Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 18 December 2007

Military history Start‑class

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

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

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

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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

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

Lead

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

The most contentious subject on this article so far is what the lead will say. So I have set up this section so that we can build a consensus on the lead. Here is how I propose that we do this (and feel free to argue for another solution): People will propose there various leads and then everyone interested in the discussion will state their opinion as either strong support, weak support, neutral, weak oppose, or strong oppose. People should vote on every version to facilitate discussion and negotiation. After we have got a consensus, we will ask for the page to be unprotected, insert the lead and monitor it for any vandalism. Hopefully, this we will be able to narrow down issues and finally resolve the lead (at least until a bunch of other interested editors come around).

Participants involved in resolving lead

1. Remember (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
5. agr (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed leads

Current version on page

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Waterboarding has become an issue in the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next U.S. Attorney General. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Mukasey refused to say if he considered waterboarding a form of torture, claiming he did not know the details of how waterboarding was conducted. Several Senators have indicated they will not vote for him without an affirmative answer.

Votes to support or oppose current version

• Weak Support - I like the current lead a lot, but I think we can do a little better. Remember (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I can support this. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I don't support this. It does not "simulate" drowning, as if done correctly the person is actually drowning (with some actually dying). Also, I believe it should not be described as a "technique" (implying that there's some kind of art to performing it) but as a "form of" torture. I believe Mukasey is the U.S. Attorney (the proposed text says he is being considered for this job). Also, the U.S. did not simply "authorize" waterboarding as stated in the text, it actually used it. Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a proposed version of the lead that address your concerns so that we can discuss it.Remember (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The concerns expressed above are the only modifications I would propose. Badagnani (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support the original lead more than the other versions because it comes right out and says that this practise is torture from the start. Whether torture is something one might legitimately do in some circumstances is a reasonable debate; whether this stuff counts as torture is surely not much of a debate. It clearly is. Let me assure all readers that if they ever catch me in the act of tying them to a bench, partly blocking off their airways, and pouring water down the rest, they can safely assume I'm trying to torture them. In the well known book "Nathaniel's Nutmeg" by Giles Milton, you can read how the Brits once took the island of Manhattan off the Dutch, in retaliation for the loss of the island of Run, during which this form of torture was used on British subjects. That the grudge was strong enough to lead to military action on the far side of the globe had everything to do with the fact that this kind of torture was already regarded as abhorrent, 100 years before there was a U.S. of A. to debate the matter. Solocavediver (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No -- It's fixable but I cannot support this. There are a number of simple problems.

First, "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture." Let's name some names so that the readers know who they are. You have John McCain but he's a candidate for president. You can find more suitable ones with very little effort.

The part about Michael B. Mukasey isn't sufficiently relevant for the lead, but those who criticized him for this would probably be good choices for the names we identify here. The critics shouldn't have to hide behind John McCain.

Second, "Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States." That's a can of worms that doesn't belong in the lead. Those prosecuted have done other things as well so it's misleading to imply that that alone was considered torture.

Third, "had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States." This implies that all extrajudicial prisoners were subjected to waterboarding. The actual number was three.

Fourth, it should also say that this was reportedly done with legal guidance.

Considering the history of this article, I don't think I'm asking for much here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I thought "to force the inhalation of water into the lungs" had been discarded earlier.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixth, I had relaxed a bit but the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's wrong to call it torture without qualification. I'll cite this possible solution more prominently.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You should, by this reasoning, let the facts speak for themselves and change the title of Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a proposed version of the lead that address your concerns so that we can discuss it.Remember (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I did, it would look a lot like yours, and I don't think it'll fly here. Somebody would try to round up another posse from the fringe theories noticeboard. Apparently, in this case a fringe theory is something that isn't accepted by the folk wisdom of the masses.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you support mine and that is what you would also suggest, then please state so under the votes to support my suggested revision. But I still urge you to provide your own suggestion that you can endorse. I think the only way we will be able to move forward is if everyone states their opinion clearly and openly. Remember (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why is McCain not a suitable source? Because he's running for President...? Lawrence Cohen 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

McCain's views aren't typical. It's okay to use him, but the use of his name as a sole political source may be interpreted by others as a shield for the rest of the politicians to hide behind. I really don't think it's too much to ask that we get more names, particularly when the gripe against my view is that it's fringe. If it's fringe then the tough part should be how to limit this to just a few for the lead. And, quite frankly, I do prefer that those who take this view shouldn't be allowed to hide behind John McCain.

BTW: I'll reiterate here that we should look here: WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"And, quite frankly, I do prefer that those who take this view shouldn't be allowed to hide behind John McCain."

Possible political considerations involving Waterboarding, and things of this nature, have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages in any way and are not allowed as a factor in how articles are constructed. Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That horse left the barn long before I got to this article. It appears to be the reason some want it called outright torture instead of merely commonly accepted as such.

In any case, the rest of my comment is still true. John McCain could be worth noting because he crossed the aisle to make that statement but he's hardly the only player. It shouldn't be difficult at all to come up with more names when you think that position is so overwhelming.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply want it called torture, because every source I've been presented with except for functionally 1.5 sources all say it is torture. I'm sure when I have time I could dig up more sources. How many would it take to satisfy you? I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you seem to be arguing based upon your personal views on the rightness or wrongness of torture, or local partisan politics. You also mentioned on this page that the view I'm pushing for--which is the view of all our sources, save for 1.5--are "folk theory". Folk theory is consensus, and the consensus of our sources, opinions or otherwise, is that waterboarding is torture. That is why I want the article to say that. Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult either. I could easily believe it's torture, but that's from my own perceptions of what torture is, and I recognize that it's a sliding scale. People won't always draw the line in the same place.

If you say here that it's based on consensus then why can't the article say that a consensus believes it's torture? Then we can list the types of people who've formed that consensus, who disagrees, and why each believes as they do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Messy have constructed artefact of sudden need to protect. Possible OR in places, just a mess really. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Waterboarding would most-accurately be described as an "interrogation technique." Whether it is "torture" or not is a matter of opinion and is widely being debated in the U.S. right now. The intro to this article needs rewritten so as to remove the opinions of the writers.

• Comment - I think the tense is wrong in the last paragraph. It "became an issue" would be appropriate since he has since been confirmed as Attorney General Eric1g (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a term used to describe the act of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to make the subject feel that they will drown to death. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and makes the subject believe death is imminent.

As early as the Spanish Inquisition a form of waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, intimidate, and terrorize. The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

Waterboarding is widely considered to be torture. (See Classification of Torture section below for further details), and nations,including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding as violating prohibitions against torture.

The use of waterboarding gained attention and notoriety in the United States when the press claimed that the Bush administration had used waterboarding to interrogate some extrajudicial prisoners of the United States.

