Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Origin of the term

The section enhanced interrogation techniques#Origin of the term is complete garbage. It is only Andrew Sullivan's opinion. The editors of The Atlantic had acknowledged that there are no fact checks on his writings. His writings are interesting opinion, but authoritative only in that these are his opinions. He is a fool who hasn't the slightest idea what went on in the back rooms of the CIA when they came up with this.

And it is blatantly obvious garbage that no one seriously believes. "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is in no way a direct translation of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The techniques themselves are basically from third degree (interrogation), which predates the Nazis.

It needs to be fixed or removed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Randy2063. Thanks for your view. Perhaps a tad strident, but it does raise an interesting point about whether a translation of a phrase like "Verschärfte Vernehmung" can be a matter of opinion. More importantly though do you recall a book or secondary source that states who in the CIA, Justice Department OLC or wherever it was, who it was that first came up with the term "enhanced interrogation?" Or when the term was first used? Former CIA Director George Tenet's book is unclear on this, and I don't recall seeing anything in Jane Mayer's book the Darkside. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source for that either.

From my reading, the CIA saw that their normal techniques weren't working, and so they requested more. Since the request had to be written down, the reasonable assumption is that they would have created the name at that time -- before they even created the list. I think they'd have kept the name even if they had stopped with stress positions.

The name is functional, as you'd expect from a bureaucracy. What else would they have called it? This article also uses the translations "intensified interrogation," or "sharpened interrogation." This is the smoking gun for how bogus the section is, because it means that Sullivan would still have played the Gestapo story regardless which of those terms the CIA came up with.

Besides that, the common popular theory (which I don't completely buy either) is that they looked at SERE, which was based on communist techniques. Does anybody seriously believe the communists didn't have third degree techniques until after they'd read about it in obscure Gestapo manuals?

Let's not forget that the British were also using these techniques in WWII. There were still plenty of people with first-hand knowledge in the '50s. That's what makes Sullivan's rantings so silly.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Randy--Yes, I tend to agree with your hypothesis that different people in different places at different times facing a similar situation, could well independently come up with the same solution. That probably applies both to the techniques, and the name used. Germans being as bureaucratic as anybody else. This isn't a Wiki-citable anecdote since it is not (yet) published anywhere, but I know the American military translator who spoke to a German farmer who, in exchange for two cartons of American cigarettes, lead American military intelligence to the haystack where the Nazis had hidden six million (!) Nazi party identify files. My friend who was himself originally German, said "typical German bureaucrats--the six million files were filled out in triplicate!" The bureauratcs had left behind critical info in triplicate that became a major source of evidence used at Nuremberg. As to the present problem, I've taken the liberty of writing Jane Mayer, author of The Darkside, to ask whether in her research she found out who in the CIA (or wherever it was) first used the term "enhanced interrogation," and where it came from. She may know if its been published in some secondary source, in which case it would be Wiki-citable. My query has to go by snail mail since I only have her street address. If or when she responds I'll post an immediate update here. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated it. Total rubbish, POV pushing.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You erred. Discuss such changes first, and reach consensus before making a change. I restored it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is you who has erred. Kindly seek consensus before adding contentious and unsupported materials back into the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not merely bogus. It is juvenile. I just reread the Sullivan rant. He doesn't actually say it was the first use of the term as our article does.

If you read it carefully, you'll see that his own translated source calls it "sharpened interrogation." It is only Sullivan who calls it "enhanced interrogation."

As I pointed out, the use of these techniques were not uncommon elsewhere before the 1930s, including the U.S. This means the Nazi comparison cannot be anything other than bias.

So, to summarize:

Is Sullivan an objective reporter? No.

Does his column actually say what our article says? No.

Is there any chance that these techniques originated with the Nazis? No.

Is there any chance that the name for these techniques originated with the Nazis? No.

Is the Nazi link highly inflammatory? Yes.

What are we supposed to do with highly inflammatory bias?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy2063, thanks for weighing in with cogent reasoning and rhetoric. Meant to update my previous response above: Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side kindly responded to my letter inquiring about the source of the term with "It's a great question, but I don't know the answer [that is, whom originated 'enhanced interrogation']." She suggested I contact a Harpers Magazine writer named Scott Horton. I doubt Horton would know either. Former CIA Director George Tenet might know. But even if Tenet says something like "the CIA Terrorism Strike Force Deputy Director who came up with that was a German major, had Germany as his previous assignment, fluent in German, and when they were looking around for what to call this stuff he suggested initially as a joke "Verschärfte Vernehmung"--it started as a joke you understand, but it caught on in the ranks. . . etc." --even if Tenet gives me a complete etymology we can't publish it. Because that would be OR without a secondary source. The only secondary source etymology is Andrew Sullivan's. At Oxford, Sullivan took a First in Modern History and Modern Languages (so one hesitates to question his translation) also has a Harvard PhD, and has worked for the New Republic, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Daily Telegraph, Esquire, among others (bio here). He is a published and a respected journalist, so I have no problem giving him a footnote. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of speculation.

The trouble is, the article is still wrong even if we do include Sullivan's ravings. It currently says the first use of the term "appears to be" 1937. Sullivan does not say that. He doesn't even say there was a chain of influence. He's only saying they're similar techniques.

The only thing we could possibly use this for is to compare it to other harsh interrogation uses, like the third degree (interrogation), five techniques, Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, and the London Cage. But to suggest it's influential is simply wrong.

The only reason to focus on a Nazi connection is bias. Half the readers will spot that, and they'll assume they know what to expect for the rest of the article. The other half will buy anything.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. While Sullivan says "The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis--" I agree with you that confuses whether the etymology is actually traceable back to 1937, on whether it is merely a case of "great minds --or not so great minds--think alike." I'll rewrite that to say that it is Mr. Sullivan's view that . . . (etc.) That way people can take it with the requisite grain of salt. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grain of salt? Sorry, but it's entirely untrue. It is nothing like "great minds" thinking alike.

For one thing, Sullivan (an opinion columnist) is only saying that something like the term was used before. His source actually uses "sharpened interrogation". Sullivan decides "sharpened" means the same thing as "enhanced" but it's obviously not the official translation.

Why say it's German for "enhanced interrogation," "intensified interrogation," or "sharpened interrogation" when "sharpened" is obviously the preferred synonym, and the one Sullivan's source used? What do you think this article's readers are going to say when think that's the origin of the term, and then check up the source and see how it was mangled? They will rightly feel they've been deceived.

Look up "enhanced" in a thesaurus. Sharpened isn't there but look at how many there are. Think about it: If the CIA had called it by any one of a dozen other synonyms, would you still be trying to suggest that this belongs in "Origin of the term"? Why not? That appears to be what you're saying. It could just as well have been called "amplified" and Sullivan would have ignored his source's translation, and said it was the same thing.

In fairness to Sullivan, he's talking about the thinking that went behind this rather than the words themselves.

What if the CIA had called it "deep interrogation"? That's as close of a synonym to "sharpened" as "enhanced". And yet, "interrogation in depth" is what the British called it when they did it. Does anybody seriously think they got it from the Nazis, too?

Aside from taking a columnist's diatribe to create the first paragraph for this article, I don't think Sullivan intended it this way when he wrote his blog post. Do you think he was so worked up in this as to imagine the CIA was consulting old Nazi manuals when coming up with the name? And if so, then why didn't they use "sharpened", which appears to be an official translation as well as a much more accurate one?

I'm of the opinion that notable people who claim to oppose torture so stridently should never be forgotten -- because virtually all of them back down or hide under their beds when the circumstances change. This is the only reason I think Sullivan's position should be remembered. But it shouldn't be used here in this way. I don't think he meant it like this, which means it's not fair to Sullivan. Besides that, it's not serious enough to merit the first section of the article.

If we're going to go back into history then the real predecessors should be listed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an irate note I got from an editor years ago, outraged, furious, incensed, spitting mad, because reviewing one of my articles she'd checked my quotes from Plato: "You got it all wrong! Not even one sentence is quoted correctly!" It had not occurred to her that English translations from the Greek might differ. German is not one of my languages, but I did run Verschärfte Vernehmung past a fluent German speaker who said "enhanced interrogation" would be the best contemporary English approximation. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is now brilliant. We have an opinion columnist who has set forth a conjecture that the term "might" have come from a German source which uses a different terminology, and that is now linked to the article as some sort of reliable source, which is so wildly unspportable the article itself admits that no one knows whether the term was actually know by American officials when they coined it. This is straight POV. Move to delete this portion of the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and to answer the ultimate question, the actual meaning of the German term is "Intense Examination". Sullivan even missed that. [1] The German word for Interrogatation is Verhor.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Yachtsman1, and glad that you are discussing a controversial change in advance. I mention in passing that I find temperate remarks more persuasive than sarcasm (given opinion columnist Peggy Noonan's point that "the one who sounds angry looks like he is losing") but that's a matter of personal choice. To speak to the point: I think Randy2063 has it right. Sullivan is not saying the term descended from the German, like a bad inherited genetic condition. Rather, Sullivan is saying the first known use of a comparable term was the 1937 Gestapo memo. I agree with Randy2063 that there is no direct line of descent. Rather bureaucrats faced with the same verbal problem, independently came up with a similar verbal solution. Maybe in the year 2050 some prison bureaucrat in China will use the Chinese equivalent of "intense examination" as their euphamism of choice, having no knowledge of English or German, and no idea there were precedents in either language. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS--I have not before referred a dispute over article content to mediation, but if everybody wants to go that route I would be happy to oblige. It does have to be everybody, under their submission rules. My own view is that the remarks above have raised a legitimate question about the section heading "Origins of the Term." But I won't try to devise a different header until we have resolved whether that paragraph should be deleted outright. I think not, but I would abide by a mediator's recomendation. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need mediation yet. You may not realize it, but I think you just revealed why this is wrong.

It is a "comparable term" only in that it's a term for a certain class of rough interrogation. As I pointed out many times, each country had their own terms for it. To single out the Gestapo, and to attempt to lead readers to believe there is a lineage is bias.

Let's work with your "English translations from the Greek might differ." It's correct, but it really makes my point. If we found an old Greek tragedy with the line, "To be or not to be, that is the question," someone might speculate that Shakespeare got the Hamlet line from there. If the translation said, "To be or not to be, that is the investigation" then we'd say it really means the same thing even when someone else, as in your scenario, tried to say it's different.

But if the Greek had only used the phrase "that is the investigation" alone, then it would be absolutely ridiculous to say it's related to Shakespeare. Sorry, but this is what this misreading of the article is attempting to do. You've only got two words, and there are some big differences.

The root word of verschärfte is scharf, which literally means sharp. My German isn't good but Google translate shows "verschärfte" as "aggravated." The word "aggravated" is obviously more harsh. For that matter, the word "sharpened" isn't tame either.

