{editprotected}} The following paragraph is being requested for placement in section 6.1 "United States" as the last paragraph. It is current news, pertinent, simply stated and referenced.

President Bush of the United States has defended the use of waterboarding for interrogation in an interview aired by the BBC February 14 2008. He stated, "We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law," suggesting that waterboarding is legal. On the same day however, Stephen Bradbury, a justice department official gave evidence to a congressional committee regarding waterboarding. He stated, "Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law."

- Steve3849 ^talk 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see this as uncontroversial. Especially the sentence "suggesting that waterboarding is legal" is a deduction, not something he actually said. And the source is insufficiently complete to fully support that deduction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heres the transcript from the BBC. [11] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frei: The Senate yesterday passed a bill outlawing water-boarding. You, I believe, have said that you will veto that bill.

Mr Bush: That's not -

Frei: Does that not send the wrong signal...

Mr Bush: No, look... that's not the reason I'm vetoing the bill. The reason I'm vetoing the bill - first of all, we have said that whatever we do... will be legal. Secondly, they are imposing a set of standards on our intelligence communities in terms of interrogating prisoners that our people will think will be ineffective. And, you know, to the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn't have prevented? And so, the United States will act within the law. We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law. Now, I recognise some say that these - terrorists - really aren't that big a threat to the United States anymore. I fully disagree. And I think the president must give his professionals within the law the necessary tools to protect us. So, we're not having a debate not only how you interrogate people. We're having a debate in America on whether or not we ought to be listening' to terrorists making' phone calls in the United States. And the answer is darn right we ought to be.

Frei: But, given Guantanamo Bay, given also Abu Ghraib, given renditions, does this not send the wrong signal to the world?

Mr Bush: It should send a signal that America is going to respect law. But, it's gonna take actions necessary to protect ourselves and find information that may protect others. Unless, of course, people say, "Well, there's no threat. They're just making up the threat. These people aren't problematic." But, I don't see how you can say that in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers. And, so, what people gotta understand is that we'll make decisions based upon law. We're a nation of law. Take Guantanamo. Look, I'd like it to be empty. On the other hand, there's some people there that need to be tried. And there will be a trial. And they'll have their day in court. Unlike what they did to other people. Now, there's great concern about, you know, and I can understand this. That these people be given rights. The - what - they're not willing' to grant the same rights to others. They'll murder. But, you gotta understand, they're getting rights. And I'm comfortable with the decisions we've made. And I'm comfortable with recognising this is still a dangerous world.

Thats the relivent bit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, Bush does not make a clear statement about waterboarding and its legality (or even his belief of its legality). The bill in question would outlaw waterboarding and other techniques, and Bush is only talking about "the tools". I find Bush stupid and scary, but we should stick to verifiable facts. BTW, I find Lieberman outright unbelievable: "We have to allow the president to allow the toughest measures to be used when there is an imminent threat to our country" - so either he is way more stupid than I would expect, or there is at least one US senator who is fine with electroshocks, the rack, and the blowtorch. Of course only if the president thinks there might be "an imminent threat to our country".... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've considered your points and see their validity. So anyway, let me attempt once more: the quote by the Chief and Commander is not being misconstrued here. The CIA has publically admitted to waterboarding and the President is saying in reply to a waterboarding question that the United States is within the law. To say this requires deduction is a long stretch. The referenced news article itself is reasonable enough. To suggest that there is an issue of deduction in the reference material gives the President the grace of not having answered the question. Yet, he did. He makes controversial statements regularly, but I contest although his statements themselves are controversial there is not necessarily a matter of dispute in my edit. This section is about the United States and waterboarding. Who better to quote than the current President and the head of the justice department office of legal counsel? I still think my edit is both neutral and relevant. The following is my new edit, please reconsider:

President Bush of the United States has defended the use of waterboarding for interrogation in an interview aired by the BBC February 14 2008. He was asked a question regarding waterboarding. In reply he proposed that one question whether information that has been received in interrogations has been valuable and stated that "the United States will act within the law." He also stated, "We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law." Also on February 14 2008, Stephen Bradbury, a justice department official gave evidence to a congressional committee regarding waterboarding. He stated, "There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law." The CIA has admitted to using waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay in interrogations in 2002 and 2003.

Admittedly my knowledge is novice and perhaps naive. I won't be pressing further. Maybe someone else can pick up the ball if they find it worth doing so. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. No clear consensus. The article is already far too much focused on waterboarding as a contemporary US political issue, IMHO (see WP:RECENT). Sandstein (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was no longer protected. The edit request didn't get removed promptly. My apologies, but thank you for the additional feedback. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding probation - ALL editors are now restricted, please read

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation. All editors are bound and restricted by this, indefinitely. Will someone please add the appropriate templates here? Lawrence § t/e 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom having come to a conclusion, and having instated remedies (other than keeping the article protected over a long period of time), I have requested unprotection of the waterboarding article, at the protecting admin's talk page: [12] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the warning template from the article page because this template has been traditionally used on the talk page only. There is a comment at the top of the article warning about the probation. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the Proposal to Delete the Waterboarding Image

If I was the subjected to waterboarding, I would consider it torture.

Furthermore, the image makes the subject more concrete than abstract words. The image alone immediately grabs the attention as extreme -- much faster than words could ever do. Deleting the image makes the discussion too abstract; it divorces the reader from the reality of the extremity of the practice.

Truth should not be suppressed just because it is uncomfortable to think about.

Mclaypool (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_8 to register your point of view formally (As should anyone else who has an opinion). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding intro.

The lead states, "Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners," and provides this source. However, I do not see that source as a very supportive one in that it doesn't claim waterboarding gained attention because of the media's outing of this secret. The Newsweek article from June 21, 2004, does seem to be among the first major news sources to discuss the waterboarding issue in the United States. Based upon that, however, I think the sentence is sort of implying that investigative media persons revealed and uncovered a big secret, when really it looks like the White House was putting it out there and especially when the CIA themselves revealed they used waterboarding. So I think more realistically the notoriety did not come from the media reporting the CIA, but rather the CIA reporting what they themselves did.[13] ~ UBeR (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Waterboarding gained attention and notoriety in the United States when it was reported that the CIA had used the technique in interrogating certain extrajudicial prisoners"? Avoids the question of who reported this. Although I do think that there were press reports of waterboarding before government sources acknowledged it, I don't have any citations right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stories about waterboarding at gitmo surfaced around 2003, these were unconfirmed reports that were denighed or ignored by the whitehouse. One source in the list at the top of the page is from late 2005 [14] but there will be older ones. It has only just been confirmed by the CIA. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Two new newspaper articles

• A Washington Post article writes about the testimony of Steven G. Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, to a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee subcommittee. Bradbury wrote two secret memos in 2005 that purported to authorize waterboarding; in the testimony he attempts to distinguish United States use of such torture from similar methods employed during the Spanish Inquisition and subsequently - Dan Eggen, "Justice Official Defends Rough CIA Interrogations: Only 'Severe, Lasting Pain' is Torture, He Says"] in Washington Post, 16 February 2008
• A New York Times op-ed article by a United States Air Force colonel who was chief prosecutor of the "military commissions" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007, argues that the use of torture by United States armed forces and CIA agents lowers the world standing of the United States, jeopardizes U.S. soldiers and hampers legitimate judicial efforts which must reject unreliable and illegally obtained evidence - Morris Davis, "Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence"], New York Times Op-Ed Contributor, 17 February 2008
  

Objectivesea (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding liability

Some nice articles discussing the torture thingy and possibility of prosecution.[15][16][17][18][19][20]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Waterboarding under the UDHR

This is a small point that I don't think requires debate. The United States Supreme court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." That deserves mention in this article because the article is unclear whether the US is bound to follow the UDHR.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a secondary source that mentions this case, but it certainly seems relivent to the application of the UDHR to waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I bumped this down to the US section, as it's only relevant to the United States. See edit. Lawrence § t/e 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to write the article