Votes to support or oppose Remember's version

• Support (of course since it's mine). If you do not like this version please propose your own version or revisions for discussion. Remember (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Unclear, it is a form of torture, and that should be on top to aid comprehension. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the fact that it doesn't have torture at the beginning is there any other objects to the rest of the text? Remember (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to the lead issue, but aside from that it is smaller stuff which is not such a big deal. This following bit could fall to OR claims, rather not have it "The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject", additionally it is said to be more than an interrogation process, and indeed it is under dispute whether it is really a (workable) interrogation process. Inertia Tensor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I debated about adding this but I think your assessment is right. My proposal now strikes that sentence. Any other suggestions or problems? Remember (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the fact the practice leaves no (physical) scars has indeed been mentioned in the sources as one reason for its use. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, does this mean you think the sentence should be included? Also, do you support or oppose the above suggestion? Do you have any other comments on it? Remember (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- it's not perfect, and the sources need to be checked, but it skirts the core problem. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Most of this is fine, but the description of the procedure needs to clearly indicate that water is poured into the subject's breathing passages, that this is what induces choking and gagging. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to punish, and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture.

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal.". US Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed the technique for terror suspects, saying it was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives.

Votes to support or oppose Inertia Tensor's version

• Support Obviously, I put it there. This was the last consensus achieved version, however it appears we need a new consensus. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I don't mind labeling waterboarding as torture but I just don't think it should be the first statement in the article. This is for two reasons: (1) I think a description of waterboarding is more appropriate to be first as per general encyclopedic style and (2) it makes the article look as if it is specifically designed to rebut those in the United States who say it is not torture or refuse to say whether waterboarding is or is not torture and this makes the article appear as if it is not simply reporting the facts but instead advocating one position (even if it really isn't). I would be much more willing to accept the statement that "waterboarding is torture" early in the lead if there was a link in the lead to later in the article where the issue was discussed fully. As for other constructive criticism, I also think the lead should contain information on the real risks of physical danger to the victim. Also, I think the second paragraph should end after the second sentence because the McCain statement just reiterates the fact that waterboarding is torture and the Cheney statement does not technically deal with waterboarding since he was responding to a question about a "dunk in the water." Remember (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me mull this over - I think your and my points can be resolved. I especially agree with you on McCain - that is there as is because it was used to back up the lead when the torture word got white washed out by some. If the lead is somewhat stable we don't need to go listing sources in main text, unless highly relevant. Off to think. Thank you for a highly constructive answer. I would however also say to dump Cheney from the lead if McCain goes, as I believe that though later denials suggest otherwise - Cheney was talking about WB, and trivialising it. Officially we do not know either way - so like the other UNDUE Weight, he needs to get bumped down - in fact their is a far stronger case for bumping Cheney down that McCain - so certainly Cheney, maybe McCain. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose "simulated drowning". Either it is the process of drowning or it is not. As drowning is "death caused by suffocation (from liquid)", it cannot be simulated as death cannot be simulated. I would recommend avoiding the use of "simulated" as it is meaningless in this context. Possibly: "Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning."Nospam150 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - As long as there is controversy over whether or not it is or is not torture, we need to couch it as such. Let it says "an interrogation technique which many regard as torture" or something to that effect. Myself, since it causes no persisting or lasting physical harm, I do not regard it as torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhouse (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What controversy is there besides that involving the United States government? Because one government may or may not consider something torture has zero bearing on whether it is or not. We have no sources that support what you are saying either, beyond two pundits. Please provide sources or else retract your oppose as unsourced. We make decisions based on policy, not personal views. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead

Waterboarding 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. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real 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. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been historically known accepted as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. The use of 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 that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.

Votes to support or oppose Ka-Ping Yee's version

• Support Here's my attempt; I'm trying to combine User:Remember and User:Inertia_Tensor's drafts while addressing comments by User:Nospam150, User:Remember, and User:Randy2063 above. I would suggest putting the United States controversy in a section of its own, and the legal status of waterboarding with respect to definitions of torture in a section of its own. Please feel free to suggest improvements. Thanks to all for your continued patience and constructive participation. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the right track. I would change "historically known as a method of torture" to "considered a method of torture," and I think the lede should mention the frequent reports that the U.S. has attempted to justify its use of waterboarding in secret legal opinions that say it isn't torture. That's central to the current controversy. This can be elaborated on in the section on U.S. use.--agr (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this is the best compromise version. Only request. Change this sentence:

Waterboarding has been historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.

to:

Waterboarding has been historically accepted as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.

With that slight change at this time I'd have no problem with this one. The wording on the historical consideration of waterboarding as torture needs to be be more solid and concrete per the weight of all the sources. The wording can be slightly different, but I think the most important thing for readers to take away is that before the current United States brouhaha, there was never any serious demonstrated consideration or doubt that waterboarding was considered torture. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen: I have edited this draft of the lede as you suggested. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Almost support -- "extrajudicial prisoners" implies it could have been all or many of them. That term is used for every one of the hundreds of detainees at GTMO. It also needs to say that the CIA did this with legal guidance and congressional oversight. You can add that the legal guidance is controversial or disputed if you like but we shouldn't give the impression that it was done without checking at all. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That extra level of detail can go in the United States section; the role of the article isn't to defend our country. It doesn't really imply what you're saying it implies, at all. It just says that the CIA used waterboarding. Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you put "considered to be torture" and "wide range of experts" in the lead without a defense. I'd understand not going into detail but we shouldn't say it was done without concern for the law -- especially when most people already believe other things that aren't true about this. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest: "The use of waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of someextrajudicial prisoners and that the U.S. has attempted to justify its use of waterboarding in secret legal opinions that say it isn't torture." I think the secret memo bit is a major part of the current controversy and this belongs in the lede.--agr (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What defense of the historical acceptance that waterboarding is torture exists? Are we actually going to suggest it wasn't considered torture in the 1700s and 1800s, retroactively, because the current US government administration may or may not privately consider it torture? Nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the same procedures and safeguards were used in the 1700s. But I'm not arguing that it wasn't and isn't popularly thought of as torture by the TV-watching masses. You can call it torture all day long if you like. The trouble is when you put it into an article. We shouldn't be convicting some people for something that's barely understood to have happened while at the very same time WP policy says we can't call Saddam Hussein a bad man.

It's not just Saddam either. WP is full of articles about GTMO detainees who are all given the supposed benefit of the doubt here because much of the documents are classified. So, fascism is given the benefit of the doubt but those who fight fascism are not.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Randy2063: I've edited this draft of the lede to address your comments (insertion of "certain" before "prisoners" and mention of authorization from the Justice Department). —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - I think this version solves all the issues I had and I think it gets the issue across is a manner that is encyclopedic and NPOV. I strongly support this version. Remember (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - That's a very interesting opinion. However, this practice is clearly torture by definition, and all the sources going back hundreds of years state this. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War. Thus, if the technique is used by fascists, it is torture, and if it is used by non-fascists against non-fascists or non-fascists against fascists, it is also torture. Badagnani (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, what do we think? It's starting to sound like maybe this could be something we could all live with. I've tried to address your comments with my last edits — would you be all right with this version? (Keep in mind it doesn't have to be perfect; if we can just find something we can at least find acceptable, that's good progress.) I am excited and hopeful. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007(UTC)