This is about the origin of the term. Sullivan's ravings can go into another section providing that we not make more of it than what it is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Another section like Debates about whether techniques constitute "torture" ? Presumably after discussing Presidents Bush and Obama, down in the "media reactions" area? That might work. Let me think about it, and play with suitable language in my Sandbox.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Randy2063: after playing around in my sandbox to try to improve the article, I edited it as per the discussion above. I deleted Origins of the Term in its entirety, the apparent consensus being that we should wait for some definitive statement in the media of who came up with the term before creating an etymology section. Sullivan's stuff is now down in the "debates" section. It is a little out of place there too, but to the extent it is Sullivan's pov that seems to be the best home for it for now. The debates section would only get a C- from a high school debate coach: we need in particular to check Bush's memoirs and flesh out WHY he thinks it isn't torture. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bush said they weren't torture only because the lawyers told him those techniques didn't meet the legal definition. (BTW: This doesn't mean the CIA thought it wouldn't be torture under a different set of guidelines.) Interestingly enough, Bush also said the lawyers approved two other techniques as well, but he rejected those. He didn't elaborate. I assume they'll remain classified in case the need arises to consider them again. We are still at war, after all.

It is better in the debates section, although I still disagree that we can imply the term "enhanced interrogation" is related. As it is, all you've got is a line in a blog post that I think reads that way only because it was badly phrased. I don't think this is really Sullivan's POV. And I say that despite the fact that he believes in the Trig Palin birth conspiracy (which, curiously, I can't find any mention of in Wikipedia).

I still think a historical section might work, and it could fit there. It's pretty deceptive to mention the Gestapo alone, as though other countries didn't have similar techniques. It's a bit like the way slavery was depicted in old books and movies as though it was a benign institution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, on Bush, and the definition of torture, keep in mind that the U.K. has different laws, and is subject to some different treaties. For example, the court rulings that eventually ruled that the Five techniques were illegal, although not torture, would not apply here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction on Sullivan's Trig Palin conspiracy theory: I made the mistake of looking under Sarah Palin. The conspiracy theory is here: Andrew Sullivan#Palin pregnancy rumor.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. And thanks for that reference. I am not a regular reader of Mr. Sullivan's work and was unaware of his extremity. The anti-Palin rant does seem so excessive as to be the 13th strike of the clock that calls into question the first twelve.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

US Government Opinions

The statement "In addition, a new US definition of torture was issued." gives no reference, not does it state the content of this "new US definition". The whole section becomes useless unless we know what the "new definition" precisely states and by whom and how it was issued. Presumably it states or implies that waterboarding is not torture. Does this mean that waterboarding is now legal? Can I use it on my students? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhummerman (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, sort of, give a reference after the next line, although it was never a "new definition." We need to clear that up.

The definition of "torture" is murky. The Bush administration decided to fine-tune it, and the people who claim to oppose torture think it went too far.

I don't think you can slap your students either. That doesn't mean it would fall under the definition of torture to do so.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're slapping them in between waterboarding sessions and hypothermia I'd say it does. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Debates concerning effectiveness or reliability of techniques

Speculating whether information extracted through waterboarding helped a lot, helped a little, or did not help and in fact hampered, tracking down Osama Bin Laden is premature. Pro- and anti-torture partisans are each claiming vindication. The best an encyclopedia--remember this is an encycolpedia--can do at this early stage is say "accounts differ." In a month or two we will have more reliable timeline, and we can try to say what happened. In the meantime I would suggest shortening the graph simply to say "there is a debate over whether . . . " citing news articles on each side. I'll wait for a consensus before doing that though, this being intensely controversial. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This section has been around for a long time. Why was it okay when it focused on people claiming that it can't work? How would you change it? It already provides both views.

I agree that the debate will be going on for a long time.

Some who support the U.S. side of the war will want to claim vindication, and those who claim to oppose "torture" (whenever the U.S. is accused of using it, anyway) will feel the need to say it doesn't work.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy--I didn't mean the whole section, sorry to be unclear--I meant the last paragraph added in the last day or two, that begins "After the killing of Osama bin Laden . . . " ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the news concerning last paragraph is already done with by now. The overall argument isn't settled by a long shot, but I don't think the people already quoted are going to retract their statements. We do need to be careful not to overplay this. Spencer Ackerman says waterboarding played only a minor role.

I know that Senator Feinstein says it didn't help, Congressman King says that it did, and CIA Director Panetta agrees it helped to some extent. Those names could be added to the article, but I doubt the situation is going to change much from this point.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The last graph as revised by Peace01234 says: "These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting." That accurately quotes the original in the Wash. Post, but clearly the original has a typo. I hope Peace01234 will check the quote for an updated version and also, look for a mainstream source. A blog, even a Wash Post columnist blog, is not considered as dependable as a news article which has gone through the editorial vetting process.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think is a typo. If you mean "were alerting", "were alerting" means the attempts alerted them.

Regarding the citation, the title of the article states that Sargent was provided the letter as an "Exclusive" to the Washington Post; so, only Sargent at the Washington Post had access to the letter. Peace01234 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Military use of "enhanced interogation"

Randy2063 nice to see you again. I must respectfully differ with one of your edits: Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary did approve use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and the military did use them. He says so. The Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that it was that Def. Dep't (not CIA) approval of abusive treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo that then led to Abu Ghraib. Not sure why that was deleted.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I had deleted it before because they were completely different sets of techniques. They just happen to use the same term. It wouldn't be right to imply that that they're both using the same list.

They weren't kept on as long either. Alberto J. Mora raised objections in mid-January 2003, and some of those techniques were ended at that time. In fact, if you look at the interrogation logs for Mohammed al-Qahtani you'll see that the part that was leaked ends just before that date.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the lede a lede, putting detail in article

One common technique was use of stress positions such as pinioning somebody's arms behind them and hanging them from their wrists so their feet don't touch the floor, aka crucifiction. It is what killed the thieves on crosses on either side of Jesus by asphyxiation, and likewise killed at least one detainee for which the Justice Department is still contemplating prosecution (autopsy reports indicate as many as 22 are asserted to have died from this kind of abuse)). Use of 'stress positions' was both a CIA and DoD abuse. It is still unclear who carried out the waterboarding--it appears to have been DoD personnel or contractors under supervision of the CIA. So to be brief, we don't have enough information to say who did or did not do what. The lede is best used as a brief introduction to enhanced interrogation. The body of the article is where details can be hashed out. I say this with respect to Gonamyi , the new editor who initially introduced the detail 'waterboarding" into the lede to begin with. Out of kindness to a newbie I dressed it up, which then caused Randy2063 to add more, and so forth--but I should not have, I should have just taken it out the first time. Details belong in the article. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the details belong in the body of the article but I think it should be established right away that CIA and DoD use different sets of techniques. I'm not aware of any DoD personnel handling the waterboarding with the CIA. Even if that could be true, it was still a CIA operation under CIA authority.

Manadel al-Jamadi was a CIA detainee. He wasn't killed by any authorized enhanced interrogation technique. Nor was he hanging with his feet off the floor.

Your ACLU link has a 404 error at the moment. This is a major gripe I have with both the ACLU and the DoD. There's no excuse to be dumping this stuff. This isn't 1995.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The lost link wasn't the ACLU's fault this time. It's available here. You missed the dash at the end.

Most of these deaths appear to have involved injuries from being beaten. (Some terrorists have a bad habit of fighting even after they've been captured.) While the methods of containing them might have been inappropriate, that's not a matter of enhanced interrogation techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to my cite. The two deaths that the Justice Department is still investigating for prosecution are as follows: 1) Manadel al-Jamadi: "[a]ccording to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the (Abu Ghraib) prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead . . . [I]nvestigators concluded that al-Jamadi had died of asphyxiation and "blunt force injuries." 2) Gul Rahman's "hands were shackled over his head, he was roughed up and doused with water, according to several former CIA officials. The exact circumstances of Rahman's death are not clear, but the Afghan was left in the cold cell on the morning of Nov. 20. He was naked from the waist down, said two former U.S. officials. Within hours, he was dead. His death . . . led to a review of CIA interrogation policies 'and forced the agency to change those procedures'" (so much for 'if they die, you're doing it wrong': this one evidently died from the usual procedures). At Bagram, also under DoD, prisoners were shackled by their arms to the ceiling of their cells and their legs beaten so they could not stand, as the Bagram torture and prisoner abuse Wikipedia article details. At least two died. Three Guantanamo detainee deaths originally called suicides based on falsified autopsy reports, now have been established to have died of asphyxiation from having rags shoved down their throats, in apparent imitation of the movie A Few Good Men. In that movie Jack Nicholson playing the camp commander memorably shouts at Tom Cruise playing a JAG lawyer, the line: "you can't handle the truth!"

All this is detail exceeding the scope of this particular encylopedia article. I mention it only to say that people were tortured to death in both DoD and CIA prisons, some by asphyxiation. We don't know how many given the predilection for cover-ups and falsified autopsies, and it is questionable whether even some future Truth Commission will be able to sort exactly how many were tortured, how many died of the torture, and what sort of torture it was.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say al-Jamadi didn't die from asphyxiation. I said he wasn't tied with his arms holding him off the floor. One method is legal, the other isn't.

I'm not aware of any credible cases of falsified autopsy reports. Look at all those reports via the ACLU link. They're based almost exclusively on reports from military doctors. None of those doctors felt any need to risk their own careers (both military and medical) to cover up a crime. The ACLU link demonstrates pretty clearly that they call it as they see it.

IIRC, the Bagram guards used civilian police techniques they'd learned separately, and didn't realize it wasn't legal for the Army. It was wrong, but those things happen in war and bureaucracy.

With all the troops overseas, that a few guards are personally violent, or simply lose control of their emotions, shouldn't be a surprise. IIRC, there were over 10,000 people captured in Afghanistan in the first year of the war. That some of those detainees would be extremely violent, and legitimately require physical force, should also not be a surprise. There was never any chance that the number of detainee deaths would be zero.

The Harpers story doesn't have much going for it other than a flimsy conspiracy theory from a few guards who've never been to "Camp No" and have no genuine idea that anything goes on there. The network reporters rejected the story when it came to them. Any member of Congress could have asked for details, and demanded hearings if there was anything to it. Nearly every Democrat would have jumped at the chance for an Abu Ghraib replay before the 2008 election. What doctor would risk his career over that? I simply don't see it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a graph on the Senate Armed Services Committee Report, since in the course of our conversation I noted it was not discussed in the article. I won't go all Jack Nicholson on you, but I would deferentially point out it was an Armed Services Committee Report, and bipartisan, and addressed ONLY enhanced interrogation as practiced by the military, not the CIA.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look.

I'd take "bipartisan" with a grain of salt. It was led by Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, and (formerly the Democrats' favorite Republican) John McCain.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: According to one of the references, the "abuses" Rumsfeld authorized included military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions. We already knew that but it's funny to see them stretch this.

"The investigation did not focus on the CIA's treatment of detainees, or the agency's operation of a network of secret prisons."

This is why we need clear separation between military and CIA techniques.

One other reference is from Jason Leopold. He's not RS. The site isn't RS without attribution, but an attribution to Leopold's opinions isn't worth anything.

On "bipartisanship," out of 17 votes we know they had at least four Republicans voting for it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Leopold not RS? Looked up RS--République solidaire - a new French party; Rolling Stone, a magazine . . . when I followed the Leopold link you kindly provided I see he is midway between journalist and blogger. So I assume he falls into the Andrew Sullivan category of ranting I mean questionable source. . Ranting source = rs? Leopold's was the most detailed summary of the Senate Report that tracked its language but I will replace that if I can with other more mainstream sources, and thanks for the heads up.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision to restore chronological order?