I think the following should be added to the article in the history section between Colonial times and World War 2;

After the Spanish-American War of 1898

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops to waterboard, when the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army. [21]

I'm not bothered about the wording but i think this set of events is important to this article and the current US debate. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any suggestions to improve the above proposed section, or any objections? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding this now article is unprotected. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Lawrence § t/e 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Subdividing this Article

As this article is now over 64 KB in size, it is now twice the sugested maximum length for articles. Some of the talk about the article concerns its apparent US-centredness. Arguments are made that this is a distorted focus; arguments are also made that such a focus is legitimate, given the current use by the U.S. government and the current arguments about its use by a modern democracy which in most other ways respects human rights. I suggest that the article be divided into two -- the main Waterboarding article and a new article: Use of Waterboarding by the United States (or some similar title). The main article could briefly summarize the U.S. usage in a single paragraph with a link to the new article: For a fuller discussion of this, see also Use of Waterboarding by the United States
Objectivesea (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Split I support this, also will help with the modern US undue weight. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Conditionally, of course. The US sub-article will I presume be subject to the existing probation, as a related page, and will need to be tightly monitored to not advance any fringe theories or viewpoints. It can't be just a POV fork. Lawrence § t/e 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Waterboarding use by the CIA is not "current." It stopped in 2005, which is three years ago. If the article is too long, trim out the repetitive chanting of every "waterboarding is torture" source under the sun, and select a few that are representative with links to the rest. Neutral Good (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Waterboarding use by the CIA is not "current." It stopped in 2005" Thats only if we believe them, don't forget they said there were no secret jails in eastern europe but there were, etc etc iran/contra etc etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take my evidence over your speculation any day of the week. Neutral Good (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Support In its current form there is undue weight toward the US. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alleg quote/edit by Randy

Here. Why is this being qualified, that it could not be verified? We simply are not allowed to do this--it's original research. We report what sources say, and regurgitate their outside views without changing them or qualifying them to our own moral or ideological views. Doing so is to compromise article integrity and break Wikipedia. Just as importantly, the bit put into the article was a copyvio, word-for-word off page two of the source.[22] Lawrence § t/e 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That first part doesn't really matter now that I think about it. I actually like it better without the note about verification.

The rest of it does indeed matter. The reader needs to know that this source is extremely biased. WP editors aren't supposed to limit the article to that which fits their own POV without alerting the reader.

This was in no way a copyvio. The quote is small enough that it easily fits within WP:FAIRUSE guidelines.

I'll leave it up to the rest of you consider whether this should be part of a section on the reliability of waterboarding. After all, if people really want to believe Alleg, he may be the only man who never cracked under waterboarding.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alleg has his own wikipage, add the info there. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been gathering information for that. It'll be a while.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment from the Time review is entirely off-topic here. This is an article from 1958, at the time of the coldest cold war. The reviewer is using guilt by association for a weirdly inconsistent ad hominem. The quote is also very much taken out of context, as the reviewer is in no way casting any doubt on the veracity of Alleg, he only invites the reader to speculate on his moral standing on the issue. This is entirely pointless in this article - it might make a footnote in Alleg's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's guilt by association only in the same way that being a member of the KKK is guilt by association.

That doesn't change the fact that Alleg was used here as if he is a credible source. He's not. Readers need to know that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the fact that "communist" is not synonymous with "Stalinist menace to world freedom". There have been and are democratic communist parties around in Europe, and they have been part of several governments e.g. in Italy and France. I'm not aware of a KKK chapter that does not consist of racist assholes, on the other hand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy, constant attempts to discredit or label people negatively for being "communists" by comparing them to the Klu Klux Klan is not acceptable. Consider this (sorry, man) an official warning, and you can get sanctioned under both BLP, as Henri Alleg is a living person, and on the waterboarding probation. You can't go around inferring people are racist. Communists are not automatically Bad People. Please stop. Lawrence § t/e 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the info that Alleg is a communist to the section, he says its why he was in Algeria, he probably still is a communist as they still poll around 5% in France (more in Italy). But there is no need for a "reds under the bed" piece from 1958. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sticking around to argue this out. You can all make this article as biased as you like. If you want to use an interview with a left-wing extremist on a site like DemocracyNow, and not warn the reader, then go right ahead.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Democracy Now! is a political advocacy site, there is no evidence to suggest it is extremist in any way. --neonwhite user page talk 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The DemocracyNow source was only used when Bluetie started claiming that alleg wasn't waterboarded as we understand the term, this is a post waterboarding controversy interview in which he says what happened in algeria is as we know waterboarding today. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other reliable sources that call Alleg's torture waterboarding, if this is an issue: [23][24][25][26] Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate place for "waterboarding is not torture"

Having read the same arguments hashed over ad nauseum for months, with overwhelming references to large numbers of sources clearly and unambiguously calling waterboarding torture, I suggest in all sincerity that such adherents to this fringe view seriously consider turning their efforts to the more appropriate venue of the waterboarding entry in Conservapedia. I do not suggest this as snark or as an insult. I'm simply observing that such passionate defense of waterboarding as "not torture" has a natural home in Conservapedia. The problem with Wikipedia, and this article in particular, is best expressed by Stephen Colbert: "Facts have a well known liberal bias." -Quartermaster (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL, Quartermaster be careful as this article is under Probation and as such comments like the above could easily be seen as snarky. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Even more funny is Consevapedia has some sources we don't have, which i'm going to use to improve the article, LOLS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

the article I would like to add to your list is one that explains that (b)Waterboarding was a technique used by the CIA on 3 people for a combined total of less than 5 minutes and all before 2003. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM2ZDRlOWY4OTdjMWFiNjZlYWUwZmNiYjRjNGQwZDM#more

It seems to me that the whole issue needs some perspective. After all, willing volunteer participants have endured Waterboarding for longer than those 3 men did just in the interest of gaining journalistic experience. Noahs SUV (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)NS

Found nothing about Michael Hayden in the story. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The National Review article is an opinion piece, not a reliable source. If we can find a reliable source on who made the 5 minutes claim, we can add the information to the US section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is torture defined by how long it takes? I don't think so. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have referenced a seperate article.Somehow I merged the two bits of information in my memory as being from the same place. I'm going to delete that original sentence about Michael Hayden so that it's not an inaccurate statement anymore. The article that includes his statement can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-13-senate-waterboarding_N.htm

Editors again attempting to delete Vann Nath painting from Wikipedia

See [27]. Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can no one draw a picture of waterboarding?

I was the original nominator of the Van Nath image, but at this point I don't really mind whether it gets deleted or not--its historical significance (at least w/r/t the Khmer Rouge section) is at least arguable. What I do mind, though, is the lack of a free image in this article. It is frustrating is how this image is being used as a crutch not to generate free content, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Everyone is investing tons of effort complaining about this image's possible deletion, but no one is willing to just draw a picture that could go at the top of the article, so this could be moved next to the Khmer Rouge section where it belongs. Please, someone just draw a picture. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't. Can you? Maybe no one can. Maybe it's not about using it as a crutch. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you invest some time trying to contact Vann Nath as he painted these pictures so these crimes could be documented, and gave them to a museum for that reason. Yes i did try myself. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who should be investing the effort because I'm not the one who wants to keep them. Regardless, before I commented apparently no one had ever thought of asking any capable Wikipedian artist to help out. And what has been done to attempt to contact Vann Nath? Have you emailed the address on this page? See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Regardless, before I commented apparently no one had ever thought of asking any capable Wikipedian artist to help out" No we had, then we dismissed it as a bad idea. The wikipedian has no real knowledge of waterboarding is and is probably just going to copy this picture or even worse imagine what waterboarding looks like. Many editors have explained to you why this picture is infinitely better than any a wikipedian could draw. You don't accept these reasons, thats fine.