I would be very happy with this lead. Unless there are any other issues I would vote to unlock this article and substitute the current lead with Ka-Ping's version - Remember (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead is unsatisfactory, as mentioned more than once, in that it does not describe why waterboarding is done, or its most basic definition: a notorious and well known form of torture, dating back centuries and understood as a form of torture then, and now. Further, "historically accepted" is poor grammar because it implies that this practice has historically been accepted by various bodies. Badagnani (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that "historically accepted" is a poor choice because it introduces an unintended ambiguity. I would suggest "historically regarded as" or "historically condemned as" or "historically decried as" --agr (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please propose an alternative wording of the sentence that you could support. Remember (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support As a passing editor wandering into this debate this version seems to be the best of those on offer. This version has the advantage of not only being NPOV, but by simply describing what is done and what the results are, the opening paragraph allows the reader to make up his or her own mind as to whether this is torture or not. The reader is simply left with the thought, what if this was done to me or my loved ones. However it is slightly let down by the second paragraph. The edit warring that seems to afflict this article is as a result of the recent controversy in the US, the best way to avoid the edit warring, would be to leave mention of the recent notoriety with regard to the US to a section towards the end, (its rather US centric to think that the most important aspects of this topic is the US contoversy.) Accurately describe what happens, its history and why it is used etc and by the time a reader reaches the end they will have made up their own minds if this is torture or not, there should be no need to expicitly say "waterboarding is a torture technique" or "waterboarding is considered a torture technique".KTo288 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Using this reasoning, this editor should "wander into" the Rack (torture) article and attempt to have its title changed, as, according to this reasoning, it really isn't clear whether the Rack (torture) is actually a form of torture, and the reader should be able to make up their minds about that without being dictated to. Badagnani (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Vote I really appreciate what you are trying to do here, and this is the best written led I've seen in a long time. My oppose is principle based on my well founded inability to AGF of everyone participating based on arguments, recent edit history, and denial of the obvious facts. Where torture is now in this rev is almost, but not quite acceptable, however I can see it getting cut out rapidly as it is in para 2. There are those here who simply refuse to accept what it is regardless of an absence of sources to the contrary. Some, but not all of them just want it editable... I thing we are applying UNDUE WEIGHT to unsupported fringe opinions here by not incorporating it in the forefront of the lead, and as such I oppose - very weakly - Sorry :/ This on balance shouldn't affect the decision to unlock, but expect some I told you so's.. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm... I'm not sure what you are recommending here. Are you saying this version of the lede is not quite acceptable to you, or are you saying that, while the lede is acceptable to you, you are afraid it will not survive future edits? Do you have a change in mind that would improve it? Thanks. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is just to help you understand what i'm trying to do here. This version is not exactly written in the way i would most like it; my main goal was to write something that is well supported and likely to survive over time, while still being something i could live with. I consider waterboarding to obviously be torture, yet it seems likely that if "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." are the first words in the article, they will quickly trigger another edit war. Therefore, i decided to go as far as reasonably possible in giving supportable details about the procedure and experience of waterboarding, so that readers understand it clearly (and thus, those who share my perspective on torture will conclude that it is obviously torture). For me, the description of the experience and the citation of expert opinion, together, make up for the lack of a direct statement that waterboarding is torture. I hoped that this approach would satisfy both camps in this debate.

At the moment, I see concerns that remain to be addressed from User:Badagnani and User:Inertia Tensor. I'm hopeful that we may be very close... can we work together to resolve these? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I oppose, it is weak. I am not going to get this exactly My Way, not will anyone else. so I'm just registering my disapproval of it, but think it should still proceed. Changing to Neutral Vote. Inertia Tensor (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support This lead has it all, a purely factual discription of the process first off followed by who considers this to be torture. 06:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support...Fully —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.28.240 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's as if the intro begins with the second sentence, and one is left wondering what happened to the first (i.e. it begins with a description rather than a definition). The first paragraph is too technical. GregorB (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is how I thought about it, but couldn't verbalize until I read this comment. I agree with this. Badagnani (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support Whether the technique is used as an inducement to answer questions, or to punish those who are targeted by the administrators, or both, the technique remains the same. The motives of those involved are different that what they are doing. htom (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GageParker's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a form of interrogation which uses suffocation to gain the cooperation of the interviewee. By covering the restrained subject's head with wet cloths and pouring additional water over the face, the laryngospasm reflex is induced (that is the larynx or the vocal cords in the throat constrict and seal the air tube) making it impossible for the subject to breath.

Votes to support or oppose GageParker's version

• Weak oppose- I like the first sentence, but I would need to see some citation to support the physiological claims you are making (because I don't know if they are true). In addition, while this is a good first sentence, we need to resolve the whole intro and this doesn't provide enough to fully evaluate. If you add further information, I think you will get more feedback. Remember (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose- It's torture, plain and simple, needs to say it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen's modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead

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. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real 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. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been considered a method of torture since its early recorded use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used for interrogation purposes, to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. 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 that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure. The new controversy surrounded the confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable.

Votes to support or oppose Lawrence Cohen's modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead

• Support To try to break any semblance of an impasse. Big addition:

"Renewed controversy surrounded the confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable."

Before anyone grumbles, it's a pretty accurate one-sentence summation of the current situation. It's confirmed from multiple expert sources, such as John Kiriakou. It will never require confirmation from active officers in the US government for us to state this factually. They have not denied it. So, this is a good compromise I think. It acknowledges that waterboarding is historically regarded as torture. If you subtract any political nonsense spin by a single modern government in the 2000s, there is no evidence to the contrary. One US Presidential administration can't change recorded historical fact and consensus. But, there is controversy over whether waterboarding is an acceptable practice. I'd argue that's the sum total of the arguments and controversy at this point, until the USDOJ or Congressional Oversight actually hauls someone up in legal proceedings over it. Support. I think this is the absolute best level we're going to get to, gives everyone a little piece of the pie, and strongly adheres to NPOV. We can crib any number of sources for that last new sentence from this page, or by basically mashing our hands on a Google News search (has anyone noticed how incredibly many results there are now, as of today, for waterboarding?). Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Moderate support- I like Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead better since it describes the procedure first and then describes how it is considered torture in full detail in the second paragraph, but I know that other editors like it better the other way around so I am willing to defer (since someone will have to). Remember (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. More to my taste. Almost there. I still think the first paragraph (effects of waterboarding) is a bit too technical for an intro (my remark concerning Ka-Ping Yee's version too), but this is not that important. I may still write my version, but it seems to me now that it will not be necessary. GregorB (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling the lead will grow a bit to flow with better language over time. It's probably better to take a more just the facts, ma'am, approach for now. Lawrence Cohen 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't it say 1) it's historically been used primarily for interrogation purposes, and 2) the recorded history of this technique datesback at least to the Spanish Inquisition (not "throughout history," which is vague). Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

All set, good suggestions. Lawrence Cohen 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This seems accurate, complete, and well sourced, and is the best I have read among those presented. Badagnani (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Splendid! Would you mind posting again down below on the unprotection? :) Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't the first paragraph mention that the mouth is often covered with fabric or plastic, or the mouth stuffed with a rag? Badagnani (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is often the case but not an essential part of the procedure. I'm fine with or without this in the lede; in any case this is an improvement, and we can discuss further refinements later. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me! —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is the most factual and accurate out of the current proposals. Nospam150 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exterior37's version

Waterboarding is a controversial technique primarily used for interrogation purposes, which 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. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real 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. Another potential consequence is that psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can possibly last for years after the procedure.