This page has gotten very confusing: several editors have dropped in topics and created new sections with no regard to when things happened. The Yoo memos (which don't belong here in such detail as they are much better explained on a different Wikipage) for instance, are near the end rather than up in the initial decision to authorize enhanced inter. where they belong. I could try revising the page in my sandbox to put everything in chronological order and reposting it, unless there are objections? Please let me know your views: Yea or nay? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. I'll hold off on changes until you're done. If I do make changes before that, I'll either let you know, or you can assume I intended for them to be temporary.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Re-reading the page, I see a glaring omission: I need to get hold of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's memoirs so I can put together the chronology and also offer a better account of why they authorized the techniques and why they think they are not torture. That will take me some time, so in the meantime feel free to fix whatever you think needs fixing. When I am ready, I can simply lift the entirety, copy-and-paste into my sandbox and start the revisions.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but Courting Disaster by Marc Thiessen is probably a better bet.

He was Bush's speechwriter during this time. I think he was given access to a lot of the details, which made him knowledgeable about the actual thought process. In the question of, at what point rough interrogation becomes "torture," I don't think it's all that clear that it has to begin with waterboarding.

I think some, if not most or all, of the interrogators had gone through it themselves. I don't think they'd signed up for having their fingernails pulled out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree with you. "Stress positions" aka crucifiction can be worse than waterboarding. Both Jesus and the thieves on either side of him died from slow asphyxiation, from being hung with their arms pinioned behind their back as their chest collapsed (see Medical Account of Crucificton here) Several detainees died the same way, and ironically the practice of 'crucifracture', that is breaking the legs so the victim can no longer push himself up to take a breath, which killed the two thieves, was exactly what killed the detainees Habibullah and Dilawar at Bragam. As to the SERE techniques, the Senate report points out the difference between being waterboarded voluntarily as an exercise in a mock-prison with a password so you can stop it any time, and being waterboarded involuntarily 183 times. It was not SERE instructors doing the waterboarding according to the Senate Report: the people doing it were personnell who had received a short demonsration course courser at Fort Bragg (report at page xiv). I'll look at Theissen as you suggest.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's asking a bit much of stress positions to say that it's torture because of what Habibullah and Dilawar went through. Many normally mild interrogation methods could become torture if the person is already injured and in physical pain before it even begins.

I don't remember the source but I remember reading that the CIA's version of EIT required it could only be used on detainees in good physical and mental health. I'd guess that the DoD instructions may read the same way, but that the interrogators fouled up or didn't understand their responsibilities.

I've never heard of a password at SERE. It's to either to endure, or to sign zee paper. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed basically had those same options.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

I feel this article should be merged with torture. Going over the contents, there really is no difference, and labelling it as "enhanced interrogation techniques" strikes me as an impulsively concocted justification no different from duplicating the "genocide" page and calling it "demographic population reform" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Maybe in another generation there will be a consensus that enhanced interrogation was just a euphemism for torture. But currently people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still insist that it was not torture, because John Yoo opined it wasn't, and besides if they admit it then they are admitting to war crimes. I regret that we will have to wait until these people are beyond prosecution--judged by a Higher Power--before we can fold this topic under Torture.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It could very well go the other way.

This incident of torture was committed by a group with associates that frequently participated in "anti-war" demonstrations. Members of the so-called "human rights" movement marching among them in the same parade didn't bat an eye. Considering that this group was engaged in *real* torture (nothing remotely as tame as waterboarding, abdomen strikes, slapping, etc.), there doesn't appear to be any push to drive such groups away from torture. If you're hoping for progress, you'll have to wait for generations that truly oppose torture even when their allies do it.

Another problem with the merge suggestion is that it would make the comparison to actual torture more evident.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"if they admit it then they are admitting to war crimes" -- Exactly. Letting those two decide whether this is a euphemism for torture is like letting Ed Gein decide whether he was guilty of committing murder or really just artistically expressing himself in a legit way. That aside, this isn't a military tribunal but an encyclopedia, which on that note also isn't a republican propaganda flyer.

As far as militant activists are concerned, I don't see how they're involved with Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or the debate about the validity of that name. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude--get an account. Anonymous IP contributions are often reverted by bots, and seldom given a lot of credence by actual editors. Then get some practice editing non-controversial topics.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I just wanted to throw this in here. And if anyone's going to judge me based on the timestamp assigned to my account's DB record, rather than a logical argument, they're not the type I want to enter any sort of dialog with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Having an account would mean other editors could recognize you better when you have more than one post. We wouldn't need to check your editing history for that.

It isn't only the militant activists who attend those demonstrations. It is also the broader so-called "human rights" movement that also claims to oppose torture, and is trying to influence what the definition of torture should be. If they can't oppose real torture when their friends and allies are doing it, then they don't oppose torture at all. Their influence on the next generation isn't going to be a good one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ehr, okay..

Militant networks posing as human rights networks and their future effects on western sociology aside, this does fit the dictionary definition of torture. Regardless of who practices it. Seems like a pretty obvious euphemism to me. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Randy2063 about other editors needing to know who you are. I would add that over time having a name as a Wikieditor accumulates clout. I have learned for instance to respect what Randy2063 says. And it encourages responsibility by giving you a good name to protect. Finally--nobody awards a Barnstar to a datestamp assigned to an account's DB record. So. Dearest cherished datestamp: get an account. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

EIT is a well-known euphemism for torture, and for wikipedia to list the term itself separately from the page on torture is to duplicate a term in an attempt by some to enforce a particular POV, especially as techniques listed here as EIT are also listed on the Torture page. Either this page should be merged with Torture, or it should be harmonised with the Torture and the United States page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear FOARP: Are you the same person who started this section as "82.95.25.120"? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling something "a well-known euphemism" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's not that well-known among the general public, and it can't be a euphemism if those who originated the term EIT don't think it was torture.

There is a range of interrogation techniques to choose from, and differing opinions as to where to draw the line. Some people claim that music in psychological operations is "torture" even if the volume isn't loud enough to damage the ears of the interrogators and guards who have to listen to it as well. Some people say the same thing about sleep disruption. Bradley Manning had to sleep without sheets, had a limited TV selection, and they call that torture. Do we let these people decide where to draw the line? I don't think so.

Many of the people who claim to oppose torture will complain about everything the U.S. does. They'll call it "torture" regardless, even though they'll turn their heads when their allies use real torture. I don't think they're the deciding authority here. It's better to explain what happened, describe the techniques, and say who the supporters and opponents were.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully differ with the reasoning but not the conclusion of Randy2063. As NBC Anchor Brian Williams said in his 5/3/11 interview with CIA Director Leon Pannetta"enhanced interrogation has aways been a kind of handy euphemism." Still a euphamism that has taken on a life and persona of its own needs its own webpage, like the euphamism "final solution to the Jewish question" which likewise has its own webpage, and has not been folded under genocide. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that may be an example of exactly the kind of problem we are talking about here: does it really make much sense to have separate pages covering both The Holocaust and The Final Solution? Likewise, does it really make any sense to have separate pages on Torture and the United States and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques? As for Randy2063's statements about EIT's nature being disputed, the dispute only seems to have arisen once US personnel started making use of these techniques. Before that, Nazi war criminals were sentenced to death for using them, US police were sent to jail for using them, and John McCain was made a national hero for resisting them. Is this really the kind of thing you think should be given play in Wiki? FOARP (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may be forgiven for parsing in a lawyer-like way, yes it does make sense. The Holocaust arguably started with anti-Semitic bullying, rocks through windows and such, in the early 1930's. It escalated into an organized program of abduction, torture and murder after about 1938, though the term "Final Solution" was not coined until the Wannsee Conference of 1942. So to be brief, the Final Solution was part of the Holocaust, but not the entirety of it. They deserve separate pages. Likewise Enhanced Interrogation was a torture program--Philip D. Zelikow, former Bush administration assistant to Condoleeza Rice emphasized that this was an organized step-by-step program of abuse--but differs from other kinds of torture, and deserves a separate page.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will forgive your lawyerly parsing if you will forgive mine: the breaking of windows does not constitute "The Holocaust", it may have preceded it, been a harbinger of it, but "The Holocaust" itself was the killing of millions, not the breaking of windows. Meanwhile, this page is being used to clothe the uncontroversially torturous nature of EIT as something other than it was. Among credible sources there is no debate, there is no controversy as to whether EIT is torture or not, any more than there is a controversy surrounding evolution, or the big bang. Of course, as is mentioned in the article, the Germans also had their own euthemism for torture: "Verschärfte Vernehmung", or "enhanced interrogation". Are you really saying that a page should be started for this, separate from the page on Nazi warcrimes? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(*sigh*) There's already been a lot of verbiage about "Verschärfte Vernehmung". I for one would welcome a stand-alone page clarifying what it was or wasn't, and detailing the Norwegian war crimes prosecution, though I haven't the expertise in either the German or Norwegian languages to do it. And I must demur from calling the torture/not torture discussion "uncontroversial." If anything it is freighted with far too much partisan bickering for an encyclopedia. One need only read the entirety of this discussion page. Best to leave it alone.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article on VV is appropriate right now. It's a relatively minor subject, and not even directly related to The Holocaust, as it was originally intended to be used on German citizens. We wouldn't even know about the term if not for it attracting Andrew Sullivan's fancy.

The Gestapo comparison is ridiculous but it says much about the manner that the controversy plays out. There's a difference between having an otherwise ordinary air conditioner set to max and leaving somebody tied up out in the snow in their underwear.

As for FOARP, of course there's debate over whether EIT is torture. Even among those who do claim waterboarding is torture, you can't find agreement about the other techniques. John McCain famously opposed waterboarding but he didn't oppose the other items on the list. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who condemn the use of rock and rap music as torture (well, when the U.S. does it, anyway).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"leaving somebody tied up out in the snow in their underwear." - which is, of course, what US interrogators actually did, except they doused them down with water first.

I can see Elihah's point of view - this is related to a historical fact - the production of legal opinions to justify torture, and how that turned out. But seriously, there is no debate among credible sources that it was anything other than torture, and to use weasel words like "the techniques" throughout the piece, when even the US government conceeds that they were torture, is diverting the piece towards a particular POV.

It is similar to the controversy over whether the sinking of the Belgrano was a lawful act of war. Whilst there may have been a controversy at the time, since both the Argentine government, navy, and indeed the comanding officer of the Belgrano accept that its sinking was lawful, there is no longer any controversy except that which exists in the minds of those who have no evidence supporting their position. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It was 41 degrees for up to 20 minutes. What some U.S. interrogators might have done on their own, or let slip, is different than what was included in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

Like it or not, "the production of legal opinions" was required to set limits to interrogation methods. That some people disagree with the CIA's limits is obvious, and would have been expected no matter what the limits were going to be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above is a NYT link to the story "Report Shows Tight C.I.A. Control on Interrogations." It's better that I explain that, considering that the NYT only gives you 20 stories per month without a subscription.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is about EIT, which (as has already been discussed in many previous talk pages) is several numerous techniques most of which would not be called torture by objective persons, really waterboarding is the only EIT technique for which there are many sources calling it torture. Even today (11/12/2011) Republican presidential candidates such as Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have gone on the record declaring that waterboarding is not torture. So the question of whether waterboarding is torture or not remains a partisan one, and it is only one of the EIT techniques. Waterboarding was only used during a limited period on three Al Qaeda terrorists, the majority of detainees who have been subjected to EIT experienced the other techniques, not waterboarding, so it is more of an exceptional method of EIT than the rule. Walterego (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan

The part on "sharpened interrogation" leading to EIT is a stretch. I have removed it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Alas, an error. Understandable error, as perhaps Yachtsman is unaware that this question was already extensively discussed, debated, parsed, argued, cited, recited, deconstructed, and reconstructed in a seemingly interminable discussion archived here. The result after a lot of tedious argument was the carefully crafted language now on the page. The paragraph used to be lower on the page and perhaps should move back down, as it probably does not deserve the prominence it has now. But the point is its what editors with different points of view finally settled on, and as the result of a carefully balanced consensus should not be disturbed. I am restoring it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I just got tired of it. It was easier to live with it than to bicker over it. The only people reading this article nowadays are activists who need to recall the glory days of hating the Bush administration because this was one of the few claims of "torture" that they're allowed to pretend to care about.