"Have you emailed the address on this page?" I'll email in twelve hours as i'm off to bed, if someone else wants to do it leave a message here so i don't send a second email. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's a better image" is a non-argument. My neighbor's BMW is better than my Pinto, but that doesn't mean I get to drive it. Is this illustration of the citric acid cycle original research, or is it just plagiarized from a textbook? ➪HiDrNick! 02:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Better" doesn't simply mean "visually more appealing," as seems to be lost on you no matter how carefully this is explained. It has to do with authenticity. Nath painted this not for fame and fortune, but to document the atrocities he saw conducted on a daily basis for a number of years. Waterboarding is typically conducted in secret and thus the image of this painting is irreplaceable and of immeasurable value to our article and project. Further, it appears you haven't yet actually read the text on the photo's page, as you were asked earlier, because even the photographer said it was fine for us to use his image, and undoubtedly Nath would agree as well, as the very reason he painted it was so that these tortures (which appear so hellish that no human could have devised them, let alone implemented them on tens of thousands of people) would be known to his countrymen as well as the wider world. It's clear now that, despite WP:SNOW, you don't wish to lose an argument. That's fine; we'll all adjourn and move on to actually improving our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nath painted this not for fame and fortune, but to document the atrocities he saw conducted on a daily basis for a number of years." If his intention is to share his experiences with the world, he can very well release the image into the public domain. Without a release of that sort, you are just speculating about his intentions, i.e., "my neighbor wants me to drive his BMW." "Waterboarding is typically conducted in secret and thus the image of this painting is irreplaceable and of immeasurable value to our article and project." Again, just because something is extremely useful to us doesn't mean we get to steal it. "Further, it appears you haven't yet actually read the text on the photo's page, as you were asked earlier, because even the photographer said it was fine for us to use his image..." That's completely irrelevant, which is why I did not bother to respond to it earlier. The photographer holds no copyright to the image. It is a faithful reproduction of a 2-D artwork, and the artist's copyright interest is the only concern here. "...Undoubtedly Nath would agree as well, as the very reason he painted it was so that these tortures (which appear so hellish that no human could have devised them, let alone implemented them on tens of thousands of people) would be known to his countrymen as well as the wider world." I'm sure that Nath's favorite color was hot pink, and that he loves tea and biscuits and wants nothing more than for all of his art to be exhibited wherever anyone might desire to. The fact of the matter is that you don't speak for the artist, and we cannot assume that he wants his image to be public domain just because it suits us. "It's clear now that, despite WP:SNOW, you don't wish to lose an argument." I find your lack of assuming good-faith disturbing; I also think it would not hurt to familiarize yourself with some of our fair use policies before commenting further. I have no personal vendetta against the image; indeed, if it is public domain after all (and it may very well be, in light of some of the constructive arguments made at DRV), it would be great to have for the article. But it simply is not fair use, plain as day, and WP:100 people !voting to keep the image does not make it so. ➪HiDrNick! 03:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Nick, welcome to Talk:Waterboarding. I see that you've already met the Welcoming Committee. As you can see, if you disagree with them about any of their efforts to stuff as much negative material as possible into this article (in this case, a painting), your motives are immediately questioned. If they can find an excuse to call you a sockpuppet and drag you over to WP:ANI, they will. I hope you've got a thick skin and that you wore your fireproof underwear today. Cheers. Neutral Good (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[28] Reported to ANI, probation violation after repeated warnings. Lawrence § t/e 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is being addressed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_19#Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. I don't see how it is helpful to have the same argument in two places. --agr (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have set a copyrequest to an appropriate email should hope to hear back soon. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me we run in to the same issue with the Nath picture that we have with the ongoing "torture? not torture!" arguments endlessly cycling. Either Nath failed to put in a Teddy Bear showing how innocuous the practice really is, or Nath failed to put in barbed spears stabbed through the skull showing how absolutely horrible the practice really is. My point is that in a lot of ways the debate over the Nath picture reflects the general debate (and I must weigh in that the large majority of debaters calling waterboarding "torture" cite historical precedent and extensive numbers of competent authority, and those arguing otherwise cite Rush Limbaugh et al. Hey, I report, you decide.). Is this a picture of waterboarding or not? That's the real issue. Those wanting to include Teddy Bears gently held by the waterboarding recipients are urged to find those alternative depictions and I propose they add those alternative visual depictions to the article in order to underscore their desire for NPOV in order to display "both" sides of the argument. In this case, the argument is visual. I know. I am SO busted. -Quartermaster (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. I, for one, just really like the free part of our free encyclopedia, and want to make sure that any non-free media that we use is done so correctly. I think the depiction of the practice in the image is accurate and horrible. I know that some people want the image deleted for partisan reasons; in fact, I never thought I'd agree with Neutral Good about anything, but there you have it. ➪HiDrNick! 22:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on an image

Anyone know the status of this one, and who owns copyright? Lawrence § t/e 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a United Press International photo. The details were published in a recent Washington Post article: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced 'a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.'"

Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Projects (?)

Why is this article part of the military history project when it is about an interrigation method, something not in and of itself military related? Also, why hasn't it been rated as to its relative importance if it has already recieved all this official Wikipedia administration attention? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of that project,i can only give you my answer which is waterboarding is part of the War on Terror thus it is part of the military history project. As to why no-one has rated it i'd say ask at the project page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask there except that I'm afraid the importance rating may generate a whole new edit war between the side thinking its "mid" and the side thinking its "low" (which is my own opinion). I'm not trying to ABF of anyone here: I just think that a relative "outsider" who's also a longtime registered user should be one giving the rating if it's given out. Perhaps it's best to just leave that blank, then? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been utilized in military campaigns throughout history. See this article, e.g. This war is no exception. The Army, which does interrogation as well, mentions it in its interrogation field manual. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality + Classification as torture sections

I've added this to each:

We need to globalize these. The US views and opinions are only a small part of what matters in the world, and we need to accurately report a global view. Lawrence § t/e 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• The best thing to do is to place all the court cases in this section under the respective countries, i.e. Norway for the Gestapo, US for the Philipines, et cetera.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Intent of "Torture" as a distinguishing feature

The underlying problem is that the way the opening statement of this page stands, it does not acknowledge possible use of waterboarding as something that is not "torture". Instead it exclaims that all uses of waterboarding are torture. There is at least an argument that this is not true. Waterboarding was used for US NAVY SEAL SERE training before it was adapted into an interrogation technique for use on "unlawful enemy combatants". (I don't remember where I heard this, I'm afraid, but I did see the movie G.I. Jane). In that form, it did not contain the mens rea element that wikipedia and the UN use to define torture: for "such purposes as obtaining ... information or a confession, punishing ..., or intimidating or coercing ..., or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind." Instead, the mens rea for the waterboarding that the SEALs used was to learn to withstand harsh treatment, not to actually get information. I know it's a subtle distinction, and you could certainly make the argument that even in that situation, it should have been classified as torture, (in G.I. Jane it was used for discriminatory purposes) but that's an opinion that should be acknowledged.

Yes, but it was done willingly. If you submit to it willingly, without the knowledge of imminent punishment if you don't, it's really not torture. You enlist in the Navy, you are willingly submitting to what goes with it.70.240.116.229 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this article has turned into a competition between a US centric view of wikipedia and an International view, which is unfortunate because it's been an excuse for US bashing which a lot of American users take offense to, and which is counterproductive.