Historically, waterboarding has been acknowledged as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations.

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 that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure. An ex-member of the CIA, who was the leader of the CIA team that captured the first major Al Qaeda figure, spoke out about the use of waterboarding, and claimed the use of waterboarding led to the disruption of numerous planned terrorist attacks.

Votes to support or oppose Exterior37's version

• Strongly supportNaturally since it is mine. I took text from a couple of the above entries plus added points that I felt were relevant to the lead. Namely, the recent interview of the former CIA agent which shows the effectiveness of the technique in getting confessions. The information he gives should be used in the lead to give the article more balance. --Exterior37 (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's okay but I like Ka-Ping Yee's better and I don't think the additions improve it. Also if we are going to include the CIA person's statement we should also include the fact that he said he thought it was torture (but justified) and that no further information has come forth to confirm that the use of the procedure disrupted any terrorist attacks (at least not as I understand the story) or if there has been confirmation, say which terrorist attacks have been confirmed as being disruptive. But thanks for helping try to create a better lead. Remember (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but why the double standard? Did you notice that there were no names given of the people who had negative psychological effects years after having this done on them? This could have easily been made up by that source as well. You're talking about information that is classified. We were fortunate enough to learn this much. He is a credible source and it should be used. --Exterior37 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)--Exterior37 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information appearing in the article, but putting it prominently in the lead I think gives too much support for the idea that it did disrupt numerous terrorist attacks when we have no evidence of that fact besides this persons assertions. Also, I'm not exactly sure he even states that he has first hand knowledge that he knows that this information disrupted attacks based on this exchange: JOHN: Yeah, we disrupted a lot of them. BRIAN ROSS: And he knew about them? JOHN:He knew about some. But like I say, it was time-sensitive information. So that-- that wound down over time. BRIAN ROSS:And the ones that he knew about, were they on US soil? Were they in Pakistan? JOHN:You know, I was out of it by then. I had moved onto a new job. And I-- I don't recall. To the best of my recollection, no, they weren't on US soil. They were overseas." Remember (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately, given the sheer weight of sources asserting that waterboarding is torture, NPOV requires that it identify waterboarding as a form of torture right off. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - my opinion on this is that an excellent article would pierce right through the debate on whether it was torture or not and just come out and say that it is torture, but that the White House, CIA and part of Congress want to label it not as torture so that they can continue to use it. And then the article should go ahead and show why they do, as it is not because of cruel intentions, but rather, they have gotten accurate confessions and vital information to thwart terrorist attacks. I respect those who want this article to expose Waterboarding for what it is, but at the same time respect those who see a greater good in potentially saving the lives of thousands by getting information from a terrorist that he otherwise would not give up. What if you were one of the people in the building planned on being blown up, or someone in your family? Would you then take a lesser stance on this issue if it was yours or your family's life that was being saved? I invite you to pause and reflect on that. I simply bring it up as bias is evident in this article overall, and neutrality should be the aim here. Also, the head of the CIA and a Congressman have now spoken out on the value of this and other rough techniques, which is referenced here (also, the House voted 222-199 to make it illegal, a close vote that should be kept in mind in the neutrality issue here.)--Exterior37 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an interesting opinion (that waterboarding, though "bad," ought to be used if the reason is "good"). Unfortunately, an encyclopedic Misplaced Pages article does not seem to be the place for such opinion or speculation. Regarding whether it "works" or not, any form of torture might "work," or it might produce unreliable information. For that reason, the U.S. military considers waterboarding torture, and prohibits it (along with all other forms of torture), for the reason that if U.S. troops are seen as torturers, U.S. troops are likely to be subjected to similar treatment when in enemy hands. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To say it's torture means that either you're deciding where the line should be drawn, or that there should be no line whatsover, and that anything can be called torture.

If neutrality was really the aim here then we should WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. It truly amazes me how important some people think it is that WP should call this "torture". Look around at some truly horrible events, like the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings, and you might notice they don't stir up nearly as much outrage as the waterboarding of three fascists.

That LAT article doesn't mean anything. It's just a bunch of politicians maneuvering to pretend they care about one side or the other. We've already seen that they allowed waterboarding when they thought it was their necks on the line. (The politicians in Europe wouldn't be any different.)

People love to bring up the Spanish Inquisition but they have absolutely no context for that. Did the Inquisitors do it under the same conditions back then? Does anybody seriously believe it only lasted about one minute when they did it?

My point isn't that the Inquisition was far worse, which it was, but that you're drawing a line there that we don't have any business drawing in Misplaced Pages if we really cared about NPOV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For the tenth time, my apologies: if it's not sourced, Misplaced Pages doesn't care. If we have 25 sources that say waterboarding is torture, and 2 that say no/maybe not, it would be against policy to say anything but that Waterboarding is torture. To invoke Godwin's Law, if I had an article called Nazi that had 100 sources that said, "Nazis were historically considered bad," and 5 sources that said, "Maybe Nazis weren't so bad," would the article make a bright line distinction that Nazis weren't so bad? Of course not, it would be absurd. Please try to stop back from any personal politics, because no matter how eloquently they are presented, we simply can't use them as a basis for a single thing in an article. Sourced, or nothing. Let's please move on. This situation simply won't happen without adequate sourcing, and by that I mean more than two opinion editorials. Again: do you and Exterior have any? Lawrence Cohen 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You have zero sources that determine it to be torture. The sources you do have are all making judgment calls. Some are merely sleazy lawyers or politicians or faux "human rights" advocates; others may have expertise in the procedure but not in the law.

The example you gave actually illustrates my point. I never said we should say it's not torture. As I have said a number of times, WP policy says we don't need to say whether the Nazis were good or bad. We should let the facts speak for themselves. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and yet you've never addressed it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This comment is inaccurate, because waterboarding is torture by definition in addition to the legal, military, and international authorities quoted on the matter. We are still waiting for sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Heres another source by someone trained to waterboard, who has done or watched 100's of waterboardings, guese what he says its torture too. And hes the best and most authoritive source yet. 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again -- both of you. I never said it's not torture. I only said that doubt has been expressed, and that the sources you have aren't the final authority.

You have said that it is torture, and so you need sources that say that it is. All you have is opinion by people who don't have access to all the facts. I have nothing against saying that a bunch of lawyers, politicians, and military sources believe it to be torture but you need to make that qualification.

There's nothing new in your link. It's just another article on Nance, who we've seen a couple of times before. It's not even a particularly good article. (It says a couple of things that aren't precisely true.) If you're going to refer to Nance I would suggest you link directly to what he wrote on the subject.

Nance is an expert in waterboarding as the military performs it for SERE training. He doesn't work for the CIA, and he not an expert in international law.

