Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

What is Waterboarding?

I've been trying to improve the "Technique" section. It has been surprisingly quite difficult to find a good source for a detailed description of waterboarding, as the United States practices it. Most news articles seem to gloss over the details, saying that water is poured over the person causing a gag reflex, or something of the like, but not saying anything much about how much water is used, for how long, whether it is poured into the mouth or the nose, whether the mouth or nose are covered, etc.

In fact, the description in most news articles could accurately be applied to a very mild form of interrogation, in which plastic wrap is put over a suspect's face, and water is poured over the person - but the water slides off the plastic wrap and does not cause gagging or asphyxiation. I had the impression for some time that this was what was happening, and I don't seem to be alone - the Fox News correspondent in the video I've linked asks if the water slid off the cellophane.

Anyway, as far as I know this mild interrogation has never been used (obviously it wouldn't be very effective), and the actual technique is basically what's shown on the Fox News segments (surprisingly, they seem to be pretty accurate here). Unfortunately I have been unable to find a really solid source for this belief (I think I did read an article which said so, but I don't remember where at all). For now I have edited the section to try to give an idea of the ambiguities involved, and to at least include a more concrete description, even if that description can't be solidly sourced at the moment.

As a final note, if I've done anything horrifically impolite by Wikipedia standards, then I apologize and ask for a polite correction - this is basically the first time I've tried to edit an article. Worldworld 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. I think the section is actually pretty important to understanding the rest of the article, as I've seen differing press accounts, all seemingly talking about waterboarding as a unified phenomenon, when it (according to Fox) is a series of related techniques. Well done.--chaser - t 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you do this edit without deleting the first bit about the director of the CIA - there's no contention there at all as the statement he said is bordering on farcical, and as such stating it illustrates the difference between the perpetrators and almost everyone else? Also I have some concerns about the Fox descriptions - many have said that that these were staged quite mildly with some significant variations from what has been described - it has been said it was toned down to suit the Fox political agenda as was their descriptions - as such the fox component should not be just added as a overwrite of the previous one, but they could co-exist. Fox is not exactly that trustworthy on such subject matter given it's known biases. IMHO both should be there. Inertia Tensor 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, and I'm glad it's been restored. I mostly just wasn't sure where to put it, since I couldn't directly relate it to the material I was adding. When I write essays and the like, I remove the content in such a situation - which is a bad way to do things on Wikipedia, but I just didn't think about it. I'll continue trying to find a detailed description of water-boarding from somewhere more trustworthy than Fox - I agree with you that their reporting can be untrustworthy. Worldworld 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have done nothing impolite at all (I may have been to harsh in fact) - welcome to wiki and thank you for helping to edit. I would like to see some sort of melding as described above - you certainly picked a firey article to start with :-) Inertia Tensor 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! I was a little frightened making these edits, but the community here seems very reasonable and helpful. Worldworld 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, in the heat of this article I ignored the most fundamental of Wikipedia tenets, Assume Good Faith. Inertia Tensor 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the dunking go away from this block, it was trashed out a while ago in [[1]] and in edit summaries and I believe it was deemed a red herring, sometimes accidental, and sometimes a very deliberate effort at misinformation by some sectors in the US media. Inertia Tensor 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the sources, one of them is the NY Times, the other is the New Yorker. However, the New Yorker piece actually mentions the Times report in the paragraph, so it may be relying on the reporting of the Times. The New Yorker piece then mentions Dr. Allen Keller in connection to water boarding; Dr. Allen Keller's own description, taken from [testimony to congress], is that water is "poured over their face." He also notes that there is a "real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water." In other words, he is clearly not describing any sort of "dunking" but is describing waterboarding in line with other sources.

So it looks like the Times is the odd one out here. Unless more sources can be found, I agree that "dunking" should be elided.

New Fox News definition: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding ? :-) Inertia Tensor 12:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy has a new column out where he mentions this confusion over the technique. There are several ways waterboarding could be done, but the precise method used by the CIA has not been disclosed.

-- Randy2063 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what technique is used. McCarthy states "for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death" and, as he points out in the previous paragraph, "the threat of imminent death" is specifically listed in the definition of torture under US law, 18 USC 2340 1(C). How much clearer can it get?--agr 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that to be so. For one thing, it's probably made pretty clear to the waterboardee that he's not really going to die. If you ever read the Al-Katahni interrogation logs (who was not waterboarded), there were medical personnel present to monitor his health during his interrogation. If the CIA did the same thing then that threat is no longer there. They may feel they're going to die, but I'm sure they know that they won't.

I read "threat of imminent death" to mean holding a gun to someone's head and acting like you're going to kill him.

-- Randy2063 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant language in 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..."

That language clearly is talking about what the victim perceives, not the choice words used by the torturer, and every description of waterboarding I've seen says the victim believes death is imminent in the most deep and visceral way. --agr 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the fact that he knows he's not going to die. His body may think otherwise, but he knows better.

I doubt very, very much that the persons performing the torture specifically make it clear to the prisoner that he or she is not going to die, no matter what. It is ludicrous to say that it is a fact that a victim of waterboarding performed by US gov't personnel knows for sure that he won't be killed by the waterboarding, and the burden of proof is on you. --Halloween jack 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your definition points to what may be the real problem: How much actual physical pain is involved?

The WP definition of Pain says, "Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage". I'm sure that's not the definition the CIA's legal department is using, but the direction it points to could be interesting.

Waterboarding is not painful, according to a former CIA officer quoted in this article. And if it's not painful, then you may need to rethink how and why it fits the definition of torture.

-- Randy2063 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but is there any other qualified source that would call his claim anything but patently ridiculous? I mean, really, the claim that waterboarding is not painful? And based on this one source, which is contradicted by so many others, we should rethink how the article is written? Sorry, but regardless of who said it, that's somewhere on the order of claiming that water is crunchy and tastes like beef.--Halloween jack 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that we're confusing misery with pain. One is illegal. The other might not be.

This article also says it can be painful if it's not done right. That suggests doing it right means it's not technically painful.

-- Randy2063 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding as actual (but controlled) drowning?

Everything I have read on waterboarding before defines waterboarding as simulating drowning by pouring water on the victim over a cloth or other barrier. However, I recently read an article [2] which states that waterboarding as practiced by the US military is a form of actual, but controlled drowning, where the victim is forced to inhale water into the lungs. Does anyone know of any corroborating sources, and if so, should the information be included in this article, or perhaps there's another name for this kind of torture covered under a different article? --Halloween jack 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable sources as to how much water is inhaled. Dr. Allen Keller mentioned in testimony to congress that water is inhaled by the victim. The purpose of the inclination of the board is to prevent the water from being inhaled - but how effective that is, I don't know. Water is forced into the respiratory tract - this is clearly seen in the two videos of waterboarding linked in the article under "technique," in the description by Allen Keller, in the description by Physicians for Human Rights, etc. I'd love to know how much water is actually inhaled - it's another glaring gap in our knowledge of this technique. Worldworld 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a case, then, for editing the article to describe waterboarding as a form of controlled drowning, rather than "simulated drowning" or a technique designed to "induce the sensation" of drowning? Regardless of the political biases involved, it seems like a matter of simple logic; torturing someone by beating isn't referred to as "inducing the sensation of being beaten to death."--Halloween jack 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of waterboarding, gathered from reading articles and from basic reasoning about anatomy, is that water is "inhaled" in the sense that it is forced into the upper respiratory tract. The subject is positioned specifically to make this happen; the water is "forced" by gravity, and the only way to prevent it from entering is to exhale. Thus the subject is compelled to quickly expel all the air from the lungs. This is why waterboarding is so much faster and more terrifying than being submerged; within just a few seconds, the subject is out of air and can neither exhale nor inhale, with sinuses and trachea full of water. Whether this is "drowning" depends on your definition; the subject is not dying from lack of oxygen, so in that sense it is not drowning -- at least not immediately. Prolonged application of the technique will fill the lungs with water, and will asphyxiate the subject.

I empathize with your concern. Personally, I hate the term "simulated drowning" because it makes waterboarding sound like something less than drowning -- whereas everything I know about it suggests that it is actually much worse than drowning because it immediately induces, and greatly prolongs, the period of time from when the subject is gagging, in pain, and has no control over the airway, to when the subject passes out. And, of course, it can be repeated indefinitely. I think something like "forced water inhalation" might be more accurate. Again, I speak not from any personal experience or authority on the subject, merely from reasoning based on what I know. -- Ka-Ping Yee 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This NPR story has more on the subject http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15844677 --agr 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Nance, former SERE instructor really explains it well: "It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral." See http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/ 69.156.23.125 —Preceding comment was added at 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

technique

the point of waterboarding is to seal the mouth and force water through the nose. the article does not emphasize this, instead it goes for the opposite, suggesting that there is a hole cut in celophane etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.12.135 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post. You must know something we don't know, because the articles we're using state that the mouth is forced open. The version you describe must be an alternate method. Do you have sources for this? Badagnani 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how is it possible that you could know something that we don't know? Or something that is not in an article! Preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.198.207 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apalled at attempted redefinition of torture

Let me just add for the record that I am appalled that waterboarding, being a mock execution and a very real, prolonged, controlled drowning, has to be referencedly justified to be torture. If this is not torture, then the word has utterly lost its meaning. Falkvinge 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Although, it may seem obvious to some that it is torture, under current US law it is not torture if used on non-US citizens. This means that the US has not officially classified it as a torture method, it only bans it in CIA interrogations. Eli81993 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? The U.S. statute that defines and bans torture (18 USC 2340) says nothing about citizens vs non-citizens.--agr 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter whether US law defines it as torture, as long as there are reliable cites that do define it as torture.Eric m allen 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the dictionary? If you look up the meaning of all the words involved, Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture. --Can Not (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary won't make your case. Torture is defined as severe pain or suffering. If done correctly, waterboarding may be extremely miserable but it's not technically painful. "Mental pain or suffering" can mean a lot of things, and that's why the law matters. It's defined by U.S. law to mean prolonged. Waterboarding once is not prolonged. How it's defined by other countries may be nice to know, but it's less relevant if they're not completely serious about this. (And, no, they're not.)

I think what critics mean to say is that waterboarding is miserable, and they believe it should be illegal to make fascists feel bad. Critics may be able to make that case for a while, but not if events change the political winds. This is why we need to establish now where people stand on this issue today. So, this article should be as much about "who" as it is about "what."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, the dictionary will make your case. It says "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony." Further, if you have been reading the sources we have been considering, a number of the individuals who have experienced waterboarding have described extreme pain. Strange that you disregard these sources. Please stop oversimplifying and selectively considering sources, specifically privileging U.S. government claims over all other sources. Badagnani (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed reading the sources, including yours. One of your sources (Malcolm Nance) used the word "pain" only in the context of a "painful psychological experience" -- not physical pain. Evan Wallach, another anti-waterboarding source referenced here said it's "not very painful." Other sources acknowledge it can be painful depending upon how it's done.