I have a small suggestion. Why don't we just say "Waterboarding, as an act within the definitions of torture of the UN, has been acknowledged by most governments of the world, including the United States, to been used as a form of torture"? This last part is a reference to the Asano case, mentioned in the article, although it would be good to get some more details about what exactly was the "water torture" that was used in that case. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"I also think that this article has turned into a competition between a US centric view of wikipedia and an International view, which is unfortunate because it's been an excuse for US bashing which a lot of American users take offense to, and which is counterproductive." How very perceptive of you. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I call 'em like I see 'em.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The rack could possibly be used for BDSM as well, but it would still be understood and described, by definition, as a form of torture. Waterboarding has been part of SERE training (as verified by Malcolm Nance, who used to be the instructor for this) so that U.S. personnel know what this torture feels like, so that they are better able to withstand it if ever subjected to it in the course of their duties (although, of course, it is banned by international law in the first place, as a form of torture). In this light, your hair-splitting recommendation, relying on the premise that since waterboarding is used in such training, and thus may not be a form of torture in this context, isn't valid. The idea of this training use actually changing the definition of what waterboarding is (a form of torture involving the suffocation with water of a restrained, inclined prisoner) has been proposed, and dismissed earlier in this discussion. Have you read all the discussion archives? I recommend that you do so before commenting further, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One small point Badagnani. You are quite right to have made the assumption that I have not read all of the archived discussions. I also don't think I should have to spend three days doing so before I comment on what I perceive to be a current flaw on the page. If you have a point to make that is covered within the archive, please refer me to it specifically. Otherwise I will assume that your comment is attempting to obstruct me in making a comment. I've also noticed that you've repeatedly told others on this talkboard who you disagree with not to comment before they've undertaken this laborious task, and I find your efforts to be disingenuous and not in the spirit of achieving a fair and balanced discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that implicit in the definition of torture (and perhaps it should be made explicit) is that the victim's participation in the torture is non-consensual (which is slightly different than involuntary.) Branding a victim, and even the serious threat thereof, would be considered torture by almost all legal and moral standards, but if I was to go to the local body mod shop (you know, the place that does tattoos, piercings, ... and brandings), asked for a brand of the EGA on my right shoulder, got exactly the brand I'd asked for ... would you think it was reasonable for me to then complain that I'd been tortured by the shop owner? Now if someone was to drag me off the street and inflict the identical brand on my shoulder, without my consent, my complaint would probably receive considerably more attention; even if it was ordered by a court, I think I'd have a reasonable complaint. Note that the intent here is of the victim, not the doer. People undergoing SERE are volunteers and consent to such training before they undergo that training. htom (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really splitting hairs. The current version is entirely sufficient, and supported by many reliable sources. However, I would agree to "is a torture technique" (which removes that particular hair, as not every application of a torture technique has to be torture). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem, at first glance, that the phraseology "form of torture" is very similar to "torture technique," although the latter seems to carry the implication that there's some sort of art/skill involved in doing it. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly this seems utterly irrelevant to this article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my comments.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more accurate to call the rack a torture device rather than a form of torture. (Wikipedia's page doesn't call it a form of torture but does refer to the rack being used to torture.) If one is using a rack for BDSM, then you are not technically torturing someone (or yourself), but I take your point Badagnani, that generally, the rack is used as a torture device, because it can obviously be used to torture people. The situation surrounding waterboarding isn't so clear. Is a board a torture device? Not generally. I guess I think that wikipedia should not make such assumptions without establishing facts, especially when those assumptions carry political consequences, and in this case, intent is one of the necessary elements to establish the presence of torture. If you assume that all forms of waterboarding are by definition torture, and the SERE training program is an anomaly, then what's the SERE technique? A training technique that uses something other than waterboarding? It sounds like you are making a community standards argument like with obscenity: If most people think it's obscene then it must be. If most people think the rack's a torture device, it's a torture device. If most people think waterboarding is torture, that's what we'll call it. It sounds convincing, especially since the article doesn't mention the use of it in SERE training, which is odd. Stephan Schulz and htom sum up my point nicely. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "waterboarding" describes the act; following this logic the object used to strap the prisoner to would presumably be called a "waterboard." The U.S. military is free to expose its members-in-training to any forms of torture they see fit; what such training does not do, however, is change the actual definition of these forms of torture. Cigarette burns would most likely not be used in such training because they produce marks, though waterboarding (which has been favored historically by some regimes because it does not leave marks on the body) and perhaps other similar forms of torture such as electric shocks may be used in such training. If I put a coffee cup on my stereo, it doesn't become a "coffee table"; similarly, the exposure of military members-in-training to torture techniques does not change the well-understood definition of the action to which they are submitted. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you assume that all forms of waterboarding are by definition torture, and the SERE training program is an anomaly, then what's the SERE technique?" Torture, just in a consenting setting.

"wikipedia should not make such assumptions without establishing facts" We don't, read the many many many sources in the article and at the top of this page. You will see doctors who are world specialists in the treatment of torture who say its torture as well as victims of waterboarding from the three continents and three different wars. Take the hint Waterboarding=Torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So by that reasoning, does Torture=Waterboarding?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple logic games=loss of good faith. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you accused htom of colaborating with the CIA, I don't think I really aspire to be within your conception of good faith. You sound kind of paranoid. However, to counter your somewhat nonsensical comment, I maintain that I am operating within logical limitations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Considering that you accused htom of colaborating with the CIA" No i accused him working in a way that would acheve the CIA's objectives, not the same thing, anyway I WAS WRONG, SORRY HTOM!. But now you have read the archives i don't have answer your questions as they have been all answered before. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration I'll take the shouting and tardiness for sincerity and say "thank you", even though I'm not sure that that's there. htom (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Malcolm Wrightson Nance was the actual head of SERE training and he says that waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture.[29] Badagnani (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I wonder if he was admitting to committing war crimes when waterboarding was being applied to consenting US military personel, or whether he was saying that waterboarding could be classified as torture when used on non-consenting individuals. htom's comment is on point. Intent matters. The UN doesn't punish people for being into BDSM or getting freaky branding tattoos. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Again specious; Nance states that--in the context of his training--"As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.", "as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool" and "waterboarding is a torture technique – period". Badagnani (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Specious? I'm curious as to what exactly I've said is specious. I just said that intent matters. I guess in your opinion, BDSM is a form of torture that should be punished by the UN? Or what? You just want to shoot down an argument that presents a possibility that defining waterboarding unconditionally as torture should be qualified? I understand your concern. The topic is sensitive. And I appreciate your zealous arguments. They are in fact quite convincing in the sense that Nance is probably a good authority on the matter. But Nance's opinion is not a legally binding definition of torture which is what I'm talking about. (As a small aside I will note that the UN has some sway, although probably not enough to get those poor bastards in Guantanamo a fair trial. The definition of torture and waterboarding we should be worrying about is the one that's most relevant at the moment and that's the definition adopted by the US Attorney General and the US Congress. They are the ones who write and interpret the law as applied to the people who possibly are or have actually been waterboarded. That's why we're having this discussion, not because of some academic interest in how POWs were given water torture during WWII. And, no offense, your opinion that my argument is specious without explaining yourself, isn't going to convince them.) You haven't answered my real point: That the intent of the torturer is a necessary component in defining torture, and so the intent of person waterboarding someone is a necessary component of defining waterboarding as torture. That necessary element is not mentioned in this article and so it gives the wrong impression. That's my point. I am NOT saying that waterboarding cannot be used as a form of torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just have to clarify, that although I agree with htom that the intent of an individual in subjecting himself to "torture" may create an affirmative defense for that torture, the definitional issue of the crime of torture involves the intent of the supposed torturer. Therefore, even if G.I Jane allows herself to be tortured, this could still qualify as torture under the UN definition assuming that she was tortured for an illegitimate reason (discrimination), but the intent of the torturer remains the operative intent element, the mens rea, of the crime. It is also necessary in defining the crime.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this logic game? What are you proposing to make this article better or is this more chaff? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence should be modified to say that waterboarding can be used as a form of torture, not that it is a form of torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"waterboarding can be used as a form of torture" What else is it used for? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from SERE where is used to replicate being tortured by the enemy, by being tortured by your peers. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear whether voluntarily subjecting yourself waterboarding can accurately be legally classified as torture within the meaning of the US or UN definitions of torture but I doubt it. The SERE example is an example where that's taken place, but you seem to dismiss its existence so easily. I can also think of Daniel Levin who was writing a White House memo about waterboarding before he got the axe who subjected himself to it. I doubt that the UN could reasonably prosecute the people who supervised that test for torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The first sentence should define the subject. Compare "A hammer is a tool meant to deliver blows to an object" vs "A hammer can be used to drive nails" (but then so can a stone, the blunt side of an axe, an in a pinch, a robust piece of hard wood). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a more apt comparison would be to a noun that describes an action. For example murder. It's more accurate to say, "Murder is a form of unlawful killing of a human person that requires premeditation," rather than just "Murder is a form of unlawfully killing people." The intent of the actor is important to defining the issue. Without premeditation, unlawfully killing someone might not in fact be murder at all. It could be manslaughter. I do not dispute that waterboarding can be defined as torture. I just think that we need to explain why it can be defined as torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A better analogy would be "cutting a living person's head off is a form of homicide." There may be situations where doing so is lawful, say as a form of execution or when it happens during wartime combat using swords, but it is always homicide. Similarly there may be situations where waterboarding is lawful, as in training to prepare soldiers for possible torture if captured, but is is always torture. --agr (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Homicide does not have a required intent element. Torture does. That is not a better analogy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case people missed it, the intent element (the mens rea) of torture under the UN's definition in the United Nations Convention Against Torture is: for "such purposes as obtaining ... information or a confession, punishing ..., or intimidating or coercing ..., or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind." Under the US's definition in 18 USC 2340, it is: "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."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case cdog missed it, we use a standard english definition of torture, and SERE waterboarding is torture. If you want to say the SERE training is not torture then find a source, we have sources that say it is torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, are you referring to English law's definition of torture (as in the United Kingdom's laws)? Or the English language's definition of torture? I propose that you are wrong on both counts. First, I'm not currently aware what the status of torture is under English law, but I seriously doubt it lacks a mens rea element. I invite you to prove me wrong. Second, if you are referring to the English language's definition of torture I seriously doubt you actually mean that because the English language's definition of torture is vague and without a non-vague legally binding definition of torture, there cannot be an application of law, and I assume that's what you're about right? Stopping unlawful torture? At least I hope you are. (Also, it would be nice if you quoted a source rather than just deciding for the rest of us what torture means without telling us.) Anyway, let's just say for argument's sake that the commonly used English understanding of torture is what the torture law refers to. I'll take a standard definition of torture. Say Websters, which can be found here. There are three definitions it gives for torture.