I'm still waiting for comments on letting the facts speak for themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an encyclopedic article, which relies on verifiability and reliable sources. As such, it is NPOV to state that waterboarding is torture because all the sources state that it is torture, and the Onion and the "Uncyclopedia" state that it is not. Again, you state that "bad people" have done bad things, and they deserve to be waterboarded. That is your opinion, but, again, those are more appropriate for a personal blog than an encyclopedic article. Regarding whether torturing may produce some good results, again, that is immaterial to the subject. Josef Mengele conducted many experiments on small children during the Second World War. Under your reasoning, it would seem, "good" nations may perform such experiments because they might generate results that could conceivably have some success in saving many lives. Again, this is speculation and (as is the case regarding waterboarding) laws, both national and international, are already in place preventing such activities. I still have not seen you provide any sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, so I'm at a loss what your comments are aiming for. We do have standards here, and they rely on verifiability and sources. It would be great if you would provide some stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Your repeated line of thought that waterboarding may be "useful" or "good" in certain circumstances does not address the issue of whether it is torture or not. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I admire your condescending liberal spin, really. The two-valued logic of something being "bad" or "good" with no other analysis to how much worse a terrorist atttack is versus a terrorist getting waterboarded for thirty seconds, well that's brilliant and clearly past my perpiscuity. And then to compare it to Auschwitz, well that's just award winning positioning there. You must be right, there could be no reason whatsoever to place anything in this article as to results claimed to have been obtained with this procedure that may have saved thousands of lives. Let's just see how much anti-American sentiment we can stir up. Keep up the great work. --Exterior37 (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Stating that waterboarding is torture is not an example of anti-Americanism. Clearly, many other nations (including Imperial Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Spain under the Inquisition, and Colonial France) have also achieved notoriety for their use of waterboarding as well. If some readers ascribe anti-Americanism to stating the facts that 1) waterboarding is torture, and 2) some U.S. personnel have practiced waterboarding, that would be solely their personal reaction to those facts, and not any kind of "spin" on the part of the article itself, which should be absolutely NPOV. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone is reminded that arguing based on political stances is pointless, since such stances have zero place on Misplaced Pages. We can include details in this article, if you provide *sources*. Do you have any? If yes, list them--give us links. If not, the conversation is frankly closed. Misplaced Pages does not allow anything controversial or disputed in articles without sourcing, ever, at all. Please provide sources, or else stop making politicized and incendiary comments that make only the person posting them look foolish. Lawrence Cohen 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The description misses the point....that waterboarding is a form of torture. A point that history does not deny. A point that no official sources deny.Nospam150 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

X's version of lead

Votes to support or oppose X's version

Torture

It is important to qualify what is meant by torture. Why is it torture? How do we define torture? What aspect of waterboarding meets that definition of torture? It seems whether or not waterboarding is labelled "torture" is the point of contention. If we can agree on how to objectively definte torture, we can objectively say whether or not it is torture. Please qualify by what definition of torture you are using. Bigbadman (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to international law (quoted at our Torture article: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more informaiton about waterboarding and its history. ] See the wikipedia definition of Torture Bigbadman (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture and America does not condone torture.--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not even open to debate as to whether waterboarding is torture; IT IS TORTURE. The correct method, according to the offical US ARMY training film, is the full restraint of the prisoner, lying face up, flat on a board and blindfolded, with a towel twisted into a point, and shoved in the mouth and down the throat far enough to block movement of the epigloittus. The whole point of this is to keep the prisoner from swallowing, or breathing, and to keep the windpipe open-causing horrible reflexive gagging and choking. As the torturers pour water over the prisoners face, and onto the towel, the towel soon becomes saturated and begins to fill the mouth and dribble water directly into the lungs-with no possibility of swallowing. If that fails to work, plastic wrap is tightly wrapped around the head, a hole is poked open for the mouth, the nose and head are held firmly, and a small hose of running water is directed into the mouth-the mouth stays full, and thus breathing is impossible-until one has to reflexively take a breath-which pulls water into the lungs. I would invite anyone who says it is NOT torture to volunteer for a session-if they have the guts-and to tell your captors NOT to stand down if you cry "ENOUGH!" -for THAT is what a prisoner experiences, So these "tryout" water boarding sessions are a sham-the volunteer can opt out at any time- the prisoner cannot. Watching one twist and try to scream in pure agony is sickening. Which is why I would invite those who trivialize it to try a session-and to make it real by not allowing yourself the chance to 'opt out'-no 'safe words' or signs. I think you would change your mind pretty quickly.

'We dont torture-were a civilized nation'-Au Pairs 1986

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.69.62 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is internationally understood to be a form of torture and has been verifiably practiced as long ago as the Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.140.137 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraphs mention experts that say it is torture. By any chance, has anyone found references to experts who say waterboarding is not torture? Is that paragraph presenting just one side of the issue, or is there only one nature of expert opinion about it?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is not open to debate does not make it so. Reputable media outlets do not make such unequivocal statements on it, so why should a Misplaced Pages page be turned into a because-I-say-so lecture? Simply describing the procedure and its effects and stating that many experts describe it as torture, all of which is done in this article, should be sufficient to cover the topic in a Misplaced Pages article. Besides, anyone committed to convincing others that this is torture should recognize that a reader will be more open to looking at the rest of the article if the article does not start out with "Waterboarding is a torture technique". Even an ideologue should be able to recognize that there are those who will simply stop reading the article at that point. Just telling people what to think doesn't solve anything. Make the case. And this article would accomplish that simply by citing experts and those who have experienced it. Funfb (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a very interesting opinion. However, by definition waterboarding is torture, and has been acknowledged as such for hundreds of years (since the Spanish Inquisition, who made it famous), by everyone. It seems clear that the "crisis of language" regarding the term and its definition was engineered by the current U.S. administration simply because they would rather redefine the term than either stop practicing waterboarding or admitting that the U.S. has become a nation of torturers (like Japan, Cambodia, and other nations who formerly practiced waterboarding against prisoners routinely). The Washington Post states that the U.S. military considers waterboarding torture, and it has courtmartialed its own solders for perpetrating it. If you'd like to try to redefine torture, you should try to change the title of Rack (torture)--to have such a title, using your logic, would only turn Misplaced Pages into a "because-I-say-so lecture." Badagnani (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: "Reputable media outlets do not make such unequivocal statements on it, so why should a Misplaced Pages page be turned into a because-I-say-so lecture?"

1. Misplaced Pages articles don't consist of political spin. If they do, the articles are broken and will be fixed.
2. Please read this section of this page, for all the sources you can need that assert that waterboarding is torture.

Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages articles are the sole result of what sources we have to work with. As so far we have *TWO* sources that assert things along the lines that waterboarding is or may not be torture, and every other source says it is torture, the article will say it is torture. The still-unconfirmed personal views of members of the Bush administration are just that. Views, unconfirmed, and compared to the weight of all the other sources, a minority viewpoint. Read WP:WEIGHT as well. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea to cleanly hash this dispute out

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

Since all the edit warring seemed to be about a small handful of details, I think all the attempted work above (no offense Inertia) was a bit unfocused. IP users can't watchlist pages, they'll have to look here to weigh in. If they don't, they don't. If the IP editors come back and edit war like mad again, it will be protected again, and we can't do much about that if they don't contribute here. We can deal with that (probable) possibility if it does come to pass when it does. So to figure out if the people actually watching this page have a problem, let's try this. So we don't try to do 1,000 things at once, everyone who wants something changed just list your top three here. It's a silly way to do it, but it'll be focused, and we can then just go over each other's concerns point by point in a section for each user. Just copy my formatting and for a first pass at this lets each limit this to just 2-3 points. I almost get the feeling we're debating everything (or talking about debating everything) rather than figuring out what everyone does or doesn't actually have a problem with.