I suggest you read your sources more closely.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be consistently focusing on the "pain" part of the definition and ignoring that severe suffering is also considered torture. Being suffocated almost to death constitutes severe suffering. Consider examples other than waterboarding: being dunked underwater, being sealed in a container with no air, or having plastic tightly wrapped over the face are all ways to be suffocated almost to death, and certainly cause extreme suffering even if they do not necessarily cause immediate physical pain. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I addressed it when I said, "it's defined by U.S. law to mean prolonged." I don't know why that is so, but this is what Andrew C. McCarthy wrote (already referenced a couple times on this page).

Actually, being in a room with no air is not painful at all, although the plastic wrapped on one's face would be severely distressing.

I think the critics need to remember what torture really is. In that light, perhaps it is me who is appalled at this attempted redefinition of torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The existence of even worse things one can do to another human being is no justification. The alleged actions of Al Qaeda do not define or change the definition of torture and have no relevance to the article at hand. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. I am not attempting to justify waterboarding by saying that the enemy does far worse, although I can see how some may think that.

What I am saying is that the critics have concentrated almost exclusively on what Americans are doing in this war, and thereby severely limiting the range they think could be applicable to the definition of torture. So, of course waterboarding becomes "torture" in their minds when compared to loud music, stress positions, solitary confinement and impolite language. If there was no waterboarding and stress positions then we'd have the same arguments about loud music. Take away the loud music too and the critics would invest the same emotion in solitary confinement.

And if you don't believe me, take a look at the article on the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Much of it was exaggerated, if not untrue, and yet the critics care far more about that then they do about our enemies' use of real torture, or of children as human shields. So, on the sliding scale of aggressive treatment that may have been given to three al Qaeda prisoners, it shouldn't surprise anyone that most of these critics will redefine the far end as "torture" no matter what it involves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be more interested in attacking the critics of waterboarding than in making this article accurate. In my opinion, you are mischaracterizing them; it is a wild assumption to say that people who oppose mistreatment of prisoners by Americans automatically condone mistreatment of prisoners by Al Qaeda. Has it ever occurred to you that these people might simply be against all mistreatment of prisoners? In any case, this is beside the point; all this stuff about what these critics "would" think and what reaction they had to the Qur'an desecration issue is irrelevant to this article. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I was simply addressing what you mistakenly thought my position is. Yes, I'm sure that many of the critics feel they are against all torture, particularly when they're sitting around having a beer with friends. But look around. That's not where the WP consensus actually speaks.

The bar is being shifted. That's highly relevant to this article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the comments here we need some clarification regarding many misconceptions

1. The definition is not limited to physical. Since it explicitly mentions mental it is more than reasonable to state that waterboarding causes mental pain.
2. If we take prolonged to mean what pro-waterboarders want us to do we can think of many things that fail that argument. Electricity to the genitals, daily beatings with rubber hoses, needles under the nails, et cetera will not cause lasting, i.e. prolonged, damage and as such are not torture. Nevertheless, no legal expert will support the idea that using electricity on the genitals is not torture.
3. Whatever US law says is irrelevant since torture is prohibited under international law and therefore the international definition applies.
4. Whatever US law says is irrelevant as torturing detainees during a time of war is considered a war crime and as such is subject to international law.
5. Whatever the Bush administration says is irrelevant as WP clearly precludes giving equal time to fringe theories: see WP:UNDUE.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mental torture is torture, but no, you can't use it in your definition without restrictions. I think the word "prolonged" was only relevant to the mental part. Your rubber hoses are clearly physical pain.

UNCAT was ratified with clarifying statements because they didn't to be held to an impossibly high standard that no other country would be held to.

I suggest you reread what I'd just said.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "I think" why not look it up? Here is what U.S. law (18 USC 2340) actually says:

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

The word "prolonged" refers to the long-term effects of torture, not the duration of the torture procedure itself, and "the threat of imminent death" is specifically listed as causing "prolonged mental harm." The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that waterboarding produces an intense fear of imminent death. I think we can rely on the plain meaning of the law here.--agr (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not everyone agrees. There is no prolonged mental harm.

The "threat of imminent death" is like the "mock execution" that people like to toss around on this topic, but it's not the same thing as waterboarding. The waterboardee knows he's not going to die. There's no threat of that kind.

Mock executions do happen. The Iranians did it to our embassy personnel. We shouldn't let that one be redefined, too.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is no prolonged mental harm." How did you arrive at that conclusion? May I suggest you read about holocaust survivors, probably also without prolonged mental harm. More to the point does posttraumatic stress disorder sound like something one might contract while undergoing this wonderful technique?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And how many cases of PTSD have been reported among members of the military who've supposedly been subjected to waterboarding in peacetime training?

Mental harm or not, I'd say the Holocaust meets any definition of "prolonged."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The law doesn't say "mock execution," it says " "threat of imminent death" and according to every source I've seen, victims of waterboarding believe they are going to die. --agr (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They may feel that way but they know that they won't.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is truly absurd to suppose that prisoners who are undergoing interrogation have any confidence that their captors won't let them die. Even in the case of military training, this claim is questionable. Some of the personnel who go through SERE, e.g. special forces, are extremely tough individuals with egos to match. They are taught to endure many kinds of pain and discomfort. If they "know" they won't be killed, why do they invariably succumb to waterboarding, as all reports indicate the do? Why don't they just tough it out? Are you suggesting that U.S. soldiers are all wimps and cowards?--agr (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They succumb to waterboarding because the belief that one will die has nothing to do with it. I think the SERE meme actually makes my case.

I'm sure that many of the actual prisoners would have preferred to die rather than talk, and yet they talked anyway. So, it's not a matter of believing they're going to die.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability to force compliance on someone who would rather die than comply is a defining characteristic of torture. If the elite soldiers going through SERE have no fear of real harm, what is it that does make them comply? If it's the physical effects, then there is the other prong of the U.S.C. 2340 definition: severe physical pain or suffering. If the discomfort of waterboarding is great enough that best-of-the-best trained warriors, knowing for sure that the procedure will not go on more than a couple of minutes, can't endure it, surely that must count as severe. --agr (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Torture and misery aren't the same thing. As I understand it, the other physical affects aren't part of the definition. Again, I'm only saying it's not technically painful, and therefore, the case has been made that it's not technically torture. And if it's technically legal, then it would be inexcusable not to use it in limited cases.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary defines misery as "prolonged or extreme suffering." U.S. law says "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering..." So they are the same thing. And if waterboarding is "technically legal," why limit it to the CIA? Why doesn't the U.S. military use it to find the folks who make and plant those IEDs that are killing U.S. soldiers by the hundreds? Why not use it to track down drug lords who have done far more damage to the U.S. than terrorists?--agr (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the CIA lawyers consulted their own dictionaries when they worked this out, and they didn't start from my use of the word "misery".

One thing you might keep in mind is that they're quite serious about the law. CIA lawyers were quite willing to cancel other projects. If they think they found a loophole, it's probably more than a cheap ploy.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. military has their own rules. Their doctrine and training is set up to conform to the Geneva Conventions. There are things civilian cops can do that military police can't. The CIA's rules shouldn't need those restrictions.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you are going to make brash claims like "There is no prolonged mental harm," you've got to back that up with some evidence. What's your backing? And why should it take precedence over John McCain and Human Rights Watch, both of which have stated that there is prolonged mental harm? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent, fringe redefinition ("waterboarding is not a form of torture") by a single administration of one among nearly 200 countries, should be mentioned, but not privileged in the lead. The consensus doesn't seem to support your original research. It's clear you haven't been reading the sources we have been considering, as people who have been waterboarded have, indeed, died. Thus, the opinion that "the waterboardee knows he's not going to die" is spurious. Badagnani (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember answering you about reading sources above.

Yes, people have died during waterboarding, but if you've read close, there are different variations. How many were killed by CIA waterboarding, or when the U.S. military does it to their own trainees? The military often needs them back into a cockpit just days afterward. They don't want them in a psych ward.

One of among nearly 200 countries? You make it sound like all those other countries are models of human rights when, in reality, the U.S. is the only country really being tested here. A few of those countries are doing far worse right now. Most of the rest will do something equally as harsh, if not more so, when the fight comes to their shores. The rest will quietly rely on Americans to do it for them, which seems to be what's happening now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're making a logical error here. "It is possible to perform procedure X on a person without killing them" is not equivalent to "All people who have procedure X performed on them are certain they will not die". —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was merely responding to Badagnani's point that people have died while being waterboarded. I suppose I probably should have said it doesn't much matter to the question of torture. Or, if it does, it's not where our major differences are.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be a mixing of two different arguments, whether waterboarding is torture and whether torture is sometimes justified. The later argument belongs elsewhere.--agr (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to point that out, but it wasn't my position.

The times I've mentioned that only three CIA prisoners have been waterboarded, my intent was to demonstrate its smaller relevance in the greater human rights debate, and that goes to how much the consensus position is biased.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people that state torture is needed under certain circumstances. But they should be courageously honest and state they are torturers and then of course willing to face the consequences for what they feel is absolutely needed: i.e. being brought before the International Criminal Court for committing war crimes.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but the question is really whether or not waterboarding is torture.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that the U.S. is using a slick loophole (something akin to debating the definition of "is") and that many disagree in whether that loophole is legitimate in a legal sense, and/or in a moral sense.

BTW: Was it you who's been peppering WP with command responsibility links on every military crime in wartime? If so, you missed one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos!

Weasel Words
Doublespeaked Weasel
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homo Erectus
Genus:	Apologists Tortureus Doublespeakus
Regime
Rogue

This article is great! Well-sourced, NPOV, informative, and reads very well. I came here after reading an article about the US Attorney General nominee, and learned quite a bit. Well done to all involved.

I have removed the "In Popular Culture" section, which stands out like a sore thumb in such an otherwise dandy article. Of course, if any of the regular editors here feel strongly about it, please revert by all means.

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, trivia section... 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

This is a wonderful example of where the Neutral in NPOV breaks down. Only a torture supporting weasel could for a moment contemplate calling waterboarding anything other than Torture. It is plain and simple Torture. To say other is to wander far Neutral and Objective. Do the thought experiment... allow me to strap you to a waterboard and commence... how long before you change your mind about whether it's torture or not? Any euphemistic "has been called torture", "forced interrogation technique" or its "someone's opinion that" is simple evil weaseling of the first order. It's torture, end of story.