1 a. anguish of body or mind ; agony b. something that causes agony or pain

2. the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3. distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

Under definitions 1 and 3, this argument alone by your reasoning would get us in trouble with the UN (because it's causing an anguish of mind, my mind; and of course this entire argument is a huge overrefinement, as in, you are torturing this argument). The other definition contains a mens rea element: "to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure". That's the intent element that is necessary to define the action of torturing someone. Without it, there would just be an "infliction of intense pain", which would not fully qualify as torture. (We don't prosecute people who inflict intense pain for torture. Think of an injury caused by a motor vehicle accident.) So unless you think that you and I should be punished by the UN for the coversation we've just had, I urge you to actually consider the points that I am making with some seriousness instead of coming at me like an attack dog. I would be interested in seeing any sources you have that say the instances of SERE waterboarding were instances of legal torture that are prosecutable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Or the English language's definition of torture?" Yes thats right, wikipedia is not a legal dictionary. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"I would be interested in seeing any sources you have that say the instances of SERE waterboarding were instances of legal torture that are prosecutable" Never said i had any legal sources about SERE. You got any sources that support you? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly torture involves the intentional infliction of torment, but the procedure of waterboarding is enough to establish that intent. There is no other plausible explanation of why you tied the victim to a board, covered his mouth with a cloth and poured water over his head. It is analogous to tying someone up, putting his head under the guillotine and releasing the rope holding up the blade: there would be no question you intended to cut the person's head off.--agr (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained why I think this page should be altered. It promotes a definition that does not acknowledge that the intent of the "waterboarder" alters whether or not waterboarding is torture, (and torture is vaguely defined in general and not defined at all on the page). I think it's misleading. I also think that politics are starting to get in the way of what should instead be a quest to create the most hosnest definition. I know I have certainly been influenced by my own disgust at my government's acknowledged use of the practice, and I hope those resposible are prosecuted to the full extent of the law for what I consider to be a reprehensible crime. But that's beside the point. I'm afraid that this will be my last edit on this page (for at least a while). It's distracting me from school. You have my opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't suggested any plausible intent for the act of waterboarding other than torture. In addition, you would have to provide reliable sources that make this supposed distinction and these would have to be of sufficient weight to compare with the numerous sources we have that do not split this hair. --agr (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If the intent is to gain needed information that will save lives of your own people, and not merely for the sadistic pleasure/personal revenge, then the moral questions seem clear. A person who is waterboarded is still alive afterwards. His information can be verified by other means. The information gotten from the waterboardee may save lives. So, if ten men are waterboarded, only one has the information and gives it up, and a life is saved, that is better than no one waterboarded and one man killed. ``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.84.21 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course the same argument holds for electroshocks, or even for gouging out eyes. Benjamin Franklin, that liberal socialistic menace to the Fatherland, has said "it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." Your ratio seems to be at least 1 to 10 against. You have come far indeed since the time of Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin. Anyways, this has no bearing on wether waterboarding is torture. The Spanish inquisition happily tortured with the intention of saving immortal souls from eternal damnation. That does not mean that strappado is not a torture technique. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

German use of waterboarding?

The "Unterseeboot" sentence should really be deleted, as the information seems to come from out of nowhere expect for this article itself.

Sourcing the statement that the Gestapo used waterboarding is somewhat hard. It has been mentioned by The Daily Mail and The Independent in passing. Ironically, some souces say that the Nazis offically banned the process. But, of course, the Nazis didn't actually obey their own laws. The current wording as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture should probably be kept with the Daily Mail article or another article added as a source.

Thoughts? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The harpers source points to this article, http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html#more is this source reliable? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. No, it's not. It's just a blog statement by a poltical commentator. I do think that Senator Chris Dodd's statement may be a reliable source, but he only made the Gestapo reference in passing... I'm wary about quote mining.

I see from viewing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding that the users here are somewhat paranoid about anons (most likely for good reasons, or not... whatever. I have no intention of looking through the pages and pages of talk archives to find out). There's no point blank "no more anon editing" statement made in the RFA, though. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I only have a problem with floating ip's and sock puppets, good editors like you 24 are more than welcome. I've had a little chance to look at this more closely and this entry is on the website of a notable magazine The Atlantic Monthly by a writer who gets the cover. So i'm going to send this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Created this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Atlantic_Monthly_website to help us decide. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread has produced these sources;

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0531/p99s01-duts.html?s=mesdu White House nears completion of new torture guidelines

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article2602564.ece?print=yes&randnum=1191802946046 Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led

These should be useful. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the primary source for the 1948 death penalities for waterboarding et al http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm and i think this should be added to the WWII section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources don't seem to say specifically that the Nazis used waterboarding. Am I missing something? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Times

So is “enhanced interrogation” torture? One way to answer this question is to examine history. The phrase has a lineage. Versch�rfte Verneh-mung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the “third degree”. It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.

The United States prosecuted it as a war crime in Norway in 1948. The victims were not in uniform – they were part of the Norwegian insurgency against the German occupation – and the Nazis argued, just as Cheney has done, that this put them outside base-line protections (subsequently formalised by the Geneva conventions).

Though i do prefer the Atlantic monthly source as its much more detailed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources mentioning Verschärfte Vernehmung[30][31][32][33] and the link with Carl Schmitt Most notably the legal opinions offered by John Yoo et al. justifying controversial policies -such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, enhanced interrogation techniques, NSA electronic surveillance program, unitary executive theory- in the war on terror mimic his writings.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More history[34][35]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that Thomas Romig and Donald Guter should have their own Wikipedia pages? They don't seem particularly notable to me. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these articles don't specifically say that the Nazis used waterboarding. This Wikipedia article currently says that, explicity. I'm still not too sure about whether or not a bloggish-style opinion piece by [{Andrew Sullivan]] is a RS. Even if it is, I would really prefer a straight news source (pun not intended) or a historical article for the reference about Nazi waterboarding.