My idea with this is to see if we actually have a valid reason to protect. I almost think now that we don't, and that this is all just because of various people with IP edits trying to advance a point of view. If thats the case, they're violating NPOV, which is vandalism, so we can semi-protect to force discussion. If you look at the editing history, all the warring is by IP editors trying to push edits that are not in compliance with WP:NPOV from my reading of it.

Reply to each user's section in threaded discussion with any concerns. If we don't get anyone with serious problems with the article that can't be fixed with trivial non-protected edits, I think we're fine to simply downgrade to semi-protection (long term semi, based on the insane warring of the past). • Lawrence Cohen 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for taking part in this. I guess its a mini-RFC. It seems like the main concerns are coming out, lets run this to maybe Tuesday or Wednesday (to leave room for the holiday weekend in America, and people to catch up), then we can really dig in here on the results to see what is actually disputed. • Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen

• My only major concern is that the article clearly state upfront that waterboarding is historically (based on the variety of sources) a form of torture, but that some modern government administrations either dispute this (based on sourcing) or simply don't consider waterboarding torture. Basically, rigid NPOV enforcement and nothing less on that is/isn't torture bit.
• We shunt off the heavy emphasis on the United States from the lead section to a detailed sub-section about the United States. We shouldn't be dominating the opening of the article with our country.

That's it for me. • Lawrence Cohen 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GregorB

I haven't been involved with this article thus far, but here are my thoughts anyway:

• The intro should say waterboarding is torture, because saying upfront that some claim otherwise breaks WP:UNDUE. It could be that waterboarding, indeed, is not torture; it could also be that Moon landing is a hoax, but I don't expect that view to be covered in the Moon landing article intro. On top of that, most of the sources that state waterboarding is not torture are not exactly impartial, making WP:UNDUE more egregious.
• Particular views (of US Government and other entities) or references to current events are indeed best left out of the lead section completely.

I feel that the "NPOV" version would invite more edit warring, but the same can be said for the version I'm proposing above, so I'm not really an optimist about unprotecting the article. GregorB (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Remember

I look at this again when I have more time but here are my initial thoughts

1. I think the first sentence should just describe the procedure and refrain from categorizing it as torture/nontorture (which can happen in later sentences).

2. The article shouldn't say it is simulated drowning, since it more akin to controlled drowning since water enters the lungs. If we can't agree on simulated versus controlled we should avoid the terms all together.

3. We should mention that the forced ingestion of water and water into the lungs has a longstanding and widespread history of being torture (such as water torture and the water cure, but that recently some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that it isn't torture (or that even if it is it is justified) and then link to the discussion later in the page.

Suggested intro - Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. This procedure causes the subject to feel the early stages of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage. The forced ingestion of water into the stomach or lungs has long been considered a form of torture (see also water torture and the water cure). Recently, some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that waterboarding does not qualify as torture or that even if it is torture that it is justified as an interrogation technique (and then link this last part to a longer discuss part on the page.

Remember (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a big mistake to define waterboarding as including forced inhalation of water. There are likely to be more than one technique in use. A number of sources, including the Life Magazine photograph from the Vietnam War, say cloth or cellophane is first placed over the victims nose and mouth. If we say waterboarding is defined by ingestion of water and therefore torture, it might be used as a justification for other "milder" techniques designed to prevent ingestion. All forms of waterboarding are torture because they produce an intense fear of death, not because of any possible physical harm. --agr (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big mistake, as the individual in charge of teaching this technique stated very clearly that this is one of the objectives of the technique. If you've actually read the sources we've been considering here, your comment just doesn't make sense. You can believe the official version promulgated by the administration attempting to get the public to accept this technique as "not so bad" or you can accept the testimony of someone to whom this was actually done, and who taught this technique in the U.S.'s own elite counterterrorism unit. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is no "official" administration position. They refuse to discuss it on the record. Second, I think you are missing the point. By defining waterboarding in the harshest mode, we leave room for people to argue that less harsh versions are not torture. And in any case, one person's testimony is not enough for us to ignore the other descriptions of waterboarding that are out there. The Fox TV reporters who underwent waterboarding did not report water inhalation, for example. Yet they found it quite effective and even characterized it as torture. There may be, and likely are, different methods used. We don't have to pick one. --agr (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there are apparently differing versions of waterboarding, we'll just list them as variants or something similar. Unless a source says this one is worse or less worse than that one, we absolutely will never say that. It would be original research. • Lawrence Cohen 08:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:OtterSmith

As I see it, there are three major problems with this discussion.

• Waterboarding is very poorly described, so poorly that it can be said to be undefined. I can think of at least a half-dozen different things that have been called waterboarding. None of them are pleasant. Some of them are physically dangerous to the victim. Some of them are actual interrupted drowning, others are things that seem to trick the body into feeling like it is in danger. Waterboarding is not a boogeyman, but it needs to be described so that the reader knows which techniques (whether one, some, or all) are being talked about.
• The legal status of waterboarding as torture needs to be accurately described for each of the different things being done. I suspect that some of the techniques are definately legal tortue, some of them are possibly legal tortue, and some of them are not. All of them are probably moral tortue, but that is a different question. The politics of those either condemning or practicing it are not part of the legal question (and are probably not properly part of the moral question.)
• American politics has no place in the article. If you can't talk or think about this without Bush bashing, you should disqualify yourself; likewise if you can't talk or think about this without Clinton bashing.
• "OMG Waterboarding is EVIL" is not helpful, even if true.

htom (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is not poorly defined. It involve immobilizing someone pouring water over their head to make them believe they are drowning. There may be variants, but that's the basic deal. Tricking "the body into feeling like it is in danger", at least mortal danger, is of torture under U.S. law. No physical damage is required. --agr (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine what goes through your head when you think you are drowning. I remember getting choked out once. Everything went into slow motion, and it was as if my brain was on fire. It only lasted a few seconds, but it took thousands of hours as literally hundreds of nuerons fired at once and thoughts began racing. It wasn't really painful to be hand-choked, but it was hell. I can only imagine how horrible it must be to be "drowned". --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ka-Ping Yee

Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.

• Waterboarding is not a simulation, and most definitely involves the introduction of water into the breathing passages. Most accounts of waterboarding involve a cloth (or nothing) over the subject's face; in the few cases that mention cellophane, a hole is poked in the cellophane. (The cloth or cellophane is used to intensify the effect, not soften it: it acts as a one-way valve, letting the subject's air escape, but forming a seal over the nose and/or mouth when he or she tries to inhale.) The article should make it clear that causing water to flow into the breathing passages is the whole point of the procedure; that is why, in every description, the subject is specifically positioned with the head tilted back.