Bingo. Apparently they feel that if it doesn't say in law "Ripping nuts off with pliers is torture" literally, then it is not torture. Hmmmm, with that sort of "logic" all a torturer has to do is change the name of the torture. Oh wait, "Enhanced interogation", what's next, enhanced prison (gas chambers)? 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

A Machiavellian who believes any means is justified by the ends, down to and including torture will find NPOV a convenient means to the end. Thus the Wikipedia merely becomes a propaganda broadsheet for the editor with the lowest morals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

• "forced information gathering" Is someone smoking crack cocaine? Don't they teach english in schools there - that has to be the most biased, and ridiculous torture of the english langauge, common sense and logic I have seen on Wiki to date - surreal doublespeak. 89.100.48.103 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article as I read it clearly defined waterboarding as torture in the lead; it was extremely well sourced. I don't like the weaselly version as it now stands. I just wanted to clarify. ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

Could the new arrivals please desist in MASSIVE blanking and provoking of an edit war. Read talk, read the archives and stop engaging in massive unilateral blanking to suit your political masters. This DOES place a lot at the foot of the US, not is NOT BIAS, that is fact, the US is doing it right now, no one knows of any major uses that we can document. It starts by saying what waterboarding is - torture, and how it is done. If it has to mention the US it is only because it is who does it. If you do not want to be called torturers - DO NOT TORTURE. Please take your zero concensus unilateral blanking and edit waring elsewhere and stop filling this artcile with weasels. 89.100.48.103 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Whether waterboarding is torture or not is a point of contention. Many say it is, many others say it is not. So to reflect this disagreement, the lede should reflect both viewpoints as well as the controversy over borderline cases such as waterboarding.

There is no controversy, only American butt covering propaganda. The rest of the world is united. Waterboarding _is_ torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mistake the requirement for external sources and no original research for a requirement to shut your brain down. Torturers are intrinsically evil and will lie, spin, distort, deceive without conscience since by definition, they have none. Thus any external source supporting torture is intrinsically untrustworthy. What such sources _can_ be used for is to objectively demonstrate that the torture supporter is evil and untrustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

READ THE TALK HISTORY - this has gone on for 2 years here, always arriving back at the torture. No one can produce ANY NOTABLE SOURCE OR PERSON saying it is not torture - no one. Many wish it was not torture, but no one of note says so, no one. It is not biased as there is f-all evidence of anyone of note saying otherwise. None, zero, zip nada. There ar eplenty of politicos who support it in certain cases whether or not it is torture - Guiliani for example, but NO ONE SAY IT IS NOT TORTURE. I have a real problem with new arrivals telling other people to take it to talk when they did not participate themselves in talk before making massive revisions and blanking the entire first 3 paragraphs with NO CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER. The talk makes it incredibly clear, do not do anything major without discussing in talk.89.100.48.103 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no law - whether US statutory law or international law - that states that waterboarding constitutes torture. Since there is no authoritative statement on the status of such grey-area cases as waterboarding, wikipedia rightly should reflect that uncertainty and not claim, dogmatically, that it "is" torture. 220.255.115.209 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCES. Plain english defines the circumstances that = torture. Stop twisting it, if the administration called it "bosiaoenbdwb" and described it differently, would you say it is not torture because no law says the word "bosiaoenbdwb" is torture, or the exact verbatim description is torture? NONSENSE. Wiki is not meant to gloss over ugly realities, it is meant to be factual, unbiased and objective. That is what this is, well sourced and factual without OR. I'm sorry you wish people didn;t consider it torture, but it is - and no one of note says otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts. 89.100.48.103 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You say Grey Area = waterboarding, WHAT??? It is plain simple English. For openers it is a mock execution, something absolutely outlawed - they are PROVEN to believe death is imminent, and thus legally a form of torture. 89.100.48.103 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should add, my edits do not come down conclusively on one side or the other. Yours do, despite the current controversy over the question. I think it is clear who is pushing POV here. You may hold the opinion that waterboarding is torture very strongly, but absent an authoritative determination by Congress, SCOTUS, or the ICJ, you're only peddling opinion. The administration may of course cite its own legal position on the issue, as advised by the Office of Legal Counsel, that waterboarding doesn't constitute torture. So it is clear that lawyers, and reasonable people, can disagree on the issue. That being the case, it is only fair to reflect both points of view. Your agenda notwithstanding. 220.255.115.209 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you can't discuss things without becoming hysterical, perhaps you should do something else? Capitalized words and emphatic exclamation marks don't make your points more convincing. Keep it neutral, thanks. 220.255.115.209 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article arrived at a consensus long before you blew in with your politically motivated biases. It is obvious that you did not make any attempt to seek compromise, did not participate in talk until after you assaulted the article. It says this has generated a blanking of paragraphs, blasted the concept of consensus and provoked a serious edit war. Please desist in your highly disruptive editing and injection of gross bias, unsourced weasel words and general mayhem. Did you seriously expect editors not to revert you for not properly participating and attempting to impose your bias, POV and agenda? Inertia Tensor 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 220.255.115.209 is engaged in grossly disputive editing, and 3RR warring! 89.100.48.103 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Politically motivated? I just said that I'm not coming down on one side or the other of the controversy. In fact, my edit included the statement that waterboarding is regarded as torture by numerous experts. What, exactly, is politically motivated about the fact that there is controversy over whether waterboarding constitutes torture or not? There is no "gross bias". Get a grip. 220.255.115.209 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Because only one thing can gain by this revisionism - the future legal safety of the torturers - the US administration. The opinion you cited in the edit comment was RETRACTED, and not only that - had you bothered read what the people above wrote, how can the opinion of the torturer even carry any weight. It is worth mentioning below in the article, but it could not possibly carry any weight - can a shop lifter say it is not shop lifting? Or a mugger. A retracted opinion by John Yew et als, on behalf of the torturers themselves. Come on get real. 89.100.48.103 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude. You can't even spell John Yoo properly. I don't think it's really worth my time debating the issue with someone who clearly has a poor grasp of the facts. All I'm trying to do is insert a modicum of NPOV in the article, seeing as there is a present live controversy on the waterboarding question. I have no political stake in this - I'm not even American. Wikipedia should reflect NPOV instead of coming down conclusively on one side or another of a debate, that's all there is to my edit, which did NOT say that w'boarding wasn't torture, or that it is. It merely says that many regard w'boarding to be torture, and makes no categorical claim that it "is" torture absence some authoritative source or law on the issue. NPOV is all I'm saying. Your taking one side, instead of adhering to NPOV, is not very wikipedesque of you. 220.255.115.209 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No response? I guess the revelation that I am NOT American put a big hole in your "politically motivated" theory. Wikipedia also says to assume good faith - a courtesy I have not had extended to me. Instead, I was raked over the coals for daring to give the article a NPOV edit. Silly me. I should have known better than assume that my good faith edits would incur anything other than a hysterical reaction (see various examples above). 220.255.115.209 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you made a series of massive edits before going near talk, and simply refuse to accept well sourced reality. And you use US english (dude) and turns of phrase so it is a reasonable assumption - but not that relevant. You started an edit war with irresponsible and highly disruptive editing , and are demanding verbatim descriptions of naming of waterboarding to consider it illegal. You are being GROSSLY biased POV. It is a sad an unsavory truth that waterboarding is universally considered torture by those that are notable as sources. The fact that it is a ugly truth that holds some in a very harsh and ugly light does not make it POV, the truth is not always pretty and wiki's role is not to whitewash, gloss over things and take the edge off harsh fact. Stop pushing your POV here. Find me another side - I am not taking one side, I am working as part of the long established consensus that appears to show in the water boarding history. No one has ever shown any evidence of any other side. So how am I POV? YOU ARE 89.100.48.103 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dude" is a colloquial term used all over the world. Get a grip. I did NOT make any massive edits. Check the edit history - I characterised the sources calling waterboarding 'torture' accurately, and I removed sources (I removed very little _actual text_ in the article) that do NOT state that waterboarding = torture, but were cited as if they were. The reason for this is simple: the same people who think waterboarding isn't torture also rely on the very same statutes - they just give it a different interpretation.

In other words, the statutes themselves are not controlling and certainly _not explicit_ on whether waterboarding meets the definition of 'torture' contained therein. Interpretations differ, hence the controversy. There is nothing POV about accurately describing that "numerous experts" call waterboarding torture. It just doesn't come down on one side of the controversy as you would like. It's called NPOV. And for the last time, waterboarding is not "universally" considered torture. Congress doesn't consider it so, the DOJ doesn't consider it so, and the attorney general doesn't say it is. So you're just badly overstating your case.

I've already found you another side. The OLC memo. The Administration itself. Giuliani, who is "not sure" that it is torture. Tancredo. There are people on both sides of the issue, surprising as that may be for you. The fact that you're coming down conclusively on one side when there's a controversy over it suggests to me that you're violating NPOV. 220.255.115.209 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RETRACTED opinion, and since when can the criminal's say that it is not a crime carry that much weight? and Julliani did not say it is not torture - plenty of people did. Eventually when pressed, as the ref and the article and the talk above, he simply came around to ignoring the whole torture question and saying he was for it in some cases - he did not address whether or not it was torture - sorry. Unsubstantiated. NO SOURCES AT ALL. 89.100.48.103 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't retracted. Or at least I'm not aware it was. Can you provide a source that says it is "retracted"? And the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel is not a "criminal". You're being blatantly biased now. You also ignore Tancredo, and the OLC. Less of the political rage, please. 220.255.115.209 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's Giuliani on waterboarding: (On whether waterboarding is torture) “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.” (Applause)

So Giuliani clearly thinks that _in certain cases_ ("depending on how its done") waterboarding is not torture. Your characterisation of Giuliani's claim is therefore, inaccurate. As is your claim that waterboarding = torture is "universally" accepted. When it clearly isn't. 220.255.115.209 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish Waterboarding was only an American perversion. But alas, there are people the world over with a need to euphemise away the evil they or their associates have done. God knows there are millions of white South Africans who, like me, should carry deep and everlasting shame. They should carry a terrible anger that this crime was done in our name. Alas, I know most of them are weak and cannot face it and would rather sweep it into the memory hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With a singapore IP... anyway, it is NOT a US monopoly, but the US is by far the most notorious user these days. Burma probably did it to their monks but we do not have a decent source yet, just rumours. Instead of raging about biases on the US, why not CONTRIBUTE other cases that are current and serious. Water boarding is torture, it is exceedingly well sourced, and I have a real problem with someone glossing over the fact and making it a softer gentler article with the injection of weasel words, bogus qualifiers and red herrings. If I want softer-gentler, I will use photoshop, if I want a good, accurate, unbiased encyclopedic article, I will use Wikipedia. 89.100.48.103 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Your 'exceedingly well sourced' does not include anything authoritative in the form of law, or an ICJ opinion, or a determination by Congress. What we have is _your_ gloss on the statutes that "severe mental or physical pain/suffering" includes that of waterboarding. That is not the same thing as what the law actually says. Stick to NPOV. 220.255.115.209 02:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange when the Japanese did it to British soldiers in Singapore it was a full blown war crime. http://robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/waterboarding-is-war-crime.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Japanese were persecuted for actual war crimes, not cases of waterboarding per se. Unfortunately, the link you cite does not provide sources, nor does he appear to be a professional historian or reliable source. It appears to be a blog actually. So I wouldn't put too much credulity in that. 220.255.115.209 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you read the article you are fighting on - just a suggestion. You might find THIS in it.