The section still doesn't justify itself.

1. Is this the first use of the techniques? No.
2. Is this the same term? No.
3. All you've got is a claim that this is "the first use of a term comparable to 'enhanced interrogation'." Comparable to???? Do you really think "comparable to" is an important enough claim to justify putting in this article?
4. How do we really know it's the first use "comparable to"? Does Sullivan really say that?
5. And if he does say it (I'm not sure he means it), do you trust his judgment enough to know? The man has become a complete laughingstock, and you're putting his bizarre theory (assuming he's actually pushing a connection, which I'm not sure he is) in the first section of the article.

What is it you want the readers to believe? Is it that the CIA wanted to call it the "third degree" but Dick Cheney told them to hold off on a name until they found out what the Gestapo called it? That's what this section seems to be driving at.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a piece of it ought to be moved to the article on Andrew Sullivan.

Randy2063 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy--glad to see you again. It's like when my parents took us kids to Rehobeth beach every August, we stayed at the same guest house (Corner Cupboard) and every August saw same people and took up the same conversation and even the same card game (Hearts), just where we'd left off. Still--to lawyers the grudging willingness to cease bickering and live with a moderately unsatisfactory result is when the case is done. If for no other reason that the clients are no longer willing to pay. I have to say there have been language changes since last I looked --the 2nd paragraph in particular--that reek of a high school kid throwing in their two cents and worth about that. I am jammed up with Pre-Christmas stuff right now so I'll revisit the language in the period between Xmas and New Years. And may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy holiday.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Elijah: How wonderful to see you again. I note that pursuant to the discussion, which I was a party to by the way, the "consensus" was reached by you. One person does not a consensus make. You openly admit in the prior discussion that Sullivan has a POV problem, particularly because of his extremist views, and your prior version was created before you made this admission. The source is, therefore, unreliable. Randy makes the other points rather well. Sullivan's entire rant is nothing more than a strawman argument, unworthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia as a "source" for any work of scholarship. The article essentially "compares" the terms based on the subjective feelings of the author, it is an opinion piece. The Nazis used sharpened questioning, America used enhanced interrogation, thus, the Americans must have derived the term from the prior actions of the Nazis. There is not a single source to support this conjecture. Thus, we come to the ultimate question - does it belong. The answer is no, and this is the reason Randy and me want this particular section removed. EIT merits its own article, but this should not be part of the article at all. If you have a non-POV source that can trace the origin of the term EIT to the prior Nazi version, please provide it. As it stands, I think the prevailing "consensus" is that it be removed in its entirety at this time. Have a very Happy Christmas.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, Yachtsman, Sullivan's claim is supported by multiple independent sources, including historians Alan Mitchell and Robert Gellately. Conjecture or not, it is reliable enough to include. Do you have sources that dispute it? If so, please provide them as your dissenting opinion isn't good enough. The central thesis comparing U.S. policies comprising the War on Terrorism with those of Nazi Germany were popularized by Naomi Wolf in The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and in the film adaptation, The End of America. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

But what claim is Sullivan making? All we have here is that the phrase "sharpened interrogation" is somehow "comparable to" the phrase "enhanced interrogation." Do you really want to put your name on that?

The techniques themselves go way back long before WWII. The British used them, too. I doubt Naomi Wolf is claiming a direct connection.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many sources claim a direct connection. This is transcribed from Michael Ratner in "The End of America:

In one of the early parts of the Hitler regime, was really to pick up people, and put them into essentially concentration camps. And instead of calling that torture, which is what was going on, they called what they did to people, enhanced interrogation techniques [overlay: Verscharfte Vernehmng]. That term is precisely the term that the United States government uses about the way it treats people at U.S. detention camps.

As was previously pointed out in a past version, "After WWII, Nazi interrogation techniques, particularly those of German Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff, were incorporated by the U.S. military into its curriculum at its interrogation schools." Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner is not claiming a direct connection in that quote. Like Sullivan, he's only claiming that the term "sharpened interrogation" is the same as "enhanced interrogation." He probably got it from Sullivan's rant.

Hanns Scharff didn't use rough techniques. He used the ones that critics like Sullivan were claiming to prefer. Besides that, being in the Luftwaffe, Scharff wasn't technically a Nazi. Oddly enough, party members had to resign upon joining the military.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner did not get anything from Sullivan. And how will you now explain away the translation of "verscharfte vernehmng" as "enhanced interrogation" by historians Robert Gellately and Allan Mitchell? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner is not unbiased. After the Nazis invaded the Soviet motherland, the National Lawyers Guild went so far as to support the internment of Japanese citizens, and then criticized it later after their motherland was safe. Every member of the NLG and CCR opposes torture until it becomes politically inconvenient. They're not simply left wing. They and Ratner are well beyond that.

I don't know why those historians translated it as "enhanced" but it really doesn't matter. Very simply, that is not the proper translation. You don't even need to look it up. Sullivan himself gives you what I assume to be an image of the official report from either the U.S. government, or the Nuremberg trials. It says "sharpened."

Moreover, back when the controversy over EIT first came up, but before this conspiracy theory, the German press did not translate "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" as "Verschärfte Vernehmung." They called it "Verbesserten Verhörtechniken."

But what would it mean if it translated exactly the same? Absolutely nothing. Nobody would raise an eyebrow if two organizations that interrogate prisoners had both used the phrase "interrogation techniques" to describe the process. And if they had a special version for important cases, nobody would be surprised if they both used a synonym for "enhanced." Absolutely nobody.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim made is that term "originated" from the German term, which means, quite literally, "sharp questioning" (You can look it up, your overlay is incorrect). No source can make that claim, because it is not correct. Instead, we have a POV cite that "compares" the actions of the American Government with that of the Nazis, both of which termed their interrogation methods separately. It is an opinion piece, nothing more. It is comparable to including a rant from a Conservative commentator that the term "Occupy Wall Street" has its "origins" with the "Communist Manifesto". This would be inane, but what if a movie made such a claim? Is it still correct? I don't think so. Sorry, but I have to disagree, as the "comparisons" are merely the POV of those who opposed the practice. we should not be in the business of being advocates. The entire section should be stricken.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We have at least four sources who disagree with your opinion. And there are more. Ratner is an expert on human rights law, and is an authoritative source on this subject. Etymology and the history of word usage is a standard encyclopedia subsection and it should be kept. What sources do you have that disagree with the ones presented so far? None? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't have four sources. I don't think Sullivan means anything other than that the phrase is similar. Same with Ratner.

You can't even say the techniques come from there. They predate WWII.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a straw man-free zone. Nobody has to say the techniques came from there; all they have to say is that term was previously used to refer to torture. This is a standard etymology/usage/terminology section. And, we do have more than four sources. In Nazi Paris (2008), historian Alan Mitchell writes:

Of course, it was known that there were some instances of "enhanced interrogation" (verschärfte Vernehmung) of a captive, which meant that "one could strike him, reduce his rations." But Knochen denied that he had ever witnessed such a procedure and assumed that it remained within proper bounds. He did admit that he had heard about sessions of "waterboarding" (baignoires), but he was unaware that any deaths resulted from them...Historians may be excused for sharing Knochen's lack of comprehension, since the notion that a Gestapo chief in Paris during more than three years of the Nazi Occupation had no knowledge whatever of torture inflicted by his own men strains credulity beyond the breaking point. If there is a semantic problem at issue—is simulated drowning not a torture and is "enhanced interrogation" not a euphemism?—it pales before the awful reality that took place night after night in the cellars of Paris detention centers." (159-60)

So, that's Sullivan, Ratner and Mitchell. On to Robert Gellately... Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet you will still fail to make the argument that the "origin" of the term came from the German term for Sharpened Question. Please proceed, however. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas,

It's not the exact same phrase. At best, it's a near synonym. Even if the Gestapo had called it "Enhanced" instead of "Sharpened" it would still be irrelevant. Sometimes I have to wonder if you folks even realize what you're saying. In what way would it be of interest that the phrase is similar?

It would be one thing if the CIA called it "Yellow Bird techniques" while the Gestapo's was translated as "Yellow Beak Techniques." We'd say that was really a fascinating coincidence. But here, both organizations used simple, functional names. In what way is it of interest that they both used functional names? What are they supposed to call it? As it EIT and VV are sufficiently different that the German press didn't even translate them the same. That's because they are different.

Mitchell's book was published in 2008 -- after the controversy when critics of the U.S. claimed to oppose torture, and after Sullivan's ravings became public. There's nothing amazing that he'd translate them this way for his book.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Veritditas: I wonder if you could provide a little more detail in the citations to the other sources besides Sullivan so I can look up specific books in the U Va library? (four million books--we got everything). I can then follow their footnotes back to their original sources, eventually to craft some new language and better footnoting in an effort to answer some of the concerns of Randy & Yachtsman.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, did these sources express the same degree of profound amazement that interrogation was called by the German word for "interrogation," and that special interrogations had an adjective before the name?

What did these sources think of this astounding coincidence? And would they really want their names and reputations associated with the unmasking of this shocking and deeply sinister connection?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Have followed the discussion a bit, so wanted to just drop in with a comment/question. Reading the sources, the key point they take up does not look to be about the similarity of the two phrases "sharpened interrogation" and "enhanced interrogation", but rather what the two phrases is describing. Like Randy have pointed out before, the terminology conclusions made from two similar-looking phrases does not mean that much, so my question is then, why is the section on history in the wp article focusing solely on the terminology, and not the history of the underlying technique being described? Belorn (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Belorn, you and Randy2063 raise a very good point that I had not focused on before: I think the section heading which was "Terminology and History" was misleading. It suggested a direct genealogy, a kind of inheritance from the German language to the American language which I don't think any historian claims. The history of the techniques themselves is further down, in discussing Chinese and Korean techniques of torture for extracting fasle confessions later adopted for counter-torture training in the SERE program. All this Terminology section says is that the Germans earlier had a comparable interrogation program described with similar words. So I deleted the "and History" from the section head, in the view that on this at least everybody would likely concur: there is (as yet) no clear historical connection.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?

All you've got is that both interrogation sets were labeled with a word (or a synonym) for "interrogation" or "hearing" preceded by an adjective. There is absolutely nothing else to this. This is not some strange coincidence. It's not even a minor curiosity. There is nothing remarkable about it in the least. You need to explain why anyone should think it's otherwise.

Half the people who read this first section will come away ignorantly thinking (or wishing, in the case of America's critics) that there's a real link of some sort when you know yourself that there isn't one. The other half will snicker at the obvious descent into fervent Godwinism. I've certainly been accused of overdoing Nazi analogies myself, and probably right here with respect to the critics of the American side of the war, but this one is pretty ridiculous.