• As far as I know, no government agency or representative has stated on the record that waterboarding is not torture -- so the article should not say or imply that this is anyone's official legal opinion. There have been quite a few evasive statements and refusals to answer by United States officials, and these are fine to quote or mention. But it would be going too far for the article to make derivations from what has been said and then present that as fact. Examples of such inferences to avoid: "X refused to say waterboarding is torture" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture". Or "X says torture is illegal" + "X authorized waterboarding" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture". When presenting official opinions, the article should offer exactly what has been said, no more and no less.

• I personally believe that "waterboarding is torture" is at least as true as "humans and apes have a common ancestor." That is, although some people may not accept it, it is firmly supported by evidence and sound reasoning (e.g. reasoning directly from legal definitions of torture). The opposing viewpoint is not on equal footing; in fact, arguably "waterboarding is torture" is on even firmer ground than evolution, since there are not even official authorities willing to publicly take the opposing viewpoint. I am willing to accept an article that does not contain the statement "waterboarding is torture", but not an article that presents a dispute between two equal sides. I would argue for a statement such as "the overwhelming majority of experts, legal authorities, and historical precedents consider waterboarding to be torture." As mentioned earlier on this talk page, perhaps a good solution would be to move all discussion of waterboarding's classification as torture to a section devoted specifically to legal status. This section would state the legal definitions, the historical precedent in literature and legal opinion, and quote the opinions of modern authorities.

Thanks for taking these into consideration. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "a hole is poked in the cellophane"? None of the sources I found mention this. --agr (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: Mukasey Unsure About Legality of Waterboarding (New York Times, October 30, 2007) —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Inertia Tensor

Again, Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.

• Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).

• I consider torture to be what it is - and the simplest most accurate consise description to a reader - torture should lead, with the mechanics of it following.

• I believe the whitehouse carries no weight as I would consider a murderer saying something is not murder to be noteworthy, but not carrying weight.

• Being neutral to fact, and being neutral to a side are different things. We are not meant to be neutral to perpetrators - we are meant to be neutral to fact.

• No whitewashing, unreasonable glossing over things, revisionism or New Speak. So no controlled drowning, enhanced-(beating-the-shit-out-of people) information gathering, wet ops, special interogation or any other doublespeak. New speak is a gross distortion of NPOV. Later citing somone else's new 'word' is fine, but not in the opener.

• It is what it is. Torture. If you feel uncomfortable about that take it up with your leaders - or change them. But don't try and twist fact to suit them. Demos Cratine

• Common reading of the English language, such as the US code, is not necessarily OR, as has been claimed by some. The Law doesn't say that Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho is torture, even though I take that to mean castration with a tennis racket. So is Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho ok? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NoSpam150

My suggestion would be to remove any direct comparisons of waterboarding to drowning, as drowning implies death in official definitions. Implying death or "simulated" death, is not accurate. Mentioning a condition involving the "fear of drowning", however, is fair.

So something like:

Waterboarding is a torture technique where asphyxiation due to 
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

or

Waterboarding is a torture technique where suffocation due to
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

Where:

Asphyxiation is the condition of being deprived of oxygen.

Torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for punishment, intimidation, coercion, or to elicit a confession.

---

For those who insist that "torture" is in question, I would ask which definition you are using. Do you disagree with the (often mentioned) international definition of torture, or does some part of the definition not match? If so, which part:

• severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.

• intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as:

• • obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.

• • punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed.

• • intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

• when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Nospam150 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Indicate

The bottom line here is that the language is too strong for the issue. No one here is qualified to unequivocally state that waterboarding is or is not torture, no matter how hard you argue and how many sources you cite. HOWEVER, it is reasonable to say that waterboarding is considered by many to be torture, because that is indeed verifiable and truthful, which I would argue is the purpose here.

Ultimately, the description of waterboarding as an act is the intent here (i.e. how it is performed), not whether or not it is torture. Thus the information should not be introduced by how it is characterized (torture). It should be introduced by how waterboarding is performed. Once those facts are established, only then should this controversy about the characterization be presented since it is secondary. If there are opposing viewpoints, as there are here, both views should be presented in a balanced way so as not to influence the readers conclusion. It is only fair.

The fact is that the issue is controvertible and there are two distinct sides to it. A statement claiming one side is not objective in this particular venue. The article is stating a position in the debate, one that others might not agree with. I'm not arguing from any philosophical, moral, political, or ideological influences; it is simple logic. You have two sides to an issue and one is being asserted as truth. That is called making an argument and is suited for an article or essay, not for a medium in which the purpose is solely to present verifiable facts. And citing some sources as evidence in favor of that argument is not adequate to claim it as fact. The stated position is still burdened by opposition.

Simply put - One's claim that waterboarding is torture is refutable; ones claim that waterboarding is not torture is also refutable. Neither statement is fact, but both can be presented equally, albeit briefly. It is more important to stick to the issues; how waterboarding is performed, who uses it, what is its place in history, etc.

I fully support an edited intro along the lines that user "Remember" has proposed above. It is objective, truthful, and verifiable. Users on Misplaced Pages expect to be given factual and balanced information so they can come to their own conclusions.

V-Indicate 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your first one-and-a-half paragraphs. I believe it is clear, however, that there aren't two equal sides here. We have a position that is supported by historical record, legal precedent, and the opinions of an overwhelming majority of present-day experts; and we have an opposing position that no one in an authoritative role (as far as I know) has been willing to take in public. (Keep in mind that unwillingness to say "waterboarding is torture" is not the same as actually taking the position "waterboarding is not torture.") Consider, for example, re-reading your third paragraph in the context of a statement such as "the earth is round" and you will see what I mean. The existence of flat-earthers does not obligate an encyclopedia to censor the statement "the earth is round" from its articles.

I recognize that the level of controversy around this topic will probably prevent an article which says "waterboarding is torture" from lasting for any length of time without re-igniting a flame war. Thus, pragmatically, I am willing to accept an article without this statement, as I note below. But there is no doubt that the article should reflect the fact that recorded opinions and evidence weigh very heavily on the side that waterboarding, indeed, is torture.

—Ka-Ping Yee 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...as I note below." Whoops! I meant "above". —Ka-Ping Yee 05:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "unwillingness to say 'waterboarding is torture' is not the same as actually taking the position 'waterboarding is not torture.'" (I direct that statement to Badagnani on my behalf). I am not advocating for an article without "waterboarding is torture." On the contrary, I think that it must be included to tell the reader that waterboarding is considered torture. But I argue that the first sentence of the second paragraph does that, and does it very effectively and objectively.

Those who challenge the neutrality of the article take issue with the introductory sentence's language, among other things. As I proposed below, if the opening sentence would say "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique..." it would thus be a neutral statement. Then the second paragraph works to assert that waterboarding has been described by experts as torture. I cannot reiterate enough how effective this statement is; it is exactly the wording that must be used to convey the charaterization of torture, and its placement in the article is perfect.