• Pincus, Walter, "Waterboarding Historically Controversial; In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation" Washington Post, October 5, 2006, pg. A17. viewed October 5, 2006
• Case Defendant: Asano, Yukio from Case Synopses from Judge Advocate's Reviews Yokohama Class B and C War Crimed Trials. Accessed on March 7, 2006

Just a suggestion... Inertia Tensor 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Political Bias

In the current state of the article, I agree with the United States being mentioned in the initial section as the most recent media coverage. I do not find fault with this and believe it is pertinent information relating to this article. --Pyrex238 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also find it ridiculous that the entire technique sub heading is composed of only U.S. officials, and media outlets - again this is a bias attempt to associate the United States with ownership - this is what I'm talking about people. --Pyrex238 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, this is not caused by bias, but just because these sources are much easier for us to find. Do a google search on "waterboarding," you'll find 50 articles about US waterboarding, not a lot about Cambodian, Argentinian, Spanish, or Japanese waterboarding. I wrote a good part of the current "technique" section. If I had found clear descriptions of the technique from Cambodian, Japanese, etc., sources, I would have used them. I was planning to add some more sources of this sort for more breadth, in fact. Worldworld 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article contains blatant political biases. The purpose of this article is to define the technique, implementation, purpose, and history. Political biased viewers are intentionally placing the recent United State's allegations directly after the first sentence. That is absolutely absurd editing. The proper location for such material is under the History header, and United States sub section. Wiki viewers must control their biases when editing these articles. --Pyrex238 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The political bias is "spinning" waterboard as something other than the plain unvarnished fact that it is torture. Stop "spinning" it to suit American propaganda objectives and we'll stop correcting it to the plain obvious neutral objective truth. Anything other than the direct simple statement "waterboarding _is_ torture" is political spin and will be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that in the slightest, nor did I remove that statement from the article whatsoever. All I have done is move the United states recent allegations into the proper section, that is all. I feel this is a completely reasonable edit --Pyrex238 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - sorry, your edits are getting caught up in the war between those two IPs and associated reversions. It's best we all back off until they get banned. Inertia Tensor 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, more political bias being thrown back into the article. The world 'charged' is used to describe nothing more than allegations, and speculations. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an unbiased statement of fact to it's viewers. Using the word 'charged' is insinuating that this was a ruling of a court, when it is no more than an allegation. These kinds of words are intentionally used to steer an unbiased viewer into believing something more than speculative allegations had taken place. I have absolutely no problem with the word being used if it were supported by factual evidence, but none is supplied, and it is continually edited to suit a particular bias. Wikipedia is fast becoming a wildly anti-american biased source for information, and this article is further evidence of this. I do not feel that an article regarding technique of torture which was invented 100 years before the inception of the United States should be written in a manner to suggest the United States is solely responsible for it. No matter what your political view is of the U.S., or it's political mindset - one must realize that every bit of information contained in this article in relation to this technique is entirely speculation and none of which has ever been proven, or had a court ruling to verify the allegations. Furthermore, I submit an example as the quote from Jimmy Carter - win which he states "I don't think it, I know it." That's a very strong quote and opinion from an ex US President, yet again there is zero facts to support this, and it is coming from a president which is widely regarded in historical fact as being incredibly anti-military. You will see this is the general temperament of the entire U.S. portion of the article - opinions, media coverage, and speculation. If Wiki were in fact a recognized encyclopedia, all of this information would be consider speculation and removed. Facts and facts alone should be contained in this article. Please, leave the political bias on youtube. --Pyrex238 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If I have inadvertently reverted your changes, I apologise. I only mean to revert the categorical claim made by some editors that waterboarding "is" torture - reverting to Larry Cohen's quite balanced edit, in other words. For NPOV reasons of course. 220.255.115.209 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor - Sorry I deleted your reply to me earlier, I forgot to log in, and when I did I had the wrong section of text selected to undo. I respect your opinion, but you state the U.S. has murdered a million people? That's ridiculous.. seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Pyrex238 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

800,000k approx have been judged by various agencies that have died in Iraq that statistically would not have done so had the US not illegally invaded. Anyway, that debate aside, please keep up your edits, sorry they got caught up in the fighting by those idiots. I have put in for 10RR on one, and someone else has called for temp protection (ban the IPs from it). I think you are on to something by removing all the US centric discourse from the top, but I guess we have to wait for this to pass :-( I didn't separately report that European IP also reverting as I happen to agree, but of course you may as can the admins. Inertia Tensor 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a study published by the british medical journal Lancet, the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives in direct relation to the war reached 655,000 by June 2006. That would put the number of Iraqi deaths over 800,000 today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on characterising waterboarding as "torture"

I've removed claims that state categorically that waterboarding constitutes "torture". Absent an authoritative law, Congressional determination, or ICJ opinion that waterboarding constitutes torture, retaining NPOV is essential. Hence the compromise edit that states that "many" have held that waterboarding is torture, without coming down on one side or the other of the controversy.

Note that the compromise does NOT state that waterboarding is not torture. It simply avoids stating categorically that it is. This is as NPOV as it gets. That warring editors have attempted to come down conclusively on one side of the controversy, is I think, an indicator that POV is being pushed. 220.255.115.209 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that is explicitly NOT neutral. You are simply reciting verbatim the "spin" being pushed by the US government. ie. You are _not_ neutral, you are explicitly supporting the POV of the people in charge of the perpetrating the torture. If there is a Neutral Point of View it would be to observe that a) Waterboarding is torture, and b) it's the subject of an "own population" propaganda campaign by the US government to soften objections to it and the actions taken by US officials. Now that would be neutral and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one coming down categorically on one side of the controversy. You are. What makes you think you're not reciting the "spin" being pushed by people who dislike the Bush Administration?

Unlike you, I'm not coming down categorically on one side of the debate. I'm describing the facts as they are: that many view waterboarding as torture (true), and removing the categorical claim that waterboarding "is" torture (disputed). This is as NPOV as it gets. Just because you're upset with the contrary view does not mean that you should pretend that it doesn't exist. 220.255.36.206 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Words have meaning. From M-W, for example: "torture. n. 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion." Waterboarding is clearly torture. There is no rational question about it whatsoever. "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." is an easily sourced, NPOV statement. You can argue that waterboarding might not be a war crime, or might not be against international law and retain some dignity in the matter, but to use weasel words about something as simple as "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is unacceptable POV. ➪HiDrNick! 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do. But your assertion that "waterboarding is clearly torture" is just bald assertion. It's not clear to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. It's not clear to Giuliani and Tancredo. It's not clear to the Bush administration. It's not clear to the previous U.S. Attorney General. It's not clear to Judge Mukasey, the current nominee for AG.

What's clear is that a lot of people disagree with what YOU say it's "obvious", but isn't obvious at all to those who disagree. Their argument would be, since waterboarding doesn't result in any permanent physical injury, it clearly doesn't count as "severe physical pain". So it isn't torture. It's a plausible argument. So they too could assert that it's "clear" that waterboarding isn't torture. It doesn't make them right. Just as it doesn't make YOU right when you assert the contrary.

Try sticking to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You all should immediately understand as well that this article isn't Waterboarding in the United States, its Waterboarding, globally. This article should never, full stop, say waterboarding is or isn't torture, because there will never be such an answer. We can only report what reliable sources say. Our own views or perceptions aren't allowed here--that is NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I concur. The revert-warring wasn't an edit-war between "isn't" and "is". It was between "many say waterboarding is torture" and "waterboarding is torture". That the latter claim is the categorical one coming down - conclusively - on one side of the controversy, suggests that those making it are pushing POV. 220.255.36.206 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

Per request on WP:RPP, the article has been fully protected for a few days. From the contributions, it's not simple anon vandalism but a full-on content dispute. Folks - please try to resolve the matter here first before warring about the article - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I apparently triggered World War 3 by dropping that touch of NPOV in the lead... • Lawrence Cohen 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just utter mayhem and quite obviously a content dispute that's spiralled way out of control - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As nearly all the vandal type stuff was anonymous editors, would it help to semi protect for a while after full protection drops off? • Lawrence Cohen 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The prot is only for three days. If things go well, we can unprot in a while. I just want the pandemonium to stop - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Could these be TOR/open proxies? • Lawrence Cohen 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I just checked a few here - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is/Is not torture

As we obviously are not allowed to decide this per NPOV and OR, this is the current version Alison locked the article on. I found this today, and saw the state of things, and offered up this as lead sentences to try to compromise:

Waterboarding is a form of forced information gathering. It has been called torture by numerous experts. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Now, the seven (!) sources listed are all people that could be safely and extremely uncontroversially called "experts" on the matter, ranging from legal experts, lawyers, Central Intellegience Agency staff, and ex-United States Presidents. I think it's pretty unequivocal and NPOV that waterboarding has "been called torture by numerous experts." Does anyone disagree? Why, based on Wikipedia polices. Please explain. Might as well start at the top of the article to fix this insanely useless edit war. • Lawrence Cohen 05:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't disagree at all. I've been reverting to your NPOV version. Other editors prefer to push POV by insisting on the view that waterboarding "is" torture - a view not shared by the DOJ OLC, the administration, or even Judge Mukasey - the current nominee for Attorney General. 220.255.36.206 05:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My version neither endorses nor condemns anything. Keep in mind that the current US Justice Department and Bush Administration are anything but neutral sources on this, given that they are at criminal risk if its decided in the US that it is torture. Their views can be noted but are not definitive for Wikipedia of anything. • Lawrence Cohen 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the resolution of the "is torture" conflict, I do have a dispute with your current wording, which I hope you will understand. The first sentence is "Waterboarding is a form of forced information gathering." But that is not really a definition of waterboarding; it is a classification of it, and not one that everyone would agree with, since waterboarding can be used for many purposes. Waterboarding is a specific physical procedure -- the actual definition is from the third sentence onwards ("Waterboarding consists of immobilizing..."). I suggest that the opening sentence should contain or directly lead into the definition of the act itself. Does this make sense? Ka-Ping Yee 12:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point on the semantics of the wording and style. We can ask for that to be changed, I can't imagine it being contentious at all. It's on the level of fixing grammatical errors. • Lawrence Cohen 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about

• Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning used to extract information. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Just a suggestion. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Let me ask for this edit to be installed, it meets NPOV perfectly that I can see, and is completely verifiable, so no valid objections under policy can exist. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can the opening line in this article to be changed to Nescio's suggestion?

Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning used to extract information. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Thanks. 1-7 sources are the existing ones already in place. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also support the above wording, specifically "controlled drowning" and "experts have described...as torture", and am satisfied to see it left this way. (My preference would be to leave out "used to extract information" because it is not, I believe, completely verifiable that this has always been its primary or only purpose, and it is less controversial to say what the practice is than what it is for.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for is/is not

I'm looking for help from anyone in answering these two questions:

(Q1) If there are numerous sources that say "X is true" but no one can find sources that say "X is false", is it fair for a Wikipedia article to simply state "X is true"?

(Q2) Has anyone found any sources that say "waterboarding is not torture"?

Ka-Ping Yee 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and don't really feel qualified to answer (Q1). However, I will try to answer (Q2), to the best of my ability.

The sources that I have been able to find for explicit claims that waterboarding is not torture have been thin on the ground. So far I have found three. One, John Yoo's memo argued that certain enhanced interrogation practices do not constitute torture. We know from press coverage that waterboarding was one of these techniques. The memo was later retracted, but represents apparently a plausible legal opinion. Two, the British foreign office said through a spokesperson that "Whether the conduct described [waterboarding] constitutes torture ... would depend on all the circumstances of the case," [3]. Three, Andrew McCarthy argues in the National Review Online that it is not torture [4].

I think the question of whether it is appropriate from an NPOV standpoint to call it torture or not, basically hinges on the question of whose opinion counts as notable in this case. The word "torture" is not a completely subjective one, and there are several international standards on the matter of what is and what is not torture. It seems to me that if the Burmese authorities stated that waterboarding is not torture, people probably wouldn't want to edit the article; but when US authorities state that it is not torture, there is a sense that their opinion is germane to the issue.

My own preferred solution would be to make a new section, or perhaps expand on the legal section, in order to lay out the viewpoints for and against classification of waterboarding as torture. This would mean that we could actually explain those seven footnotes, as well as possibly adding other viewpoints on the issue. And it would give us a place for the minority opinion that it is not torture, and to explain the reasoning behind that. Worldworld 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am doubtful that the first two examples you mention can be considered reliable sources for this point of view, though the third is more plausible. A memo that has been repudiated and retracted doesn't stand as a reliable source; and the British foreign office has only said it "would depend on all the circumstances," not that it was not torture (the headline is an exaggeration). Only McCarthy's column explicitly states "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

Do you think it would be correct to say the following?

The overwhelming majority of expert opinions hold that waterboarding is torture [multiple references]. However, prominent figures in the United States government, including George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, have specifically refused to give an opinion on whether waterboarding is torture in response to direct questioning, and the British Foreign Office has stated that it "would depend on all the circumstances" [5]. Andrew McCarthy wrote "I don't believe it qualifies [as torture]" though it does qualify as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment "in almost all instances" [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.36.206 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ka-Ping Yee 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The relevant conclusions of the memo have not been repudiated. See, e.g., fn. 8 in this follow-up OLC memo:

"While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum."

The memos' conclusion addressing the treatment of detainees stands. 220.255.36.206 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A description of this follow-up would be a fine addition to such a paragraph. The whole paragraph would go in the "Legality" section. (That section probably also needs some mention of the McCain act.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness

The effectiveness "discussion" isn't neutral. It only gives the point of view that waterboarding is not effective, although some experts will say that it is. I realize such claims were included earlier in the article, but so were the doubts of its effectiveness. I propose that the "effectiveness" section either be removed for redundancy's sake, or be expanded to include viewpoints that differ from "it doesn't work." Otherwise, this page leaves the impression that "waterboarding isn't effective" is pretty much universally agreed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoints can only be included if they come from notable expert sources, and are in a reliable source. Do you have some? • Lawrence Cohen 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable sources within the main page itself (such as the officer present at the interrogation of KSM), as I had pointed out above. I'll look around and see if I can find some more. But my redundancy point remains...the claims doubting its effectiveness are mostly repeats of statements earlier in the article (Bob Baer, Human Rights Watch quotes).

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html , http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/ (the video, not the content of the page). -- Pellucid (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the last paragraph of the "Technique" section belongs in the "Effectiveness" section. It appears to be the other side of the effectiveness discussion that you were looking for. Ka-Ping Yee 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are poorly sourced news stories valid citations?

In the <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2368990.ece">Independent news article</a>, the brief story makes claims and cites unnamed legal experts and an unnamed CIA officer (who is contradicted by CIA officers who are named elsewhere in the wiki article). If "legal experts" aren't named nor their qualifications given, can we really rely on their assumed "expertise", even if the unknown experts were cited in an otherwise reliable newspaper? I mean, if a DUI lawyer says, "I think waterboarding is very effective," does this mean he can be cited as a "legal expert"? If I sound like I'm nit-picking, I'm not trying to. But verifiability is key, and Independent reporter Andrew Gumbel is normally tasked to covering Hollywood stories, not political / military / legal issues. I would like to see a better source for this story's claims, is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

wikify "torture"

{{editprotected}}

I suggest wikifying the word "torture" in the first section so that readers can easily compare the description of waterboarding with the actual definition in the torture article. --Risacher 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - pretty uncontroversial - Alison ^❤ 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged war criminals

{{Editprotected}} Any endorsements for changing this passage:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are war criminals under the Geneva Convention, and whom are often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[10]

To:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are allgeded war criminals under the Geneva Convention, and whom are often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[10]

Change is in bold, addition of "alleged". These men have not been convicted in any internationally recognized court of law that is authorized to name them as war criminals. This is per WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed but I don't agree with your solution because it doesn't differentiate between those who were waterboarded, and those who were simply "extrajudicial" prisoners. It makes it seem as though they waterboarded every jihadi.

I don't think the difference had anything to do with whether or not they were alleged to have committed war crimes. It would be good if we could find the exact number who were waterboarded.

You're wrong to use scare quotes on "detainees." Even if the GCs were applicable to Afghanistan, the 4thGC refers to this as detainment.

-- Randy2063 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only claim supported by the cited article is that waterboarding was among the techniques used on detainees. I think we should remove the "war criminals" bit entirely, unless someone can come up with a source. Per Randy2063's point above, I think we should say that it was authorized to be used on some detainees - it does seem to have been applied selectively. Worldworld 16:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse change. The addition is "alleged" is clearly an improvement. ➪HiDrNick! 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the dispute over "detainees" vs. "some detainees" vs. (in quotes) "'detainees'" can be avoided, since the sentence already describes them (accurately enough, I believe) as "extrajudicial prisoners." Hence I propose:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are alleged to be terrorists.[10]

The change is to remove the "detainees... war on terror" bit and replace "war criminals" with "alleged to be terrorists." Ka-Ping Yee 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still not accurate. There are many people who still like to call the GTMO detainees "extra-judicial prisoners." That's a much bigger set than just the CIA detainees, and there are probably a lot of naive readers who assume they were waterboarding detainees at GTMO.

How about "CIA detainees"? It's a more limited number, and closer to the truth.

-- Randy2063 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The CIA detainees phrase is probably most accurate overall. • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are held by the CIA on suspicion of terrorism. Good? Ka-Ping Yee 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm declining the above edit request as you guys are obviously not at consensus at this time. Good progress is being made below, though - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

United States-centric

The overall tone and writing on this article is very specific to the United States. While we're a big nation, we're only one, and waterboarding is hardly unique to us. A pretty compelling section on the US and waterboarding can certainly be built, but we need to generalize and internationalize the article heavily. The lead is basically, "Waterboarding is this. The United States... The United States... The United States... The United States... something else, The United States... something else." That is a bit of undue weight. Just a thought. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the big controversy at the moment is in the U.S. If you know of sourced info on current use in other countries, by all means let us know.--agr 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article isn't US-centric because of the authors, but because of the information that is available. If anybody can add something from another nation, please do, but this article may have to stay US-centric with the current political situation. Randvek 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe tone it down on the lead, and built it out below in the US section, a bit? • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed lede

I would like to propose a new intro paragraph for this article that avoids the "waterboarding is X" construction and I think covers the various views in an NPOV way, without giving undue weight to the self-serving Bush position. I have not added refs to the last two sentences, pending some consensus on language. (refs make things hard to edit. There are plenty, including the last few days coverage by the NY Times).

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. However there have been persistent reports in the media that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding on detainees (the New York Times reports at least three instances around 2003) and that the George W. Bush administration has attempted to justify its continued use in classified legal opinions written by the Department of Justice that allegedly claim waterboarding isn't torture. The administration has refused on numerous occasions to say whether it uses waterboarding or whether it considers waterboarding to be torture.

--agr 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's POV to say its opponents "described" it as torture, while its advocates "allegedly claim" it isn't.

Why not swap them? The opponents "allegedly claim" it's torture, and the supporters "describe" it as not torture.

-- Randy2063 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "allegedly claim" is technically correct, since the memos are classified, and our only knowledge of their contents is from news reports. Worldworld 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but the sentence talks about "persistent reports," so I'm comfortable with just striking "allegedly" out.--agr 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a very good job summarizing the main points consistently with NPOV. Worldworld 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the part starting with "However" belongs in the section about contemporary use by the United States. It's not part of the definition of waterboarding, so I don't see why it should go in the lede. It seems to me that statements about use should go in "Contemporary use" and statements about legality (see my proposed paragraph above under "Sources for is/is not") should go in "Legality". Ka-Ping Yee 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're adding a section about contemporary use, you might want to include the use of waterboarding in military training - such as POW resistance training or Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training in the US military. This might go some way towards explaining why there is a controversy and why some people view waterboarding as a borderline case, given its apparently routine use in military training. 220.255.36.206 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the sections I mentioned already exist in the article. Ka-Ping Yee 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If you're adding to the section, rather. 220.255.36.206 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Lead section "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Of course, each item mentioned shoud be expanded upon elsewhere, but the basics should all be in the lead.--agr 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I'll soften my position a little about what should go in the lead. I'm still afraid that jumping directly into U.S.-specific opinions in the first paragraph may be too controversial, though. Half of the first paragraph seems like too much to spend on it. But perhaps we can find a good compromise? What do you think of (a) inserting a paragraph break after "Numerous experts" sentence and/or (b) reducing the detail to something like There is ongoing controversy about the George W. Bush administration's refusal to declare that waterboarding is torture. with more detail later? Ka-Ping Yee 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To narrow the debate a little, Can we all agree that the beginning of the article should read as follows below (and then it can get into the torture categorization question). I, myself think this is the most NPOV way to introduce the subject (nice job agr!). Remember 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage.

If you have a problem with the first two sentences of the article starting as stated directly above state so below and your reason for objection.