It may seem like a ludicrous arguement to make: But was that form of waterboarding similar to the American one? Did it involve the same methods, or was it something like water cure with the retrospective label of waterboarding added to it? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Having had a chance read the Andrew Sullivan source it just mentions waterboarding in passing, saying it was banned for the gestapo to use it, but they broke there own rules. Has anyone got a source for the Gestapo waterboarding, i'm going to fact tag the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this:

"Those same Nazis who claimed it was acceptable in times of war to use stress positions, environmental adjustments, hypothermia, water boarding, long forced standing as well as claiming that a lack of uniform allows for the most brutal of “techniques,” were themselves found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. The clever men and women of the Bush regime, who thought they could legalize torture by calling it “enhanced interrogation techniques” will hopefully be taught this simple lesson: torture is torture and by any other name is still illegal."[36]

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nescio, that unfortunately is an even worse source, its writen in very polemic terms and it uses Andrew Sullivan as its basis. I'm off to ask at the military history project about the Gestapo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread started here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force#Expert_help_needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why H. Candace Gorman would fail as RS. She is an expert, represents detainees and writes on the subject.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

She's an RS in lots of areas, the history of WWII is not one of them and she quotes Andrew Sullivan as her source for this information. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? He is a notable commentator and as such can be used.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He is and i think it is ok to use the Atlantic source but i'd like a more authoritive source if i can find it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of poltical op-ed pieces have been mentioned as potential sources, but there should be third-party historical evidence for the sentence. This article shouldn't just limit itself to online articles. I also agree with Hypo that, just because someone is quoted as an RS on one subject, that doesn't means thee should be quoted on a different subject that they don't know about. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Added source: Delarue, Jacques, The Gestapo: A History of Horror (1964), p.234, Morrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for that Jossi. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

"Some would call it torture but it is only reserved for the most evil of terrorists. It is an effective means of quickly getting information from a terrorist without doing any lasting physical damage."
should not be in here, plain and simple

Unfortunately, without proper sourcing, and respect for our rules on neutrality, this is completely incompatible with how we do things. Lawrence § t/e 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

for the same reasons i would leave it as "interrogation" instead of torture (in the first sentence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.238.136 (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We have well over a hundred (I think 170 now?) sources and authorities, from all over the world, that identify the practice as torture, with records of it as torture dating back centuries. Only modern American viewpoints of a generally single political demographic (the minority demographic in the United States, in addition, by percentage of population I believe--American Conservatives are a minority in their own nation) have tried to re-brand waterboarding as "interrogation" or "not torture". Giving their viewpoints unearned weight on an article in an international encyclopedia on a global historical topic would be inappropriate. American views are not of special value in this case. Lawrence § t/e 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By definition, interrogation consists of questioning an individual who is under detention. Typically, they are sitting in a chair and the interrogator is also sitting in a chair, or else standing. In waterboarding, however, a captive is bound to an inclined table, with his/her head and mouth covered with a cloth, which is not conducive to the interrogator hearing his/her responses. If waterboarding is to be construed as an interrogation method, then so must all other forms of torture--as any activities that cause great suffering may interspersed into an interrogation session. Thus, there would not be any forms of torture we could continue to call by the term "torture," as they would all be redefined as "interrogation methods." This is illogical and seems motivated solely by a frantic, after-the-fact attempt by certain elements in the United States to change the actual definition of this well-described and -understood practice in the public eye (using Wikipedia as a tool, or battleground to do so, as the eighth most visited Internet site), as it has now been admitted it has been conducted by agents of that nation's government. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all good editors would agree that less vague an article is the more use it is. --neonwhite user page talk 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion - expand?

The most recent- in 2007- poll says that forty percent of Americans support waterboarding's use. This one poll states that 32 of Americans "regard the use of torture against people suspected of involvement in terrorism as an acceptable part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism". Another poll from that same source says that it's more like 38%. A 2005 Newsweek poll (same source) on torture broke it down like this: Often Justified - 17, Sometimes Justified - 27, Rarely Justified - 18, Never Justified - 33. 5% were unsure. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We should limit the use of public opinion polls, in general, as the public is not a reliable source. There is room for this, in some form, but it needs to be balanced vs. international polls and the like. In any event, this should not be used in any section by US-specific ones, as the polls appear to have zero bearing on the rest of the planet's views. Lawrence § t/e 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that these polls have nothing to do with the 500 year long history of waterboarding, and should not be used at all. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way between minimal use and none, but I will defer to whatever wide consensus forms here as always. Lawrence § t/e 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more in staunch agreement with Hypnosadist on this one. My familiarity with cognitive dissonance would lead me to predict US polls showing that waterboarding is not torture (or is ok) precisely because, a) we are Americans, b) Americans don't torture, thus c) waterboarding can't be torture NO MATTER WHAT. In fact, those societies, cultures, countries, and groups that knowingly practice waterboarding will more naturally selectively filter their beliefs to dampen the dissonance. Or, to quote the wikipedia article itself:

"In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs."

I actually think placing such polls in this article serves to dampen the cognitive dissonance of those arguing that waterboarding is not torture. Notice how the overwhelming number of citations from a variety of sources defining waterboarding as torture can be easily ignored (i.e., selectively filtered). These polls are more of peripheral interest, rather than inherent to a generic, NPOV Wikipedia entry on waterboarding. I think such polls might be best used as an example of cognitive dissonance in that article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request and results of sockpuppet investigation

A mediation request has been made here. The results of the third sockpuppet investigation in the history of this content dispute may be found here. In addition to confirming all previous results, here are the new findings: two  Unrelated, two  Unlikely and one  Inconclusive. I hope that this will finally resolve the matter and that we can address the content dispute through mediation in a constructive, good faith manner. Please participate. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You omitted the part where I said the findings "do NOT EXONERATE anyone" as well as the part where I said "I will look very unfavorably on any misquoting of these findings"... How do you plan to correct that? ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already done a fine job of correcting it, Lar. But I did link your complete findings and recommendations 9in my original edit. Now could we all please end the false accusations, the drama and disruption right here and now, and move forward to resolve the content dispute? Neutral Good (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, you are not summarizing everything that Lar said. Interested parties should make sure to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine#results in full. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not a crystal ball No, it does not finally resolve the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So what would finally resolve the matter, Jehochman? Besides my departure from Wikipedia? Neutral Good (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What would finally resolve the matter would be if we stopped seeing new users that strangely seem to know lots about inner workings of minutia and past history of certain hot topics, and who seemed pretty good at wikilawyering, but even more strangely, didn't seem to grasp basic principles of the project such as reliable sources, neutral point of view, not pushing agendas, civility, respect for other views, and so forth. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New interesting sources

• [37] This is about the legality of the Legal opinions given by John Yoo et al. Might of use for the article at the moment but definately this story will be on this page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• [38] This one by Professor Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the IRCT and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture i'm going to put in now. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of "torture"

User:Neutral Good made a large edit, without discussing it here first, with the edit summary "This article contained 69 uses of the word "torture." Someone has been making a WP:POINT. I have reduced them." I reverted his changes, with a snarky edit summary: [39]. NG may have a point that the word "torture" is repeated too many times in the article, but some of his edits have changed the meaning of the article. For instance, NG changed

A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning." One source has claimed that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.

to

A form of interrogation similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning." One source has claimed that the use of water in interrogative techniques also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.