Consider this: The first sentence asserts "Waterboarding is torture..." but the first sentence of the second paragraph says "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture." The language of the two is completely different. You can see how the former sentence's language is stronger that that of the latter sentence. Thus, changing the first sentence to "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique..." and keeping "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture," makes for a better encyclopedic entry that hopefully would be agreeable to everyone.

Then we are largely in agreement. As indicated elsewhere on this page, I am fine with a statement expressing that most or nearly all experts and precedents consider waterboarding to be torture. However, I would argue for leaving "interrogation technique" out of the first sentence because waterboarding is not a way of asking questions. It could be used to coerce someone to answer questions, but it could also be used to coerce someone to do just about anything. Basically, a means is not the same as its end: e.g. bank robbery is not encyclopedically defined as a "profit technique"; it is just plain bank robbery. —Ka-Ping Yee 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ka-Ping Yee. Remember 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

The opinion by the redlinked editor (in his/her first edit at Misplaced Pages ever) is illogical in light of the massive collection of sources on this issue. The practice is, by definition, torture, and the article should state this in the lead. The fringe opinion, on behalf of some members of the current administration of one country among nearly 200 in the world, that "waterboarding is not torture" (which has been repeated by such individuals as the redlinked new editor) should be mentioned, but not privileged in the lead. Badagnani 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From previous discussion you probably know that I generally agree with your opinion on waterboarding and torture. But let's keep the discussion away from getting personal. Repeatedly hinting at V-Indicate's newness to Misplaced Pages is out of bounds for this discussion. It doesn't help us reach consensus on the article. —Ka-Ping Yee 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Indicated

First and foremost let me clarify to you that at no point did I claim that waterboarding was not torture. And if you interpreted my comments as such, you are mistaken. It is irresponsible on your part to make that statement. Clearly you are one of those that brings political and ideological biases to the issue, and you ought to descend from your pedestal. You might be surprised to know my personal position on the matter, but it is completely irrelevant here.

Secondly, the hand you are playing is one to diminish my credibility. I fail to see how this being my first edit on Misplaced Pages "ever" (under this username, I might add) has any sort of bearing to what I have to say. Is my ability to contribute to this discussion in anyway inferior becasue you assume I haven't edited before? What I am is a Misplaced Pages user who expects better.

Third, I'll reiterate my position that an encyclopedic entry about waterboarding should describe the act of waterboarding and its origins, uses, etc. That should be the dominant discussion. I never proposed that the opposing viewpoint should be in the lead as you claim I said. You would do yourself justice to read more carefully. What waterboarding is characterized as, whether it is or it isn't torture, is secondary and subjective.

If the definition is so clear cut, as you allege, then why are people challenging its neutrality? If the article would not have begun with "Waterboarding is torture," would you so ardently be promoting the inclusion of that statement?

The logical compromise here is to call waterboarding an interrogation technique, which is a more appropriate term because it is irrefutable and truthful. If you must have the charatarization in the introductory sentence, it would then read "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment." By simply changing the wording it turns into a factual scentence without strong language. I think that would be agreeable to you, me, and everyone else, whatever our personal ideologies dictate.

As responsible Misplaced Pages editors, it is our (the public) duty to ensure that proper and factual information is being made available to people, lest we forget that it is the purpose of Misplaced Pages.

V-Indicate 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You have some very interesting opinions about this issue, but I think you were clear; you wish to follow the current U.S. administration's bending of the definition and terminology. Misplaced Pages, although founded in the United States, has no such mission to redefine terms, in the lead of an article, according to current, fringe redefinitions made by a single administration of a single nation. Badagnani 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Out of fairness, perhaps you should consider changing the Parrilla (torture) (Electric shock torture) page to remove the possible "political and ideological biases". Just in case the US government or another partner government is using that, we may need a similar change there:

From:

Parrilla is a method of torture where the victim is strapped to a metal frame and subjected to electric shock.

To:

Parrilla is an interrogation technique that simulates electrocution in a controlled environment.

Nospam150 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By this reasoning, Rack (torture) would also need to have its very title changed. Badagnani 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources that assert waterboarding is torture

From Innertia Tensor

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

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

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

On two counts in plain English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Lawrence Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Badagnani

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

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

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

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

Other comments

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

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

New Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minor edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add to "See also"

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

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

Incorrect link to other language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Sources

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

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

Downgrade Full protection to semi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAMN Larry, you are full of crap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding

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

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

Deleted videos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That doesn't answer the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I had said earlier of the edit history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about tickling? Music torture? Stress positions?

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE LEAD DISCUSSION ABOVE

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

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

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

"Simulated drowning"

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

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

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

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

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

US Technique

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

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

Horrible Article

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

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

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

CIA man speaks

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

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

Defining Torture

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

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

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

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

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

Sentence Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interwiki

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

Effectiveness as an Interrogation Technique

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

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

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

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

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

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

The suspect lasted only 35 seconds before he broke.

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

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

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

I struggle with it."

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

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

Lead and unlocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request is in

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

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

Semi-protected

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

US House votes to ban CIA from using waterboarding

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

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

A new can of worms

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

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

From -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder

Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Split

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

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

Human Rights Watch a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality Tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Expert legal opinion is divided."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is not neutral? List here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need help?

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

Confusion over the word torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding new section - Waterboarding's classification as torture

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

1. Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
2. Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor ("The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.")
3. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
4. ^ "Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said." Mayer, Jane (2005). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
5. Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
6. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
7. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
8. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record.U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
9. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
10. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
11. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
12. Michael Cooper and Marc Santora. McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark, New York Times, October 26, 2007. Speaking about Waterboarding, John McCain stated in a telephone interview "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."
13. ^ Cite error: The named reference WashPostWaterboarding_100406 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
15. Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005
16. Attorney General Pick Facing New Resistance, New York Times, October 26, 2007
17. Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
18. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
19. Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
20. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
21. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
22. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record.U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
23. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
24. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
25. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
26. Michael Cooper and Marc Santora. McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark, New York Times, October 26, 2007. Speaking about Waterboarding, John McCain stated in a telephone interview "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."
27. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
28. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
29. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. | http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/page/2/ ]
30. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
31. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
32. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340
33. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004
34. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e
35. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on.
36. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
37. "Variety of Interrogation Techniques Said to Be Authorized by CIA" by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, September 6, 2006
38. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
39. Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005
40. Cheney endorses simulated drowning, "Financial Times" October 26, 2006
41. Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
42. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
43. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
44. Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
45. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html
46. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
47. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
48. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
49. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
50. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
51. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
52. Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
53. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm
54. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
55. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
56. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
57. Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
58. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
59. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
60. Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
61. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html
62. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
63. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
64. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
65. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
66. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
67. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
68. Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
69. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm
70. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
71. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
72. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
73. Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
74. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
75. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
76. Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
77. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html
78. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
79. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
80. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
81. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
82. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
83. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
84. Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
85. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm
86. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
87. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
88. ABC News, October 4, 2007
89. Daily Mail news, December 12, 2007
90. ABC News, December 10, 2007
91. BBC News, December 11, 2007
92. Lawmakers: Mukasey must reject "waterboarding", Reuters via Yahoo News, October 29, 2007
93. CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees

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