I prefer Nescio's wording: Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning consisting of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water. This is mainly for the reason that (a) real water actually floods the subject's breathing passages; and (b) the procedure actually can drown the subject. I believe it would be more accurate to avoid the suggestion that the subject merely experiences a "sensation" rather than an actual physical event. Ka-Ping Yee 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify the above, I only mean to suggest a change to the first sentence. The rest is fine.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have whttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding&action=edit&section=41

Editing Talk:Waterboarding (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaith Ka-Ping's suggested Nescio intro is that "controlled drowning" is a term that I could not find defined anywhere authoritative so to say that "Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning" becomes problematic. This is not to say controlled drowning is or isn't a widely accepted term, I just can find anything authoritative that defines this term. Remember 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controlled drowning" is a term used by an expert in this technique, in this article. It is a superior term to "simulated drowning" in that the prisoner's lungs do in fact fill with water. Badagnani 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see his use of the term in the article you cited. Could you please point it out to me. I actually think the term "controlled drowning" is probably the most descriptive term, but I want to make sure we are not making up this term.Remember 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, he says "controlled death" in the source. Badagnani 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually he does say "controlled drowning" in the original source, here. Badagnani 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that "Controlled drowning" is the way to go, seeing as how the lungs have water in them, and it's a term used by experts. User:Zach 2, November 2007 4:58 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.81.163 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The above lead doesn't provide the context under which waterboarding might occur, and as others have somewhat stated "a form of controlled drowning"? Are there other forms of controlled drowning? Drowning is defined as DEATH by suffocation/asphyxiation....Since waterboarding doesn't induce death, I would suggest that it is not a form of drowning. Why doesn't the article open with "Waterboarding is a technique applied to prisoners to make them believe they are drowning. The fear of drowning is exploited by the prisoners' captors in order to extract information from, punish, weaken/break the spirit of, or reeducate the prisoner. The effectiveness and legality of Waterboarding are subject to debate." Jotorious 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, they really are drowning. If the head is placed under a faucet or hose, as is sometimes done, and the person does not talk. The person may actually die. Badagnani 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you live, were you drowned or weren't you? Do you say they tried to drowned you? or do you say they drowned you but you lived? I'm not sure. The wikipedia article drowning defines drowning as death. Is getting water in your lungs and not being able to breath technically drowning ? I think that when people say they are drowning it is equivalent to saying they are dying, but I'm not sure it's consistent to describe waterboarding as controlled drowning, because in my interpretation, that is like saying it is controlled dying, which I think it clearly is not. How about Waterboarding is the controlled introduction of water into the lungs to cause inability to breath and the fear of drowning. .Jotorious 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem here -- English does not have a separate word for the process of drowning, as opposed to drowning (with death implied). Yet "drowning" is the best word I can think of to concisely describe the concept. Would the wording "controlled partial drowning" or "controlled near-drowning" be an acceptable compromise? Ka-Ping Yee 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The process is "drowning" but "near-drowning" seems accurate. Nonetheless, I would be very surprised if no prisoner ever died from undergoing this procedure, either in the past or present. Badagnani 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I share your sense that people are likely to have died from this procedure. I would be satisfied with "controlled drowning" or "controlled near-drowning" or a construction around the phrase "process of drowning". Another possibility is "controlled suffocation", since the dictionary definition of suffocation includes both "killing" and "impeding respiration" among other meanings. Ka-Ping Yee 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

May I again offer a suggestion

• People have been saved from death by drowning. Most notorious was the Titanic
• Drowning itself does not mean being dead, it refers to an experience that if not terminated will result in death.
• The nuance needed is of course the notion that one may be drowning but can be saved from dying, hence the controlled drowning

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is well reasoned and I support this wording. Badagnani 18:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What other sections do people have an issue with?

As much of the conflict swirled around the lead section, what other issues do people have? Maybe each person post a concise summary, and we can then pick apart problems. • Lawrence Cohen 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of waterboarding all together, I'm concerned with the second paragraph of the section "Contemporary use" subsection "United States - War on Terror" which says

...the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, however this applies solely to United States citizens, as the U.S. Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens.

My lay understanding is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment is currently interpreted quite literally, and that constitutional protections are apply to all persons within the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, though I can't right now find a specific case citation regarding equal protection application to legal non-citizen aliens with respect to criminal proceedings.

However, consider the findings of Rasul v. Bush, in which the courts found "that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status" (and further ruled that the detention center at the Guantanamo Bay naval base is to be considered within the courts jurisdiction). I would think that, without compelling evidence (i.e., citations otherwise) otherwise, if habeas rights are an entitlement to non-citizens within the jurisdiction (even at Guantanamo, as the court ruled) that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment is also applicable within that jurisdiction.

I think that sentence needs to go. It seems incorrect and the citizenship issue seems irrelevant to that part of the discussion.

-- Robbins 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor who wrote that must have meant it doesn't apply outside U.S. jurisdiction. (It might be Johnson v. Eisentrager they're thinking of.)

As you said about GTMO, the court ruled it does apply there -- although that's irrelevant since they didn't waterboard anyone at GTMO.

-- Randy2063 01:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concede your assertion that waterboarding didn't occur at GTMO (I'm not convinced it's true, I only mean not to debate that). I only mention GTMO by way of the court ruling that habeas applies within all jurisdictions regardless of citizenship, and if habeas applies then so to it would logically follow that the cruel and unusual prohibition would also apply to all jurisdictions (based on equal protection). The sentence either needs clarification that it "...may not apply to non-citizens held extra-jurisdictionally" - which only opens more legal problems as Johnson v. Eisentrager was based partly on the Army's concession that the German prisoners had protections under the Geneva Conventions (which also bars Torture) - or, to remove the last part regarding citizenship all together. I suggest the latter options is most appropriate as the citizenship element is not relevant to that paragraph (I concede it may be relevant elsewhere, but just not in that specific paragraph).

-- Robbins 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the link referenced by that article, and I think the jurisdiction doesn't matter. The executive order was not talking about the fact that the Constitution doesn't apply outside the U.S. It was only using it as a guide to define the limits to what "cruel and unusual" means.

I'd delete the text "however this applies solely to United States citizens, as the U.S. Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens."

-- Randy2063 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree. I had just signed in to delete it but noticed that the page is protected. It's OR analysis on the bounds of the EO anyway even if it's correct (dubious). Ripe 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As per the consensus of those who've weighed in on this one narrow item, I'm requesting that an editor correct the second paragraph of the section "Contemporary use" subsection "United States - War on Terror" as per the above discussion. I think the best action is to simply delete the part of the sentence that reads

...however this applies solely to United States citizens, as the U.S. Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens <\blockquote>.

-- Robbins (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. • Lawrence Cohen 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another major problem with this article is that it leaves to the reader's imagination the number of fascists who've been waterboarded by the CIA.

I thought it was just two dozen. Apparently, the answer is three.

-- Randy2063 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Three" is the number that has been admitted to. Evidence shows that intelligence organizations often (usually?) do not disclose the totality of their activities. It's a very endearing quality that you are so trusting, though. Badagnani 18:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire controversy is based upon leaks exactly like the one acknowledging only three (in the Bush admin, anyway).

Yes, we could imagine that there are many more. But by that same type of interesting sensibility, we must then assume that virtually every intelligence agency in the world uses waterboarding.

-- Randy2063 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive article

This recent article about waterboarding, which outlines its teaching in the U.S. and its practice and effects in some detail, would add greatly to this article. It also describes the experience of Henri Alleg, one of the most prominent examples of someone to have been subjected to this technique, speaking about his experience. I don't believe Alleg is mentioned at all in the article, but he should be. Badagnani 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to have input about this point. Badagnani 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a quotation from Alleg would be a fine addition to this article. Ka-Ping Yee 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. If the quote is too long perhaps it could go in a section listing personal accounts of being waterboarded. There seem to be few who have written about this in detail other than Alleg and Nance. Badagnani 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" section

The section on effectiveness is US-centric, modern-centric, and generic to torture in the large, not just waterboarding; as such, I'd recommend it be deleted and replaced by a single link earlier in the discussion. I'm not seeing a good link on torture or its sub-articles, but I highly doubt that the waterboarding article is the place to talk about the effectiveness of torture in interrogations. Bhudson 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Degrees of torture

The question is whether torture is "binary", i.e. whether a given action IS or IS NOT torture. This makes it simple, both ethically and politically. The people of the world can brand an action as "torture" or declare that it is "not torture". These will be our only two choices.

A simple choice gives us simple options. A given country either calls the action torture and bans it, or denies that it is torture and permits it. A murky middle ground can also emerge in which the country refuses to say whether an action (like waterboarding) is "torture" or not. This would let them continue to uphold the prohibition against "torture" while not making any definitive statement one way or the other on certain specific actions.

A more complex analysis is also possible. The people of the world can assign "levels of severity" to various uncomfortable, distressing, painful or mutilating actions. Each country might even have its own definition of what is permitted. In several African countries, the private parts of young girls are routinely mutilated but there is hardly any worldwide condemnation of this action as "torture". (Oddly enough, male circumcision has attracted much criticism.) In pre-war Iraq, the government removing the earlobes of prisoners (as a coercive measure); the U.S. considers this "torture" and has never condoned it.

The question of waterboarding then becomes - rather then whether it is simply torture or not - a question of whether it is too severe a practice.

The United States frequently presents itself as a model of civilized democracy and is often considered a leader in the field of human rights. Thus many people look to the U.S. as an arbiter and pacesetter for the ethical question of prisoner abuse. Perhaps that is why world attention has been focused on the issue of post-war Iraq and the U.S. treatment of prisoners.

What makes this article so difficult to write is that there is no universal standard of human rights which all countries (and all advocates and partisan groups) can agree on. We could make our writing task easier if we as writers would each give up any idea of making the article reflect our own views. Instead, we might agree to have the article describe all the major views which are "out there".

Here is a possible outline on the "torture" question regarding waterboarding:

1. That it is torture, and that no country should ever do it
2. That it is not torture, and that any country may do it
3. That it doesn't matter whether it is torture or not, but that it is a severely scary and "life-changing" action which each country must decide on a case-by-case basis choose whether it is justified
4. Other prominent views

Which other Wikipedia writers feel that this would be a good outline, and that we could remove the "protection" from the article? --Uncle Ed 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately disagree on this being a binary choice in any level if you use the United States as a barometer, specifically because the United States is not a good arbiter of anything on this matter. Our presentation is required to be somewhat as ambiguous as the question really is, unless a truly global body like the United Nations comes down definitively on the matter. Specific to the United States, we're making a mess of this question of is/isn't torture. We prosecuted war criminals after World War II for waterboarding as a method of torture. We state repeatedly that we do not torture people. Hundreds of experts have stated that waterboarding is torture (this, we will state as fact because we are required to--NPOV and verfiability are non-negotiable, so that passage with seven current sources, with that wording, isn't leaving). However, we also have confirmed and verified government reports that Americans have used waterboarding against alleged criminals in the Bush administrations war on terror. Therefore, we have a verified standard that (specific to the United States):

1. Waterboarding was perceived as torture, going back to pre-20th century times (sourced fact).
2. Waterboarding is definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts (sourced fact).
3. Waterboarding is historically prosecuted by the United States as a crime and some other countries, and as torture (sourced fact).
4. Someone in the current United States government authorized the use of waterboarding, definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts, on alleged criminals held in the war on terror (sourced fact).
5. The current (and potential, Mukassey) principals of the United States government state repeatedly that waterboarding is not torture (sourced fact).
6. Numerous experts have stated that if the US Government considered waterboarding torture, criminal prosecutions could theoretically go all the way to the White House for its use (sourced fact).