Nice to see that the Spanish Inquisition didn't use torture, but "interrogation techniques". Or "interrogative techniques" (I didn't even know the word "interrogative" existed). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the arbitration committee will deal with this swiftly. --neonwhite user page talk 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just roll it back without further discussion would be my advice. Totally unhelpful edit. See also this topic ban suggestion ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, you're probably right that I should have rolled it back without discussion, but unless an edit is obviously vandalism, I try to explain on the talk page why I'm reverting an edit--that seems especially necessary when the article is on probation. NG's edit was so obviously unhelpful that I suppose I didn't need to post an explanation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You say, "NG may have a point that the word 'torture' is repeated too many times in the article." I say that Neutral Good certainly has a point. The word "torture" is repeated too many times in the article. It is almost like a chant. WP:POINT is the policy that applies here. What should we do about it? I suggest a rewrite. There are enough mentions of the word "torture" in quotations and cited titles of magazine articles without adding more and more. I would like to rewrite article in Sandbox and offer it for consensus. Do you agree? Shibumi2 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For example:

A technique similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning." One source has claimed that the use of water in such techniques also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.

This uses strictly neutral encyclopedic language. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

conflict -- (assuming you want discussion here) Toca does not appear to be waterboarding; from my reading, it's a variation of watercure where the water is ingested. htom (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is described as such by sources. Henry Kamen, a respected historian, described waterboarding in his book, "The Spanish Inquisition."

"He was tied down on a rack. His mouth was kept forcibly open and a toca or linen cloth was put down his throat to conduct water poured slowly from a jar. The severity of the torture varied with the number of jars of water used."

The Inquisition used torture in about 20 percent of the cases, Gitlitz told me. It was not used more often because even in those times "there was debate about whether testimony elicited under duress was credible," Gitlitz said.[40] --neonwhite user page talk 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

might be a good source. not sure if it is already mentioned. Henry Kamen - The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. New Haven: Yale University Press (1998)

If you read further in the description, you'll find that the subject is beaten to expel the water that he has swallowed. htom (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

That's silly. When I said that NG might have a point, I was referring to a possible problem with prose style--it's bad writing to repeat a word too many times in a paragraph. You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word torture. Your proposed rewrite of this passage is silly; the inquisitors themselves called what they were doing torture. What do you think "tortura del agua" means? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, my Spanish is very poor; "tortura del aqua" looks like water torture to me. htom (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this imply that we should consider changing "tortura del agua" into "interragatorio del agua" or "pregunta del agua" ("water interrogation" or "water questioning")? -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it implies that what Spanish Inquisition did was not waterboarding. Instead it was water torture or water cure. Therefore this Spanish Inquisition section needs work to clarify this. This cloth down throat of victim "forcing them to ingest water" is not like any other technique discussed in this article. It is different act altogether. Consider remove this entire section. I also agree with Akhilleus that it is bad writing to repeat a word too many times in a paragraph or in an article. I am working on refactoring entire article in Sandbox to remove this bad writing by reducing repetition of this word "torture." I will offer it for consensus when it is ready. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this process would not be best. Could you please work through the article paragraph by paragraph, developing consensus along the way. A major rewrite will be unnecessarily controversial. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is a modern development of other water tortures such as water cure (only difference is the inversion). As such, it is entirely appropriate to include it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As such, inclusion would be synthesis, original research, or both. htom (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Shibumi2 is correct under policy we as editors are not allowed to correct what sources say. Please reread what is said about verifiabilityNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the ultimate problem for Shimbumi2's endeavor. Style guides and the like are irrelevant and not even secondary to content policies. Lawrence § t/e 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just provided a source above that specifically says it was waterboarding [[41]]. Remember this page is on probation. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. --neonwhite user page talk 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

David B Offer is the executive editor of MaineToday, and this is one of his columns; it's unlikely to be a reliable source. htom (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an article published in a verifiable source, who wrote it is irrelevant. I don't think there is even a question about it. The suggestion that a newspaper would invent a quote by Professor David Gitilitz, Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Rhode Island and misquote Henry Kamen's book, itself a reliable source, is ludicrous. --neonwhite user page talk 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/4656211.html Since it's a column, that usually means it's an opinion piece, not a facts piece. Quotations can correct and far removed from context. htom (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i will repeat it

If Mukasey does not know what waterboarding is, it's because he has not tried to find out.

Records show that the Inquisition used three methods of torture: The prisoner could be hung by his wrists from a pulley, repeatedly hoisted and dropped. He could be tied to a rack and stretched.

Or he could be waterboarded.

"The Spanish Inquisition didn't invent any of these systems of torture but they systematized them," Gitlitz said.

Waterboarding was used in medieval times and was used by the Inquisition for more than 350 years -- from about 1478 to 1834 -- both in Spain and Mexico.

Henry Kamen, a respected historian, described waterboarding in his book, "The Spanish Inquisition."

"He was tied down on a rack. His mouth was kept forcibly open and a toca or linen cloth was put down his throat to conduct water poured slowly from a jar. The severity of the torture varied with the number of jars of water used."

The Inquisition used torture in about 20 percent of the cases, Gitlitz told me. It was not used more often because even in those times "there was debate about whether testimony elicited under duress was credible," Gitlitz said.

Boring stylistic item for discussion

I found it puzzling why some of the items in the See also section were there, necessitating a click even to get a rough idea what they were. I added brief descriptions to each, which I think is an improvement to the article. I've done this and seen it done in numerous other articles. However, the addition was reverted. I have looked in WP:MOS and not found anything covering this. Opinions? -Pete (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your changes don't seem objectionable to me, but I haven't seen this done in too many of the "See also" sections I've looked at. I don't have a strong opinion whether they should stay or go. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding descriptions to see also section is unusual. See Wikipedia:See_also ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting; I've never seen it (the section) used like this before that I recall. Basically, we're treating See also here how we would a disambiguation page. It's different, but I have to admit that having the links in some context is nice. I'm tempted to add this to a few of my other articles I've built up, to see if it sticks. Newness aside, what do you all think of this alternate way to do it? I know this isn't the forum for that, but I'm curious. Lawrence § t/e 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done that way from time to time. Not the normal way, but if it doesn't come across as too unnecessary, lengthy, or overly didactic, I think it should probably be fine. Badagnani (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's somewhat unusual, but I still believe it's an improvement -- some of the items are fairly obscure without context. Also, the guideline cited above says nothing about the addition of such comments. Based on the discussion above, I'm restoring what I put in. Perhaps the context doesn't need to be there for every single item, or can be tightened up; I won't oppose efforts in that direction. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as they're short, this is actually an improvement over the bare link, IMAO. htom (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the addition, it helps the user understand why they would like to read these articles. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Pete, that's a nice touch. I'm constantly clicking on links to find out why I should click on them (and often finding out it wasn't relevant). Done lightly, like you did, I think I'll be judiciously adopting your approach in other entries. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words! -Pete (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Torture

Definition from Webster online dictionary

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

While this definition shows that waterboarding could be seen as torture, if it is then the same classification would have to be extended to all interrogation techniques or even police questionings. This is simply because even the smallest of stress inducing questioning sessions could cause "mental anguish." ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• The debate is closed, so please move on.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Debate is not closed so long as the truth is being buried. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:V and WP:TRUTH.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please read [WP:NPOV] ProtektYaNutz (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The debate is not a debate; it's based exclusively on what reliable external sources say. We are not here to report truth, per our policies, we are here to report verifiable facts from reliable sources on notable topics. Your use of wording is also confusing--what exactly are you arguing is wrong with the article? Lawrence § t/e 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a notable source who disagrees with you ProtektYaNutz its Professor Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the IRCT and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture, who says;

It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labelled as torture”, says Prof. Sørensen. “It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture.” He explains:

“First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture”.

“In addition,” he continues, “the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfils the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labelled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.”

hope that answers your questions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I completely recognize that the common consensus is that waterboarding is torture. I am no person to contest that. The common consensus is, however, still peoples POINTS OF VIEW. I am not asking that the word torture be taken out of the article, just merely placed in a section just under the definition. Here is a (very) rough diagram of what I am talking about.