Did the Germans have a comparable interrogation system? Yes. They all did. The British did, the Americans did, and, prior to the 1920s or 1930s, the police did. It is pure bias to mention the Gestapo, which started this program prior to the war to be used on German citizens.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a improvement, but what I as a reader would mostly like to see is a section describing similar interrogation systems used in the world that also apply the form of torture used that leaves no physical marks, and/or has the "no blood, no shame" policy. Belorn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy2063--I learned a new word: Godwinism. Thought at first it was William Godwin who asserted apparently that: "[G]overnment is a corrupting force in society, perpetuating dependence and ignorance, but that it will be rendered increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. Politics will be displaced by an enlarged personal morality as truth conquers error and mind subordinates matter." But for the life of me I could not understand how that had anything to do with enhanced interrogation; indeed the opposite seemed true, it seems like evidence of reverse evolution. Then a few clicks later I see it more likely refers to humorist Mike Godwin, inventer of Godwin's Law, that the more protracted an internet discussion the more likely a reference to Nazis. So true, so true. I see what you mean Belorn about analogous "no blood, no shame" policies though I am not sure a full exegesis of that belongs here: it might better be a link, referenceing to a full discusion in the article on Torture. I'll ponder a bit more. Also I can't get to the library to find out what historians are saying until after the New Years break. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what's so special about two interrogation sets being named with a near-synonym for the word "interrogation" and an adjective.

Belorn, I agree that a section on the history could make more sense but another article on rough interrogation, or a subsection in torture, would be better. The London Cage is a better example for this than what the Gestapo did.

But you're wrong in thinking that "no blood, no shame" was the policy. The CIA was simply trying to figure out where rough interrogation ends and real torture begins.

The people who claim to oppose torture sometimes (when they're cornered, anyway) will say that they'd rather we get another 9/11 than resort to torture. Well, fine. But would they rather get another 9/11 than that the CIA use stress positions? Well, that's one of the EITs. Clearly if we're going to risk another 9/11 then we'd better find out where real torture begins and draw a firm line against it there. That's what the CIA's lawyers did. While some may say waterboarding is over the line, it's an opinion. A lot of the people who make that claim are willing to get waterboarded themselves at some activists' "anti-war" demonstration. But those same people would not be willing to subject themselves to a demonstration of the real torture that our enemies use. That may be a better test.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Going to be frank here. I mentioned that policy because one of the sources in the now Terminology section mentioned it. In the sourced article the author makes a comparison between the concept of Enhanced interrogation, and a Soviet policy he translated as "no blood, no shame". This is separated from my own own personal opinion. Personal opinions on the subject of CIA intention behind Enhanced interrogation, or the effectiveness of it to prevent 9/11 does not belong on talk pages. I mean, I could mention the book Freakonomics and Optimism bias about behavior theory on why people act like they do in the face of risk, or I could point to Bruce Schneier's articles/books on the effectiveness of post-9/11 actions against terrorism compared to pre-9/11 actions. Question is, would that improve this article? I call that as a No.

So, back to the subject at hand (the article). I think its right that torture should be extended. While people might end up here and wanting to know the historical context of people using similar techniques, that should be either a See also, or a summery section. Belorn (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then that's Horton's personal opinion. He's got more than just a leftward POV, is often interviewed on extremist media. In his defense, I'll say that he's not off-the-rails, and he's not in the Andy Worthington category, but that's about it. His translation of EIT is worth about as much as Sullivan's but I don't think he intended to say it's an uncanny translation the way that this article seems to be straining to do.

I wasn't commenting to convince you of the effectiveness of EIT. I was simply trying to explain why "no blood, no shame" isn't an accurate description of the CIA's legal position.

My only caution about EIT being in the Torture article would be that you'll bring the question of it being torture into that article. A lot of people say it is, and a lot of people say it isn't. There's no U.S. court ruling on it yet.

BTW: For similar examples of rough interrogation, aside from the London Cage, there's also the Five techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it should go into Interrogation instead. That article needs a lot of work.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

After further thought, I do think it definitely belongs in Interrogation rather than Torture. That article does cover torture, which will please some. It will allow us to put EIT, VV, the Five techniques (which has a court ruling making it illegal, but not torture), and the London Cage all in one place. You can't do that with Torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and use of source information

There is a large problem with this article regarding its neutrality, politics, personal agendas, and the use of verifiable and simply honest sources. Way too much use of political rant as sources and verification.

While I understand how volatile this subject may be and admit to being personally concerned this is an encyclopedia and not a blog or partisan piece.

Let's discuss and see if we can clean it up some. Jobberone (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lotsa luck.

If you'll notice, the Gestapo referred to a special form of interrogation using the German word for "interrogation" preceded by an adjective.

When this is considered such a truly shocking coincidence that it bears mentioning (without laughing), I think the neutrality you're asking for is simply too much to be expected. I fear that we will soon discover that the tables and chairs that the Gestapo used for these interrogations were called by the German words for "table" and "chair". When the full dictionaries are compared, we will probably need to start a separate article.

Which sources are you wondering about?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Randy, there are so many on both sides of the equation it would be difficult to list them all. I'll admit I haven't gone thru every one either but many I looked at were partisan/slanted and not really 'factual'. Might as well be speaking about abortion this is so inflammatory for many. But the object of an encyclopedia is to present facts as facts and opinions should clearly be dealt with in an entirely different manner. I personally believe Wikipedia is an incredibly important asset to the human race. As such it's my opinion we should keep it as clean as possible. Jobberone (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for better sources.

I can see right now that this one at the end of Enhanced interrogation techniques#U. S. government should be replaced.

Others are simply stating opinions, in which case we need to check that they're clearly attributed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead section of this article and other things

I found this page while searching for the German term "Verschärfte Vernehmung" ("sharpened interrogation"). I was surprised that the opening sentence claims that enhanced interrogation techniques are terms adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States. It is not correct and balanced information. It is a broader topic, various enhanced interrogation techniques were applied by Nazis, communists and others. Associating the basic explanation of the topic with a single state administration is simply wrong and biased.

The section where I found a good and sourced explanation of the above mentioned term states that "no documents regarding "intensified interrogation" were ever found after the war". I'm working on article about Anna Letenská. Some of the people who appeared in this sad story were subjected to sharpened interrogation, which was well documented by Germans. The documents are preserved and the information is verifiable. Hans Ulrich Geschke, the chief of the Gestapo office in Prague, writes in a letter from 27 July 1942 (addressed to K.H. Frank and other prominent German officials in the Protectorate): "The experience is proof that, in most cases, it is impossible to use other means than sharpened interrogations." My source is a well referenced article about Letenská (published by The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes p. 107, note No. 17, in Czech).

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear editor Vejvančický--thank you for an informed and informative view. I understand your point that enhanced interrogation did not only occur in the US Bush administration, but in fact occurred in other regimes and is well documented as a Gestapo technique. Wikipedia does try to be a world-wide encyclopedia and not just US-centric though it is not always successful. However, there are editors who argue there is no relation between enhanced interrogation as practiced elsewhere and the program adopted by the Bush administration. So I would recommend drafting a more balanced "world-view" article in your sandbox first, to see how it would look, to avoid running into a firestorm here. Once you have something you'd like comment on you can invite readers to your sandbox. The solution might well be changing this article--or it could be creating a different "enhanced interrogation" article for each regime that practiced it in each of the different Wikipedia languages, linked to each other. We'll see.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox is for newbies learning how to edit, and for experienced editors making major changes. The correction Vejvančický is suggesting is not a major change.

"However, there are editors who argue there is no relation between enhanced interrogation as practiced elsewhere and the program adopted by the Bush administration."

We're not "arguing" that. We're pointing out that you have not established anything more interesting than that they both use an adjective and a synonym for "interrogation." This is not encyclopedic.

It doesn't need a new article. As I've said somewhere above during the Christmas rush that we should expand on other versions of rough interrogation in the main Interrogation article. It already touches upon torture. It should include EIT, the third degree, VV, the London Cage, the five techniques, etc. all in once place. It's more appropriate than the torture article because then we can avoid the arguments over what qualifies, particularly since the five techniques already has a ruling that it's not torture even though it's no longer legal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose that I'm a naive reader (actually, I'm a naive reader :)) who searches for general information. I find this article, called generally: "Enhanced interrogation techniques". The title suggests that the article is focused generally, but in fact, it provides unbalanced information and relates various methods without proper context. It is focused on the Bush administration, with an isolated and anachronistic section informing about the Gestapo methods. Possible associations between the US and Gestapo methods have been noted for example by the Atlantic Monthly article, so it is probably justified to mention the comparison here. The context is, however, not apparent from the current version. To me, the article suggests that the US method is direct successor of a single (and very negatively perceived) method used by Nazis. I don't think it is a balanced information. The context is far broader. The article should either be rewritten from a more general point of view (to reflect its title), or renamed (to make clear its focus on the US issue). I can imagine a stand alone article on 'Verschärfte Vernehmung'. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a cogent post. I wonder whether editor Vejvančický might give us an example of what the new article name might be ("Enhanced Interrogation--US," or "Enhanced Interrogation--Bush Administration"?) This would imply other articles country by country which do not yet exist: "Enhanced Interrogation--Germany" and "Enhanced Interrogation--Russia." This article would then have to be disambiguated from the other articles. Or might we have an example of how to rewrite the introductory paragraph for a more general point of view? The result might be something like: "Enhanced interrogation techniques or alternative set of procedures are terms used by regimes to describe severe interrogation methods, with some methods described as torture.[1] These techniques were authorized by the German government Gestapo under the title 'Verschärfte Vernehmung', by the Russian NKVD or KGB under the title (insert Russian equivalent here) and more recently by the United States during the Bush administration under the name "enhanced interrogation" for use by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) on individuals captured in the War on Terror after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The Obama administration in 2009 called some of the techniques torture, and repudiated their use." This is more general certainly but I do not have the scholarship at hand to refer to Russian or Chinese or Cambodian equivalents; the only equivalent of which I am aware was the German 'Verschärfte Vernehmung'. So I'd be grateful for a concrete example of what Vejvančický would like to see in the article lede. Also, just to be clear, I am all in favor of a stand-alone article on 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' but I haven't the expertise to write it; sounds like Vejvančický might.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't need to create new separate articles yet. There are separate country listings under Interrogation (have you even looked at that article?). You can put VV under the Germany section (perhaps make a section for Germany, and then a subsection for WWII, as they've had at least one relatively recent incident where the Polizei roughed up a kidnapper pretty severely, although unofficial techniques don't really count). You can create a separate article for VV if or when that section ever becomes more than a paragraph or two.

BTW: It's silly to think that VV is the only set of interrogation procedures in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo originally came up with these to be used on German citizens, and then on civilians in the occupied countries. The rest of the SS probably had their own set.