This is a complete and utter mess from the U.S. perspective and therefore makes the U.S. a horrid barometer for this. Also, we won't use the United States' take as a barometer for this or guide to the article, as waterboarding is an ancient practice used globally. Our country (assuming you're American) will just have the biggest sub-section I'm sure. The only things I can see us definitely being allowed per NPOV to say in this article as so called "TRUE FACTS" over the "is/isn't" torture aspect:

1. Waterboarding was perceived as torture, going back to pre-20th century times (sourced fact).
2. Waterboarding is definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts (sourced fact).
3. Waterboarding is historically prosecuted by the United States as a crime and some other countries, and as torture (sourced fact).
4. Some modern countries (list, facts, sources, etc.) currently contest whether waterboarding is torture, or a crime.

We can't paint this is any other way that I can perceive. Unfortunately, a lot of your other suggestions sound like we would imply or generate orginal research, unless I'm misreading this. We won't have any of that unfortunately. • Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think waterboarding three jihadis after 9/11 makes the U.S. into some monster.

I recognize the difficulties in using the U.S. as a barometer, but it's far better than the UN which is not capable of using the word "genocide" until it no longer matters. The hollowness of the UN's talk on human rights is legendary, and they shouldn't be the arbiter here.

The waterboarder war criminals of WWII were not convicted solely on the basis of waterboarding. And there's a difference in that uniformed soldiers are protected by the 3rdGC. Besides that, as it's been said that the procedure makes the difference in danger and pain, those who'd say it's not torture if done properly will still agree that it is torture when it's done wrong.

Mukassey didn't say it's not torture. He only said he wasn't privy to the details, and so he couldn't provide a legal opinion.

The reason the U.S. will have the biggest subsection here is only because we're the only ones whose commitment to this fight really matters. Other countries can quietly send the worst of their fascists to us while pretending to suffer the vapors when the word "rendition" is spoken aloud. And if you doubt that, please note that your comment included the phrase, "Bush administrations war on terror." Many in the rest of the world think they're merely spectators in the cheap seats with whistles and placards.

The rest are terrorists whose use of torture goes far beyond the scale of waterboarding. If you've looked all 12 pages of torture techniques, you might have noticed that waterboarding wasn't among them.

All we can do here is put out the facts as we know them. The CIA's lawyers think they found a loophole in the precise definition of pain. The critics think pain is more than just the clinical definition. If you think the CIA's lawyers are some nefarous lot, keep in mind that they've cancelled other projects that could have yielded important results in the war.

-- Randy2063 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust me when I say 100% that the CIA, or our government does what it needs to. I personally don't always like it, but war is war. I broke my rose-colored glasses decades ago. I'm simply saying that we can't take a stand either way, as much as we, and myself want to. I almost think that the US section, when properly built up (without hundreds of edit war edits in day...!) could probably have material for a Featured Section, if we had such a thing. Realistically, the only answer we're allowed to offer is boiled down to "Lots of experts say that waterboarding is torture, and has been considered torture for a very, very long time, but people in various governments today contest this belief to some degree," on that note. • Lawrence Cohen 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 6. "Numerous experts have stated that if the US Government considered waterboarding torture, criminal prosecutions could theoretically go all the way to the White House for its use (sourced fact)."

Is this actually true? As I understand it, the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) as amended by the Military Commissions Act (2006) provides immunity for "United States Government personnel engaged in authorized interrogations" and further provides that immunity "shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in [the DTA]" - meaning that DOJ/OLC counsel who worked on legal advice pertaining to detainee treatment - or any administration official for that matter - are covered from criminal liability by statute.

Of course, US personnel may be prosecuted by other states. But it wouldn't hinge on the United States' retroactive "admission" one way or another. 220.255.36.206 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the classification of waterboarding as "torture" has legal implications similar to those of classifying forced migration or mass murder as "genocide". Treaties as well as national law come into play.

For example:

1. US Army Sergeant Stone waterboarded Prisoner X
2. Waterboarding is torture
3. Torture is illegal
4. Therefore, Sergeant Stone broke the law (1, 2, 3)
5. American soldiers who break the law must be courtmartialed and punished.
6. Therefore, Sergeant Stoe must be courtmartialed and punished. (4, 5)

We can draw up similar proofs for civilian officials who order waterboarding. And there are parallels for countries and genocide.

The key point here is that the main conclusion is that someone (or some country) should be condemned and punished.

Governments which want to coerce prisoners, or which want to displace or kill unwanted populations, generally do NOT want to concede that these actions should be condemned. So they resist classification of these actions in any ethical or legal category which merits condemnation.

Perhaps then our strategy as Wikipedia article co-authors is to describe the views of various parties (A) who classify waterboarding etc. as "bad" and "worthy of punishment", as well as (B) who fail to agree with this classification or even dispute it actively. --Uncle Ed 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Equivocation on something that has been used and described as torture for hundreds of years does not make any sense. There is nothing wrong, however, with stating that some current politicians, from a single party in a single country want to mince words and make an "end run" around international law, but using their fringe redefinition as "one of many views" on the subject is like presenting the "young earth" theory (that the Earth is just about 6K years old) as just "one of many competing theories." We don't do that. Badagnani 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with any suggestion that Wikipedia play any sort of advocacy role here. It (and the idea, to be honest) is unacceptable. The article can't come down as pro/con waterboarding, or pro/con the people who did or didn't do it. Any attempts to make the article otherwise would be on the level of vandalism. • Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no "advocacy role" proposed. What is objected to is the adoption of highly unusual, euphemistic terminology employed by a single administration, of a single political party, of a single nation, against the consensus that this hundreds-of-years-old technique is a form of torture. As stated earlier, there is no problem with mentioning this anomalous argument in context of the section about the technique's current use by U.S. personnel or foreign personnel doing so as U.S. proxies. Badagnani 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Nance article

Malcolm Nance, the U.S.'s chief officer in charge of teaching waterboarding, has just stated that waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture. Please read this article, in which his tesimony is summarized, before commenting further about your opinions on the matter, thanks. Badagnani 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article is here. Badagnani 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Nance has supervised waterboarding exercises on US personnel while training them to resist interrogation.

2. Does this mean that the US military tortures its own soldiers?

3. Does this mean that Nance is complicit in torturing his trainees?

4. That is a rather strange admission to make. 220.255.36.206 18:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article straight through? He states that he himself has been waterboarded and that it is bad enough even though he (and his trainees) know what is coming. For a prisoner who may never have undergone this procedure, it causes extremely severe physical and mental stress, and is torture.

This is the passage in question:

“ The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American. ”

Source: [7]

Subjecting U.S. personnel to tear gas, pepper spray, Tasers, or waterboarding is a form of training and, if I read your comment correctly, it was meant to be sarcastic, minimizing the physical and mental injury caused by this technique by pointing out that some U.S. counterterrorism personnel undergo it for short periods as part of their training. Correct me if your intent differed from my interpretation. Badagnani 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. According to the article, Nance is now an advisor ("consultant", in his own words) to the US government and a former Chief Instructor at SERE school. You might want to correct that.

2. I read both articles.

3. I wasn't being sarcastic. If waterboarding is classified as torture, it would presumably open up US personnel who engaged in it (such as Nance and SERE staff) to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. 2340.

4. Whether it is "severe" or not has not been judicially determined, and "stress" is not part of the statutory definition of torture (whether in the United States or according to the Convention Against Torture).

5. Hence the controversy over whether it goes over the line or not. 220.255.36.206 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. You're turning the tables to imply that war crimes charges could be brought against Nance for subjecting U.S. counterterrorism staff to waterboarding as part of their training? This doesn't seem particularly relevant in light of the fact that this technique is being used in the "real world." For some reason you prefer to "turn the tables" against Nance, a la the Swift Boats, rather than actually address his commentary about this technique's adoption by U.S. personnel and the possible repercussions this may have on the U.S. (as well as on the individuals against whom the technique is used). Very strange. Regarding my use of the word "stress," thanks for pointing out that this term is not used in the actual conventions against torture. However, I believe mental torture (i.e. torture that inflicts lasting psychological harm) is certainly a form of torture, and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. I don't have those Conventions in front of me but you seem to project the sense that you are very familiar with them. Badagnani 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

TGFW (Thank God for Wikipedia). Here is the quote from the Third Geneva Convention. You are correct that the term "stress" is not used.

“ No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. ”

Badagnani 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not turning any tables. If he applies waterboarding to his trainees, then criminal liability arises under 18 U.S.C. 2340 if it is classified as a form of torture.

2. Add Nance to the list of experts (already considerable) who view waterboarding as torture.

3. I don't know what Swift Boats are (?).

4. His commentary is just one of many taking the view that waterboarding is torture (see 2).

5. As such, it isn't dispositive on the question (just as the others weren't dispositive).

6. Torture as defined by CAT and 18 U.S.C 2340 may also involve severe mental pain or suffering. Whether waterboarding meets that definition of "severe" has not been judicially determined. The US Justice Department seems to think that the answer is "no" (and thus not torture). Hence the controversy. The Convention doesn't help you there. 220.255.36.206 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nance can't be prosecuted for waterboarding students. Everyone who goes through SERE has to sign a waiver.

As for Badagnani's comment, with the exception of common article 3, the 3rdGC doesn't apply to these detainees.

-- Randy2063 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I was just going to mention the inapplicability of 3rdGC (except for comon article 3). It's irrelevant in its entirety anyway - it doesn't go into anymore detail than CAT, so does not help in the determination of whether X practice qualifies as torture.