• Waterboarding
• Neutral definition
• Table of contents
• Classification as torture

While almost everyone's opinion is that waterboarding is torture, it is still their OPINION. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect for our purposes. We report things in exactly the way you describe, and this is our acceptable way of life here. If you wish to change that, this is the wrong page to even do so. You want to go post on WP:V I believe. We live by and follow established policy on articles. Please try to also use common formatting, as we do on pages (you can click Edit on any section to see this). Lawrence § t/e 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have my apologies for the formatting issues, but the fact remains that you do not have things reported the way you speak of in this article. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What in this article conflicts with our established and written policies on content? Please provide me examples. Lawrence § t/e 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please move on, ProtektYaNutz. Read the archives in which has already been discussed, and take some time to read WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The overwhelming number of sources calls this "interrogation technique" as torture, and one of the worst kinds. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4]

To make this NPOV, it would have to say:

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on their back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4]

The torture issue would, of course, be clearly addressed in its appropriate section, but it has no place here. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is torture as per the overwhelming number of sources saying that it is. We can mention somwhere that there are some people that say it is not, as per WP:NPOV#Undue, but that is it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this; if an overwhelming number of people think scientology is completely nuts, that should still not be included in the opening statement of the article. Overwhelming opinion is an archaic way of thinking and I am surprised that obviously educated people would think that way. You must surely know from your history classes the kind of damage that overwhelming opinion has done in the past.ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has to do with the definition of torture (which is vague) and should be continued on that page's discussion board. I have started one there. Please don't let this disuade you from discussing whether or not waterboarding is a priori torture here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The analogy that some people may believe Scientology is "completely nuts" is inapplicable, a red herring. A more appropriate analogy would be that many people believe Scientology is a form of religion, the violin is a musical instrument, or that waterboarding is a form of torture. All are verifiably such, by definition. A fringe attempt at redefinition of a well-understood subject, which is politically motivated, will simply not fly here. Badagnani (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "red herring" here, only the opinions of the majority being passed off as truth while stomping on the opinions of the minority. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read policy on verifiability, nothing in wikipedia is claimed to be an absolute truth. Policy dictates that opinions are represented in proportion to the weight they carry. The minority view is clearly represented in the article but anymore would be undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See evolution and AIDS for articles where "the opinions of the majority being passed off as truth."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Again Protekt, please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. EJF (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed the Undue Weight issue if you read up a little further. As for "Fringe" this reference is completely irrelevant as it is not just a fringe that sees this article as not being NPOV. I am not saying to put in the article that waterboarding is great, but to simply make the article neutral. ProtektYaSelf (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is there to misunderstand about Non Point Of View? ProtektYaSelf (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For one, that it is "Neutral point of view", not "No point of view". The neutral position is to follow that vast majority of published reliable sources and experts, not to adopt a self-serving propaganda euphemism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<<< Not exactly... This is what NPOV means All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. , which we are doing in this article ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ProtectYoNutz and Neutral Good blocked indef for sockpuppetry abuse

ProtektYaSelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was indef banned for abusive sockpuppetry and violating his 6-month ban on Waterboarding related pages per this discussion. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just these two, but all of the others seem to have gone since that date. Does this mean that at least some of them were the same person? Badagnani (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. They also could be different people who realize that shenanigans will no longer be tolerated around this article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent source

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency stated the following, when Carl Levin (D-MI) asked, "General, do you believe that waterboarding is consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?" Maples replied, "No, sir, I don’t.""Do you think it’s humane?" Levin asked. Maples replied, "No, sir, I think it would go beyond that bound." From [42]. I thought someone might want to incorporate this. Remember (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Already in the article under legality.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding as an employee motivation tool. Yes, I'm serious.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8397486

--BenBurch (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Parent category

I removed category torture per WP:CAT. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored. There is an overwhelming number of sources that describe this practice as torture. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know its torture. I have removed since it is listed under the category torture devices which has torture as its parent category. Please see WP:CAT. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert again, how rude of edits to revert without proper edit summaries or taking the issue to the talk page. Too bad. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "device", but a practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out on your talk page that this is considered a controversial topic with a distinct history of vandalism and edit warring and that any edits should be discussed first and a consensus gained. This was why your edits were reverted. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they were reverted on the spot without an edit summary of any detail. I was removing a category that was redundant because it was already there per a sub category. I was not saying that this practice is not torture, because I believe it is. I took it to the talk page and was still sumarially reverted until Jossi was nice enough to remove the wrong category and post in here. Is this drama over for now? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently in Category:Physical torture techniques, which seems to me to be the correct category. That category is itself a subcategory of Category:Torture. -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT, the main category should then be removed. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your point here? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Per Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories and common sense we can leave it as-is in both categories unless a consensus forms to do otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You agree with what? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> As an aside, should cat:Psychological torture techniques be added to this article? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 70.109 that cat:Psychological torture techniques should be added butit looked like a redlink under preview, the way waterboarding induces hydrophobia is one of its most powerful ways it tortures. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add it. Do you have an opinion about whether the parent category torture should be included against guidelines or not? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually removed Category:Psychological torture techniques because it says this cat is for forms of torture that do not do physical harm which is obviously not the case here. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again per that categories description. --nyc171 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does not meet that categories description. Parent categories should not be pressent when a sub-cat is there, thats how i've always understood it and see no special reasons not to do that here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was Law of wars readded? It is a parent category and the article sticks out there like a sore thrumb. It is too bad that the owners of this article just brainlessly revert without using the talk page. --nyc171 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this category. If you actually look at that category page, this article sticks out one, and two, it is already listed under War crimes that is a sub category of Law of wars. Is this some good reason to include this cat?--nyc171 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not go for GA?

Editors here, this article is now really good, at least that is my impression on coming back to it after a gap of several weeks. It is pithy and to the point, impeccably referenced, well structured. I'd say it's time to move beyond the POV-dispute acrimony and seriously think about working it up to GA and even to FA. I'm not committing myself to anything, but actually I don't think there's a lot required to do. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it all the way through, but I generally agree. Only one concern, article stability is one of the GA criteria. It seems that POV edit warring has died down, but as long as this is an important news story, it's likely to crop back up. Anyway, I'd say go ahead and nominate if you feel the urge! I'll try to respond to suggestions in the process, for what that's worth. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, a lot of editors have worked hard here. I do agree with pete though, this article has not been stable long and new bits are added often as legal process goes on mostly in america. Lets leave it for one month then if its still stable send it for GA. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to go for GA/FA status: if the article gets there, it would show that the ArbCom-imposed probation helped the quality of the encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template footer

Should the War on Terror footer be included at the bottom of this article? What do people think? The template is below. Remember (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First things first, I think the topic of "torture" should first be incorporated into the navbox. -Pete (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and waterboarding added to the template. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, this technique is not limited to the US invention known as War on Terror.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Nobody's said it is. There are two proposals, (1) to add the navbox to the bottom of this article, and (2) to add torture and/or waterboarding to the navbox itself. Which are you disagreeing with? And, can you expand on your reasons? -Pete (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be against the navbox. For one, "War on Terror" is hardly an NPOV term (but that's probably neither here not there), but, for another waterboarding is not limited to the "War on Terror", and the "War on Terror" does not seriously depend on waterboarding. We don't add the template to M16 rifle or to C-5 Galaxy or to Arabic language, although all of these play some role in the event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I would bet that 99% of what has been written on this topic has been written due to its use against suspects in Bush's War on Terror. That is why I thought it was relevant. I am not saying it clearly should appear on the page, but I thought that there might be an argument that it should be on the page. Remember (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you can say the article is linked enough soley to that one subject to include it. What if there is a foot for the Khmer Rouge, Algerian Civil War or Spanish Inquisition? we could end up with several. --neonwhite user page talk 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nescio you are right but Agent Orange is now forever linked with vietnam. As for a POV name, it is the name virtually all sides call it (no matter how much they may disagree with the name), if its not the "war on Terror" what is it called? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<- The addition of a navbox should happen if the links are likely to help the users. Waterboarding's notability is almost totally due to the War on Terror. This page's traffic is mainly driven by people looking for information on the current controversy. As such, this nav template would be helpful to many users. If a few years from now this controversy ends, the nav template can be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's notability is due to that, it would have notablility regardless. --neonwhite user page talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)