As for this article, it doesn't need anything for VV at all. Vejvančický is right that it's very misleading, and it simply doesn't fit here. Other than to entertain visitors of the OWS bent who want to feel good about themselves pretending to oppose torture, you haven't yet come up with an explanation of why it's encyclopedic to put it here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Here's the deal on that incident with the Polizei. Apparently, it was less "unofficial" than I remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Zappo. Sorry but it can't be justified. It had to go before Wikipedianacht tonight. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Interrogation.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I must respectfully but firmly differ with deleting the very section which is under active discussion both here and in preceeding two sections on this page, and extensively discussed on previous pages in the archives, which three editors at current count on this page alone agree belongs in the article and only two, of which only one remains active--Randy2063-currently object to, an objection on grounds that have been argued before.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's been 29 days. You were asked to explain how this belongs in the article, and you haven't yet done so. If it's three editors at current count then you're forgetting Yachtsman1, who deleted the section last month. He left when you said you needed to wait until after the holidays.

At best, all you've got is that the Gestapo used an adjective and a synonym for "interrogation." Both words that the Germans use for the Gestapo version are different than than the ones they use when they translate EIT. But even if all the words did translate precisely the same, they'd still not merit a place in this article. It's plainly misleading.

You haven't responded to these points yet. I don't think you can. As Vejvančický said, the way this article reads, readers are easily led to believe that there's a link. It's a natural conclusion. After all, why else would the article mention it if there wasn't a link?

Do you want readers to believe that there's a connection between VV and EIT? What kind of connection do you want them to believe exists?

I've provided a solution. You can put VV in Interrogation. People who would like to believe they're similar can marvel at it there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply deleting the section will not improve anything and I don't see any consensus going towards that. What would be an improvement is rewriting it as an summery of historical interrogation techniques and link it to a main article about that. Sadly, the interrogation article is itself in extreme need of improvements and thus lacks a history section. Compared to Torture or this article, the interrogation article is of surprisingly low quality. Belorn (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a historical section but that's not at all what this is. There's no historical link between EIT and VV. None whatsoever. None of our sources say that there is. Again, all you've got is that they're both called names with an adjective and a synonym for "interrogation." Nothing else.

If you want a historical section then delete this one, and start a new one. You can take pieces from the section Enhanced interrogation techniques#Development of techniques and training.

If you want a history of all techniques then it is simply wrong to focus on the Gestapo one. The sourced historical link is from training that grew out of the experience with communist techniques used on Americans. Prior to that, there's what the British did in WWII, as I said before. And before that, there's the third degree. There was nothing taken from the Gestapo.

If you really thought there was a historical link to the Gestapo, then you are a victim of a biased article.

Yes, the Interrogation article needs work. That's all the more reason to work on that one rather than put misleading material into this one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Randy2063's decision to post a "neutrality disputed" tag on the Terminology section. Today I hope to get a chance to look through the local university library and see how historians (as opposed to columnists) are treating this issue.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the best solution is renaming the article to 'Enhanced interrogation techniques (US)' or 'Enhanced interrogation techniques (United States)'. It is well developed and focused solely on the US issue, so the renaming would be in my opinion a better option than rewriting. I'm not sure which version the Americans or MOS prefer. The section 'Terminology' is misleading and should be fixed. I don't propose to delete the information about VV completely. As I said above, the relation has been noted by a good and reliable source, which means that inclusion of the information is justified. We shouldn't censor anything. However, our interpretation of the source is incomplete, and therefore misleading. Mr Sullivan points out in the last para of his article: "There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president [meant Bush] are not new. Many have been used in the past." It is not just a matter of terminology and it should be reflected in our article. Thanks to all for their constructive comments. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What "relation" are you saying "has been noted by a good and reliable source"?

A "relation" implies that there is some lineage when it is obvious that these techniques go back further than this.

The statement that "Many have been used in the past" is certainly true there are better examples besides the Gestapo.

Again, all we've got is that they're both called names with an adjective and a synonym for "interrogation." Even if they had been translated as "enhanced interrogation" I'd still say it's an insignificant similarity.

Take a look at the second source for this section by Robert Gellately. It was written before the George W. Bush administration was there for his critics to whine about. From the wording used here, it (apparently) uses the term "intensified interrogation." In what way is any of this stuff encyclopedic?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, we can replace "relation" with "similarity". The similarity is not 'insignificant', it provides an interesting historical insight and entirely justified notice pointing to the unchanged form of brutal interrogations under various historical conditions. The terminology is misleading, as the translation of German 'Verschärfte' is not 'enhanced̈́', but it is indisputable that Mr Sullivan speaks about the Gestapo method, despite the fact that there might be better examples. I would suggest to change the statement to something like: Atlantic Monthly writer Andrew Sullivan has pointed out similarities between the Gestapo interrogation method called 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' and the US method of 'enhanced interrogation', but he refused "[any] comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007".[1] I wouldn't object to improvements of the suggested wording, but we should remain neutral. The section mentioning Mr Gellately's research is irrelevant, as it elaborates the German method separately and any possible context with the US 'enhanced interrogation' is not apparent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The similarities or parallels between the 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are discussed also in the following sources:

• Hunsinger, George (2008). Torture is a moral issue: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of conscience speak out. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 53. ISBN 9780802860293.
• Rich, Frank (14 October 2007). "The 'Good Germans' Among Us". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
• Hentoff, Nat (18 October 2007). "The Gestapo Inheritance". The Village Voice. Retrieved 20 January 2012.

Please, note that all the sources cite, directly or indirectly, the previous research of Mr Sullivan. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to editor Vejvančický and to Randy2063 for some interesting discussion, and to Vejvančický for additional research. Based on what I found at the library I am going to try a different approach, which I will compose in my sandbox and make available for your comment when I've finished. It'll take me a couple days: busy right now. Basically my idea is to move "Terminology" down into a "History" section. Perhaps it has too much prominence where it is right under the lede, and as Vejvančický and Randy2063 agree it becomes misleading as a result. The history will discuss comparable techniques and similar euphemisms. Only modern regimes feel the need to employ a euphemism for torture. In the past there were technique manuals that simply described the process without embarrassment such as the Contitutio Criminalis Theresiana promulgated by Maria Theresa of Austria in 1769, which translates as the "Code of Criminal Inquisition," that included stress positions among other similar abuses. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite.

First, a quick recap. There's no doubt that EIT is somewhat rough. There's a line between rough interrogation and actual torture. It's perfectly reasonable for the people who claim to oppose torture to move the line down, and say they believe EIT falls on the "torture" side of the line. But by calling EIT a "euphemism," they are also claiming that the Bush administration also believes the line falls further down, and that they are simply lying about it being not torture. Even if they pretend to believe this, it is simply the lowest kind of tripe to claim they know what was in their hearts. It cannot be called a euphemism.

Let's not forget what *real* torture is. Here is an example of people who were tortured to death by the Mahdi Army. This happened frequently, and probably still does after the U.S. withdrawal. And yet, there were supporters of the Mahdi Army at many of the so-called "peace" demonstrations during the war. In some cases, everyone could see this because they carried banners. In at least one case, a high-ranking associate was invited to give a speech. In what way can we say that anyone favorable or sympathetic to that mess can judge what was in the Bush administration's minds when they determined where they drew the line about the definition of torture? You can't. It is merely opinions, and flawed (if not corrupt) opinions at that.

Don't believe me? Just look at the five techniques. It was also somewhat rough, very similar to EIT, and eventually ruled to be illegal by the ECHR (whose standards the U.S. doesn't even necessarily share). Ruled illegal but not torture, in spite of the fact that a lot of critics of that government wanted it to be called torture, too. Let's suppose those judges moved the line just slightly, and called it torture, too. Would you then say that was also a euphemism?

I haven't checked into George Hunsinger yet, but the other two sources fall into the camp of obvious partisan bias. All three were dated after this war started.

On Vejvančický's point about it being a similarity rather than a relation, that's fine but it still leaves unanswered the question about why VV instead of the other better examples? Other than recreating the "Bush=Hitler" signs popular among the far, far left, I don't see any good reasons.

What do you think readers think when they see this? Some will certainly fall for it, but most of them are already favorable to those demonstrations that included the Mahdi Army supporters. What about the rest of the readers? Do you think they will all swallow this line? Or will they laugh and sneer? And what will they then conclude about the integrity of the rest of this article?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Only modern regimes feel the need to employ a euphemism for torture. In the past there were technique manuals that simply described the process without embarrassment such as the Contitutio Criminalis Theresiana promulgated by Maria Theresa of Austria in 1769, which translates as the "Code of Criminal Inquisition," that included stress positions among other similar abuses."

Note that the Five techniques includes stress positions, and some rough ones at that, but it's ruled not to be torture. Of course, with stress positions, much depends on the different variations. The Bush administration's lawyers took that into account. We know this because it was reported that there were defined limits.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not about if one thinks you are right or wrong, are left or right, pro-bush or anti-bush, because defining a personal opinion of what should be classified as torture is just that, a editors personal opinion and must not shine through into the article. Simply, If there are enough sourced opinions that calls it torture, their claims should be added to the article as long it passes the fringe test. If there are enough sourced opinions that contradict those, then they should also be added to the article, all in a neutral tone and balanced style. Court cases are often considered good primary sources as long they are directly supporting the text added to the article, but they are not The Truth. Far for everyone agrees on a courts decision, and considering Wikipedia is global, one need to be careful when applying them to a article. Now if a reader comes to this article and laugh and sneer, or end up angry and upset is up the the reader. The reader must be able to reach his own personal opinion. If the article does not allow this, then the article is unbalanced and need to be rewritten in a neutral tone. Last, as for 1769 law, the definition of torture has changed since then. This is one reason why I think the article should have a section about the historical context of the techniques used in EIT. Belorn (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would make perfect sense except that VV is not the correct historical context. There would be better examples (third degree, London Cage, and the SERE response to communist techniques) if history is what this is about.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What this discussion is about is the inclusion of the VV, but my personal opinion is that a broader history section would make the inclusion of VV have a much smaller impact on the article. Removing VV would just push the personal opinion that "sullivan is wrong" onto the reader. sullivan looks both cited and supported by other scholars passing verifiable and fringe criteria. What I do agree through is that the current form present VV as the historical context which is neither neutral or balanced. On this it will be interesting to see what ElijahBosley will write, as for me the only effective way to resolve this is to present a broader historical picture and thus have the VV theory take a less significant role in it, but ultimately leaving it to the reader to decide if its is correct. Belorn (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely that we should present all important and verifiable facts in a neutral way and let the readers make their own opinion. The suggested new section might be a good way towards a more balanced article and could help us to present a broader and more clear historical context. However, even if we rewrite the lede to reflect the broader context of this topic, we still 'have to do something' with the disproportion and the overly US-centric focus of the article. I don't want to delete the carefully negotiated and detailed work of others, but in a general article it would seem unbalanced, at least to me. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where US-centricism is a problem. EIT is the American set of procedures. Other sets of procedures have different names.

It sounds like you're asking that "Five techniques" be renamed "Enhanced interrogation techniques (UK)."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't entirely sure if the term (EIT) refers solely to the US set of procedures. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not wishing to roil the waters, but "enhanced interrogation" is only one of several--I'll say names instead of euphemisms, although there is now a lot of scholarly support for euphemisms--the CIA used. In just one Yale Law Journal article discussing the history of CIA interrogation, I found the following: "coercive interrogation," "esoteric interrogation," "special interrogation techniques," "hostile methods," "direct physical pressures," and "harassment." There were also more direct references to specific techniques used during the Cold War in the 1950's and 60's: "electrical methods" and "drug methods." Some of the CIA interrogation techniques were written into manuals for Latin American regimes, which in turn employed similar terms in Spanish. I am currently reading a book I found at the library, McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (Henry Holt 2007), and also a fascinating pamphlet published by the U.S. Department of the Army in 1953 called Communist Indoctrination and Exploitation of Prisoners of War, which details torture techniques (and calls them such), which were later adopted for the SERE program, and then re-adopted as interrogation methods. It'll take me a while to digest all this so please bear with me.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We already have articles on things like the U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals. You need to realize that one of the problems with making too much of the bogus Sullivan conspiracy theories is that it can drag down the credibility of related topics. After seeing this, I could easily believe that half the stories about the CIA in South and Central America have probably been stretched to their limits as well.

Communist techniques weren't "adopted" for the SERE program so much they were adapted for it. That's two different things.

Just think about it: Most of the students are aviators who fly aircraft valued at tens of millions of dollars. After their return from the camp, which ended with their first real meal in days, SERE students only get one more day in the classroom, and then they're done. This means they often return to flying those very expensive aircraft within two or three days after that interrogation (or just one day if they get a special waiver). Those experiences have to be designed to be non-harmful -- even to a person who was recently starving.

The bottom line is, SERE is about the sensation of roughness rather than actual roughness, not to mention actual torture. This is actually a kind of evidence that the U.S. government wasn't interested in using torture.

That doesn't mean they were as careful to avoid torture in the '50s and '60s. But, from what I've seen, those interrogation manuals look no worse than the Five techniques, which we know aren't torture either.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

--I am grateful for the correction on the difference between adopted and adapted. As to the "Five Techniques," that can be a little confusing as "the Five Techniques" is what the British called interrogation methods in Norhern Ireland which were exposed in a Parliamentary inquiry 1971. The five were "wall standing" which required a detainee to stand for long periods against a wall in what they (the British) called a "stress position," "hooding" which was putting a black or navy colored hood over the detainee's heads and keeping it there all the time except during interrogation," "subjection to noise," "deprivation of sleep, " and "deprivation of food and drink." The European Human Rights COmmission in 1976 found that the Five Techniques, especially when used in combination, constituted torture. (this from pp.55-57 of McCoy, cited above).ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Read further. That ruling was appealed, and the ECHR came out with a new ruling in 1978. As the article on Five techniques says, "they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture."

But even if the 1976 ruling stood, note that it refers to the combined use of the five techniques. They did not then rule on individual techniques, or a different combination.

BTW: From what I've seen, your source isn't exactly impartial. Let's just say that, he's probably my least favorite Dr. McCoy. :-)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mine neither. This guy did an excellent job as the younger version. Well not only was Dr. Alfred McCoy wrong about not following up on the appeal which drew the distinction between torture and merely inhuman and degrading treatment--but it turns out I was wrong, and in fact EVERYBODY is wrong about the source of the SERE techniques. It was not North Korea and China. According to Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War (U.S., Dept of the Army, May 1956) a section titled "Popular MIsconceptions" (apparently still popular to this day) "[a]nother popular misconception concerns 'torture." "[E]xtensive research has disclosed that systematic, physical torture was not employed in connection with interogation or indoctrination. For the most part, physical punishment resulted from offenses such as attempts to escape, stealing, and infractions of camp regulations." Well dog my cats. The Chinese method of breaking down a soldier's resistence consisted of written questionaires, and the following "insidious" technique (I am not making this up, I couldn't have made it up in my wildest imaginings): "[w]hen an American soldier was captured by the Chinese, he was given a vigorous handshake and a pat on the back. The enemy 'introduced' himself as a friend of the workers of America. . . " The pamphlet goes on to say that "the prisoner's gratitude for the lenient treatment by their captors resulted in little or no active resistance to the enemy's indoctrination." So much for brainwashing by waterboard. This is a U S Army publication under the aegis of General Maxwell Taylor, and it is hardly liberal propaganda. I note that there were brutalities and atrocities by North Koreans but that was starvation, forced marches, and neglect of medical needs, which the pamphlet says had nothing to do with interrogation; indeed the NOrth Koreans had little interest in interrogation or indoctrination. They were just thugs, garden variety prisoner abuse. Turns out the SERE techniques had a different source, coming out of 1950's and 60's Cold War torture which in turn came from: 1) a Nazi Germany both directly via a Nazi doctor employed by the CIA, and indirectly via French officers who had been tortured by Nazis and employed the same torture techniques against Algerian rebels, which techniques were then studied by CIA officers, and--of all places, Canada. That is a Canadian psychologist doing sensory deprivation experiments. Waterboarding probably (although this is uncertain) was an inheritance from the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam. This is so unexpected, and so contrary to the common assumption, that I am not sure what to do with it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on that about Dr. McCoy.

In the Korean war, the communist Chinese would have still remembered WWII.

It was over eight years ago now that three Islamists were waterboarded by the Bush administration, and yet the critics are still wailing over it like it was yesterday. By contrast, it was only about five years before the Korean war that, as WWII came to a close, well over 100,000 Chinese were being butchered every month until the U.S. military put a stop to it. We can never expect much in the way of human rights considerations from communists, but there had to be some personal feelings there. But I'm just speculating on that.

Besides that, I see that you said "[w]hen an American soldier was captured by the Chinese." This isn't about routine interrogation for ordinary soldiers. In this war, the CIA only took about 100 detainees, and only authorized any of the EITs for about 1/3rd of them. GTMO got less than 800, and I'm not sure how many of them got the military's version of EIT. So, on the whole, the overwhelming number of detainees were subjected only to basic questioning, if that. We need to compare EIT to the North Koreans' interrogation for special prisoners only.

I also see that you're talking specifically about "interogation or indoctrination." That would seem to exclude using torture to obtain false confessions, which is a great part of the post-WWII American POW experiences, and consequently, SERE. This is one reason I think the SERE scenario doesn't make sense.

But if you remember the "torture never works" claims, that's in great part because you need to know when the prisoner is lying. The North Koreans probably didn't have enough intelligence on their POWs to manage that.

I'm not aware of the "Nazi doctor". The only one I could think of is Hanns Scharff but he wasn't a doctor, and probably not a Nazi party member either.

Regardless of my nitpicking, you've got a lot of interesting research here. Keep some of this in mind for the interrogation article, too.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the neutrality of the article while we're discussing individual controversies like VV. As another mentioned, this is an encyclopedia and not an opinion piece. As such the inclusion of references that are are themselves opinion pieces be it book, film, blog or whatever should not be used. As a scientist I'll admit that not every peer reviewed article is going to end up over the long haul as 'the truth'. However, the intention of the research and its publication is to present facts. It's dishonest to support an agenda by using others agendas as references. And worse is we are corrupting an important source of information for many people around the world. I'll get off my high horse but let's keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish and try to leave our personal opinions out of a world encyclopedia. Otherwise we will considerably cheapen our product as well as corrupt it. Jobberone (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Any personal opinions we the editors have about the truthfulness of a reference can not be added to the article, as that would take away the readers choice to form their own opinion. But Wikipedia do allow references that are themselves opinions, so long they are correctly attributed. You can find the associated requirements in WP:RSOPINION. Including a opinion like VV is thus not wrong in an encyclopedia sense as long it presented as Sullivans opinion and not as an undisputed truth. Belorn (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the opinions have to be somewhat relevant, and somewhat useful to the reader. All we've got is that some people think it's interesting that the the names of these techniques both have an adjective and a synonym for "interrogation."

Even if anybody believes it's interesting, it's wrong. The article says, Sullivan asserts the first use of a term comparable to "enhanced interrogation..." Is this true? Probably not. Does Sullivan say it's true? Not really.

As much as people like to laugh at Sullivan, it's not fair to him that we stretch his lunatic ravings to suggest he believes there's a connection beyond what he himself claims.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand completely the concern for censorship. OTOH, this is an encyclopedia. In today's environment it is much easier to get your opinion in print or other media. Many right and left wing organizations and individuals sponsor their agendas. If we're going to keep some sort of semblance to an encyclopedia we must at least try to be balanced. And any information placed in Wikipedia needs to be honestly evaluated including its source. Just because it's in media somewhere doesn't necessarily make it reference material. If we 'clutter' things with one unbalanced reference after another then we will turn into a blog. I also understand where that line is drawn is just as difficult as the line drawn between enhanced interrogation and torture. I understand the task to remain neutral and objective will be nearly impossible for an open sourced media like Wikipedia but all I can say is we need to try. I might not be able to define pornography but I know it when I see it. As it stands right now much of the entire article is a hatchet job to put it mildly and this comes from a reasonably objective and neutral party....ie me. JMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign the above.........Jobberone (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• My position on this has been stated on numerous occasions. Now, the ravings of Sullivan are followed by a POV source on the fact that the Nazis burned their sources for the word, but it resurfaced later at the Nuremburg trials. Original research? Ya' think? Enough with the POV, this entire section should be eliminated. The phrase is what it is, and no "reliable" "neutral" and "researched" source can make this claim at this point. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Randy2063 and Yachtsman1: Labelling Mr Sullivan's opinion "(lunatic) ravings" shows bias on your part. Please, take the information as a fact. Mr Sullivan is a notable author/journalist, his opinion on this matter was published by a notable magazine and interpreted by other commentators and media, no matter how "lunatic" it is. It is an important and widely cited contribution to the "Enhanced interrogation techniques" discussion, like it or not.

I've said above that Mr Gellately's research is irrelevant for this article, as it says nothing about the EIT. The information on Mr Sullivan's research should not be included under the section titled "Terminology", as it may give to the reader a false impression that there is a direct link or inspiration between VV and EIT, which is not what Mr Sullivan says in his article. I would suggest to mention his comparison of both the techniques in the section "Public positions and reactions". I proposed a different and more neutral wording above, and I repeat it here: Atlantic Monthly writer Andrew Sullivan has pointed out similarities between the Gestapo interrogation method called 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' and the US method of 'enhanced interrogation', but he refused "[any] comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007".[1] I wouldn't object to improvements of the suggested wording, but we should remain neutral.

Just my opinion.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't about Sullivan's political views. A lot of people can oppose EIT without being outright loons. Sullivan also pushes the (simply idiotic) Trig Palin conspiracy theory. He's become a joke on the internet.

I think your suggestion about moving it to "Public positions and reactions" is a good one. I've always supported putting peoples' opinions on the record. But that's just it. These are fringe opinions that don't merit being played as objective truth in the first section.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution to the issue. Belorn (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, we should wait few days to see if anyone objects to the proposal, and then we can make the modification. This discussion seems to me repetitive and sometimes off-topic.

Randy, I didn't know who is Andrew Sullivan, I live in a faraway part of the world and I know little about American politics. I familiarized myself with the substance of his article in the Atlantic Monthly and I checked some of the most important available reactions. The reactions/interpretations I found are cited above, the authors (IMO) interpret his words very loosely. I've read his Wikipedia article only yesterday and I think that now I'm more familiar with the context, or at least I better understand your harsh condemnation of his opinions. Anyway, the Mrs Palin's issue is a different story and we should neutrally process the evidence and available information regarding the EIT. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving sullivan

I concur with editor Vejvančický's decision to move the Andrew Sullivan piece though I think this particular placement while better, is still not best. I'll continue to experiment with language describing the Gestapo/CIA torture connection. While complex enough to defy my efforts to simplify it into a flow chart, nonetheless according to the historical sources, there is one. That is, the then newly formed CIA with its new mission of combating Communist expansion adopted particular Gestapo techniques were taken directly through Nazi doctors. Others the CIA learned learned indirectly, studying the French intelligence response to the Algerian insurrection: French officers tortured by the Gestapo then turned around and tortured Algerian rebels the same way. Some of those (former Gestapo) methods found their way into a 1963 CIA interrogation/torture manual. Then some new techniques were refined through American and Canadian sensory deprivation experiments in the 1960's. The situation is complicated by the widespread use of torture in the Vietnam Phoenix program: there are only so many ways to hurt somebody without killing them, and many techniques that may have been originally Gestapo were independently "rediscovered." Many but not all the techniques were taught in CIA Latin American training manuals of the 1960's and 1970's--all of which were influences on the SERE program which (wrongly) attributed the origin of the techniques to Chinese communists in the Korean War. Some Gestapo techniques like the use of electric shock the CIA reduced or abandoned after the Latin American torture was exposed in the mid-1970's. In fact for over a decade the CIA got entirely out of the torture business. They outsourced all torture to third countries through extraordinary rendition. But the SERE program in the American military perpetuated some of the old Gestapo techniques like exposure to extremes of heat and cold and waterboarding. The SERE program in turn was reverse-engineered for so called interrogation techniques at Guantanamo,when the CIA re-started its in-house torture program, and the techniques then spread elsewhere. All this complex genealogy, something like the family tree of the Italian royal family, likely needs to be spread over several webpages: some in Interrogation, some here, some elsewhere. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In your comment, you refer to the history of CIA interrogations in general, with a focus on what you call torture. This article (as the opening section suggests) is focused on the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used during Bush administration. Mr Sullivan compares the German "Verschärfte Vernehmung" with the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used during Bush administration. It is in my opinion relevant to mention his opinion in the article.

I found some information about SERE, Phoenix Program, CIA torture redirects to Extraordinary rendition and CIA interrogations redirects to Enhanced interrogation techniques, though the article U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals would be probably a more suitable target. I believe it is possible to improve the current situation, however, we should avoid original syntheses, interpretations and associations. This is an open project, almost everything here has some room for improvement. It means that my proposal and edit are open to further revisions and improvements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving it is only marginally better. The "first use of a term comparable to" is still almost certainly wrong. Even if there's a slight chance that it's not wrong (practically an impossibility), it's inadequately sourced. That's all beside the fact that it's just plain silly.

I'm sure it will be fascinating to hear about the Nazi via communist via French via CIA connections. That's going a long way to attribute something to the Nazis. One gets the idea that every government on the face of the earth used only candy bars for interrogation until the Nazis came up with these techniques. Elijah, it would be good if you could at least have given us some names to look up now.

Was this also the Gestapo? What techniques did the Nazi's other agencies use? Maybe they were still using candy bars like everybody else.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Randy: The single best source is McCoy, Alfred: A Question of Torture, CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror New York: Henry Holt & Co. 2007. That'll answer your question about names and dates. You can get a copy on inter-library loan if you'd rather not pay McCoy a royalty. But my fundamental and maybe unanswerable question is, how far is this exercise useful? Is it really possible to separate geneaology as in direct descent, from "rediscovery" of the same techniques, or from generic similarity of independently developed techniques? Speaking of candy bars, take starvation for instance. Prisoners have been starved since prisons were invented. Egyptians starved them, Greeks starved them, Romans starved them, Visigoths starved them, so did the English and the French and the Spanish Inquisition. The Gestapo was not innovating, they were not inventing anything new, when they used starvation to break down prisoners. The Bush administration used scientifically engineering starvation which they called "dietary manipulation," feeding liquid diets like Ensure while denying all solid foods to bring on the feeling of starvation without actual nutritional deficiency. Can we say the Bush administration "inherited" starvation as a means of brutalizing prisoners from the Gestapo, or for that matter the British prison hulks in the American Revolution? Not really. Can we say the Bush administration originated the idea of making people weak and vulnerable by keeping them hungry? Certainly not. So the best we can do is point out similarities between what the Gestapo did (and every other regime that brutalized prisoners) and what the Bush administration did. The same is true of the terminology. I cannot say that Cheney's counsel David Addington, rooting around for a word to describe the program they were designing for brutalizing prisoners, reached back into his German-major past and dredged up "enhanced interrogation," remembering the Gestapo used similar words. I can't say he didn't either. Only Addington could tell us and he (wisely) is keeping the lowest possible profile: he's a lawyer and has realized perhaps belatedly there is no statute of limitations in international law.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. I'm still taking a long break. I'll do some minor editing once in a while but I don't have time for major research efforts.

The very cover of the book says it's part of the "American Empire Project." That's pretty hard to take seriously. These aren't normal "scholars." All of them are extremists, like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Like all leftists, there isn't a single one among them who opposed real torture when their friends and allies did it. (Don't believe me? Just look 'em up and see if they ever said anything about the left's alliances with jihadists.) After ten years, we know when people claim to oppose torture, and when they chose to say nothing. Even their silence spoke volumes.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the whole historical context section

It was boring, contentious, and quoted an openly partisan source who is not an expert on the matter but is instead a full-time critic of conservatism. Not someone I would consider reliable; though it was published in The Atlantic, the level of scrutiny of political columns is not the same as those for factual articles and I don't think it's a good idea to rely on political columns for encyclopedic info. You're welcome! 209.2.231.65 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the information. Our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy contemplates inclusion of the full range of factual information and opinion on a subject. It does need to be balanced with the sort of denials Bush administration officials such as Dick Cheney made. I'm not sure it is. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section to "Comparison to the Gestapo interrogation method called 'Verschärfte Vernehmung'" because the section does not actually concern historic context. If it did it would include Soviet and other practices as well as modern methods of torture used by other countries today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

request deleted. The requesting editor is blocked for a week for edit warring on similar topics, and this request is not viable - Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation techniques → Torture – Why shouldn't we call a spade a spade? Does every euphemism need its own page? Does "pass away" need a page other than a link to death? Does "making whoopy" need a page separate from sexual intercourse? Why not have this all as a subheading of the torture article? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close we already have an article on torture, I don't see overwriting it with this article as a good idea, and in any case, you'd have to nominate that article for deletion if you want to replace it with this one, so it does not qualify for a requested move. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Equating false confessions and brainwashing is WP:OR

I guess we're just going to dismiss my arguments and call my edits "vandalism" and "unconstructive" until I post something on the talk page? I guess the onus is on the deleting editor, to explain why they deleted questionable material, right? Oh wait... But it's ok, if I'm editing by IP, clearly all my edits are vandalism when they conflict with your POV. Here it is kids, now you have a legitimate need to respond to my arguments. I've posted on the talk page.

Brainwashing and illiciting false confessions are not the same thing, and you have no sources that say that claims that communists in Korea used interrogation techniques to illicit false confessions have been debunked. Until those sources are provided, this information needs to stay out. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP address editor 159.1.15.34: the sources are given both on this page in footnotes which this edit improperly deleted, and in greater depth here. You are warned that you are edit warring, deleting properly footnoted material. Two different editors have restored it. I am going to restore it one more time. Another deletion by this IP address will get this IP address blocked. The IP address being blocked is attributed to an agency of the state of Washington, and it is doubtful that the state of Washington would consider this its proper use.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're going to threaten me now rather than responding to my argument? I'll say it again, false confessions are not the same as brainwashing. The source says that the theory of brainwashing in communist korea was debunked, it does not say that the theory of false confessions in communist korea were debunked. Am I the only person who can see the difference? Why have 3 editors reverted me and 0 even bothered responding to this same statement I've made at least 4 times now? Why have my edits been called "vandalism", and "unconstructive" (and this was later retracted) when I'm the one citing policy? Reading the footnote and the link are what inspired me to delete that passage in the first place, so don't bother telling me what was there. Is the hope that if we form a little kabal of aggressive editors and watch the page that you'll be able intimidate anyone out of making constructive edits that conflict with your POV? Why are requests for additional sources met with reverts? Hell, even if the source was correctly reflected (which it isn't), WP:WEIGHT would require multiple reliable sources to counter the multiple reliable sources which state that SERE is based on a program to illicit false confessions. So let's see. WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BURDEN... any more policies you want to shamelessly violate? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Edit: I just now realized that it's two editors, not three, and one conceded that I was correct. So really it's a question now of how overwhelming the evidence has to be for that last editor to admit he was wrong. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

God, the more I read, the more right I become. Ok, let's take a look at the mind control section from that article, the mind control that is "debunked":

Hunter and those who picked up the Chinese term used it to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners-of-war. It was believed that the Chinese in North Korea used such techniques to disrupt the ability of captured troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment.[7] British radio operator Robert W. Ford[8][9] and British army Colonel James Carne also claimed that the Chinese subjected them to brainwashing techniques during their war-era imprisonment. The most prominent case in the U.S. was that of Frank Schwable, who confessed to having participated in germ warfare while in captivity.[10]

After the war, two studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war by Robert Jay Lifton[11] and by Edgar Schein[12] concluded that brainwashing (called "thought reform" by Lifton and "coercive persuasion" by Schein) had a transient effect. Both researchers found that the Chinese mainly used coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize and maintain morale and hence to escape. By placing the prisoners under conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, better food, warmer clothes or blankets, the Chinese did succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements.

So, not only did they use "brainwashing techniques", but they used these techniques to make Americans say anti-American statements. How is this debunked? But this is besides the point, the fact that torture was used to make Americans make anti-American statements is absolute fact. Ok, but maybe you want to claim that these "anti-American" statements aren't "false confessions"? That would be a fair argument to make, but let's read a few paragraphs down and what do we find...

The U.S. military and government laid charges of "brainwashing" in an effort to undermine detailed confessions made by U.S. military personnel to war crimes, including biological warfare, against the Koreans.

So there you have it. False confessions illicited by torture. Here is your chance to re-establish your good faith by self-reverting. Or would you prefer to move forward with the dispute resolution process when you have no legs to stand on? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the New York Times, a reliable source with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" saying word for word the point that we are saying is "erroneous": [2]. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently what has occasioned edit warring, a tirade, and a threatened block together with the words "you sicken me" on my talk page, are two words in the article: "though erroneously." Since the phrase "commonly believed to be" together with a link to the Mind Control article explaining why the common belief is erroneous should suffice, I will delete "though erroneously." The New York Times cite is a good one and I will add it to the article. That way this IP address editor can turn his energies to obtaining an account. That, together with a reduction in stridency, might make editorial suggestions more credible and successful. With best wishes for a happy New Year, and that the sickness passes quickly, or can be medicated. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's still not enough. Why don't you explain to me in your own words exactly what you think is debunked about this statement:

The SERE program, which Mitchell and Jessen would reverse engineer, was used to train pilots and other soldiers on how to resist techniques employed by the Chinese to extract false confessions from captured Americans during the Korean War.

159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

I removed the following section from the article, because it is an inaccurate explanation of the case.

Indented line

The US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism. The Military Tribunals as established within the Department of Defense were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.

The Hamdan had almost nothing to do with torture and was solely focused on the right of detainees to a habeas corpus proceeding. The reference given at the end actually confirms this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.175.40 (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Legality

I would question whether there is actually any real debate about legality. The reality is that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is simply a euphemism for torture. The article does not really reflect that.203.184.41.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)