As for waiver, I don't know enough about that to comment on whether it trumps the statute or not. 220.255.36.206 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is/Is not redux

It seems that the consensus of Wikipedia writers here is that waterboarding is torture. But the question is how to characterize the US view. Is there any American official on record as expressing an opinion on the ethics or legality of waterboarding? I'm looking for something like the following:

• Major F. Lahem, director of SERE, said in February 2006, "Waterboarding is torture, and we teach our soldiers how to resist it." [real citation needed] - or
• General Dizz Aster, then in charge of all allied prisons in Iraq, said in May 2005, "We use tortures such as waterboarding whenever we think there's a significant chance of getting useful information from terrorism suspects. They're not prisoners of war, you know, since they weren't captured in uniform and there's no country willing to take responsibility for their actions. We can do whatever we want to the poor slobs." [real citation needed]

Without a defininitive official statement, we will be reduced to saying something like:

• Senator Guy Smiley (Dem., AZ) said that waterboarding is torture and the US should stop doing it. Smiley is leader of a group of congressmen seeking conviction or impeachment of President Bush or any other official ordering or condoning prisoner abuse. [real citation needed]

Sorry, no more time for this issue today; this is my best advice. Go to it, fellas. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That is NOT the consensus. As Larry Cohen has put it, wikipedia is not the place for advocacy and the lede is not the place to be categorically stating that waterboarding "is" torture no matter how strongly we think it is. We can only describe the facts as they are: that numerous experts view waterboarding as torture, but may not come conclusively on one side of the controversy given that a significant legal opinion (the US Justice Department) comes down on the other side of the issue. 220.255.36.206 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. No one, from an IP editor to the most senior fellow, or in-between, can say that is/isn't is fact in regards to the torture question, which is the big bone of contention. The waters are so muddied from so many reliable sources and notable opinions on both sides that unless the sitting U.S. president or DOJ (US-specific), and something major like the UN security council, or the World Court (world-wide, trumps local US government opinion), says, "It's torture!" then we don't say it is or isn't either. I can't see whats hard to sort or figure on that, or why we'd even consider otherwise (no offense to anyone intended). I thought NPOV was non-negotiable at all times? • Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may analogize - it's a little bit like the abortion debate as far as borderline cases are concerned. "Murder" is defined in statute. Whether or not a fetus qualifies as a person isn't defined. Prior to Roe v. Wade, many would have asserted that abortion "is" murder because they regarded a fetus as a person. But it would not have been the place of Wikipedia (had it existed then) to claim that abortion "is" murder given the unclear status of the law at that time - no matter how many anti-abortionist doctors thought it was.

In the same way, people now disagree about whether waterboarding "is" torture. Torture is defined in statute - but waterboarding isn't. Absent a clear judicial or Congressional determination resolving the controversy (at least as regards the U.S.), my view is that wikipedia too ought not to come down categorically on one side or the other of the dispute. 220.255.36.206 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding (forcing water into a restrained prisoner's lungs, as it is described by the U.S. official charged with training SERE personnel in this technique) is torture, by definition. Our own article on Torture quotes international law as saying that torture is:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

This does not prevent us from mentioning, in context, that some officials in the current U.S. administration claim otherwise. Badagnani 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying abortion "is" murder, by definition. That's an argument from assertion, and not good enough for NPOV. 220.255.36.206 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it really isn't like that. Badagnani 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"No, it really isn't like that" isn't an argument. You're just insisting. Insisting doesn't make it so. Larry Cohen has been the most lucid on the issue: stick to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Truly, the two issues are not analogous, as I think most other editors would acknowledge. Badagnani 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has previously extended these protections to irregular forces (as in Vietnam), presumably to protect the U.S.'s own military personnel from reciprocal torture.[8] Badagnani 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the previous posts addressing the GC - they are irrelevant. Why are you citing the GC as if it were relevant? They go into less detail than the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and 18 U.S.C. 2340, which are the pertinent legal instruments at issue. 220.255.36.206 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the current U.S. administration, the current situation is "a war." The U.S. has previously extended the Geneva Conventions protections to irregular forces (as in Vietnam), presumably to protect the U.S.'s own military personnel from reciprocal torture. Nance discusses this point in his article (which you again fail to address, preferring instead to dwell on the possible prosecution that could be leveled at Nance himself, for training his students in waterboarding). Badagnani 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, that a state of war exists doesn't mean that the Third GC applies to anyone and everyone. It applies only to the treatment of POWs. Except for common article 3, a detainee does not come under the Third GC if he's NOT a POW - if he's an unlawful combatant, for example. I believe Randy above has already explained this to you.

Whether or not the United States, as a matter of policy, extends the Third GC to everyone is irrelevant. The third GC does not legally compel the United States to extend its protections to unlawful combatants (even if the US may choose to do so as a matter of policy). This, the US does on its own discretion and is NOT legally compelled to do so by the Third GC. So what in the world you think your argument is trying to accomplish, besides exposing a poor understanding of the Conventions, is a mystery to me.

And finally, Nance's point is completely irrelevant to whether waterboarding "is" torture or not. None of your hand-waving is on point. 220.255.36.206 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to using insulting language like "hand-waving." I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time, however. Nance is one expert (likely one of the U.S.'s primary experts on the technique, having both experienced and taught it, unlike most of the politicians and attorneys debating the topic). However, regarding whether waterboarding is torture, don't take my word for it, take the definition of waterboarding (forcing water into the lungs of a restrained prisoner) and compare it to the definition of Torture in our own article, as defined by international law (I thought I already presented this above...):

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Badagnani 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "unlawful combatant" and its interpretation in the U.S.'s Military Commissions Act of 2006 are disputed. See Unlawful combatant#International criticism of unlawful combatant status. Badagnani 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is hand-waving, and a distraction, since you apparently think statements like "it is" and "it really isn't" constitute valid rejoinders.

Nance is one expert, among many. You can add Nance to the references appended to the opening lede which says "numerous experts have described this technique as torture" -- Nance is one of them.

As for whether waterboarding "is" torture or not - I'm not taking your word for it. Quoting the definition of torture from CAT or 18 U.S.C. 2340 doesn't resolve the question conclusively, since the US Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - which based its opinion on "international law" (CAT) and 18 U.S.C. 2340 - thinks otherwise based on the same international and domestic law that you cite.

Since a significant legal opinion put out by the DOJ disagrees with the opinion of other experts - we cannot come down conclusively on one side of the controversy without violating NPOV. We can only describe the facts as they are - that many experts describe waterboarding as torture (true), but Wikipedia itself can make no categorical claims in favour of either position (whether the Justice Department's or the other numerous experts). This is not difficult to understand. Why can't people just stick to NPOV? 220.255.36.206 22:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The view that waterboarding is not torture is an extreme, minority position that is at odds with the definition of waterboarding (forcing water into the lungs of a prisoner) and the definition of torture, as defined by international law in our own article on Torture:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Thus, the stated view (of a few officials of the current U.S. administration) that waterboarding is *not* torture can be mentioned in the article, in context, but privileging the fringe POV that it is not torture is really not an option. Badagnani 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You can characterise the Justice Department's view as "extreme", but it doesn't make it any less significant a legal opinion. Your personal views ("extreme") don't count on Wikipedia, unfortunately.

And can you please stop repeating pretty-quotes of statutes that you've just quoted a few lines further up? You're just messing up the formatting of this Talk section and making it very hard for other editors to follow. Spare a thought.

The stated view that waterboarding is "not" torture is not being "privileged". The article does not say that waterboarding is "not" torture. It says, quite clearly, that numerous experts describe it as torture. Nowhere does the article come down on one side to say that waterboarding is "not" torture. If anything, YOU are trying to privilege the view that waterboarding "is" torture by having wikipedia come down conclusively on one side of the controversy. NPOV means not privileging any viewpoint when there are significant opinions on both sides of the issue. Why are you insisting that Wikipedia come down on one-side of the issue then? For the last time: stick to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, because, by definition, as stated above, this technique constitutes torture. It is fine, however, to discuss, in proper context, the stated, fringe position, on the part of some officials of the current U.S. administration, that it does not constitute torture. Badagnani 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. I've already addressed that. To repeat: that's like saying abortion "is" murder by definition. That's an argument from assertion, and not good enough for NPOV.

And your response to that was to insist that . . . "it really isn't".

That's not much of a reply to say the least.

Someone who disagrees with you can just as well insist that waterboarding isn't torture by definition because the pain isn't "severe" enough. It doesn't make him right. Just as it doesn't make you right. NPOV is here precisely to counter specious arguments like yours. Stick to it. Stop pushing POV and coming down categorically on one side of the controversy. 220.255.36.206 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really not analogous because there is controversy over whether the subject of abortion is human/living/viable. I have no opinion on that particular controversy, which is not analogous to the waterboarding controversy, because there is no dispute that the subjects of waterboarding are human/living/viable.

Further, as stated earlier: by definition, waterboarding constitutes torture. Waterboarding consists of a prisoner being restrained and water being forced into his/her lungs. This does clearly fall under the definition of torture, as defined by international law:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

I don't object to the fringe position, on the part of some officials of the current U.S. administration, that waterboarding is not torture, if it is presented in the proper context.

Badagnani 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You write: "It's really not analogous because there is controversy over whether the subject of abortion is human/living/viable."

And there is a controversy over whether waterboarding "is" torture. It is quite analogous. Both terms depend on the "definition" - whether a fetus is a person, and whether waterboarding is torture. In both cases, there's controversy over the definition. Please don't claim that there is no controversy over waterboarding - there quite clearly is.

And why are you repeating the definition of torture everytime you reply? You just quoted it a few lines up. And you quoted it again a few lines above that. We all can see it. Why do you insist on past a definition over and over again? It makes the discussion difficult for other editors to follow. Stop clogging up the page.

Your insistence that it is torture "by definition" isn't a proper argument. The Justice Department can also claim that waterboarding isn't torture, "by definition". If you don't have a serious argument in reply, stop repeating yourself. 220.255.36.206 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

18 USC 2340 defines severe mental pain as including "threat of imminent death." The one thing everyone seems to agree on about waterboarding is that victims are made to believe death is imminent. As to other points, if there were a "significant legal opinion put out by the DOJ disagrees with the opinion of other experts" on waterboarding being torture, we would, of course have to consider its views. But no such legal opinion has been published. Instead we have media reports of the existence of secret opinions. The Bush administration refuses to say whether it considers waterboarding torture. As for waterboarding's use in SERE training being illegal if it is deemed torture, a major purpose of SERE training is to expose forces most likely to end up in enemy territory, such as aircrews, to the adverse conditions they might face if captured, including torture. Activities in military training, and SERE in particular, violate any number of criminal statutes: battery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, etc. I don't believe any of these statutes have specific exemptions for military training. Instead there are separate laws and regulations governing what can and cannot be done in military training.- -agr 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent. The perceived threat of death is not the same thing as actual threat of death (Russian Roulette, for example).

As for OLC opinions - one was published affirming the validity of earlier OLC opinions on the subject (see footnote 8).

On battery, assault, and kidnapping - I highly doubt that any statutes were violated since common law defences to all three include an element of consent. No such defence exists for 18 USC 2340.

Since waterboarding - and not electrocution, pliers to balls, amputation, fingernail pulling, being beaten to a pulp or other obvious forms of torture - is part of SERE training, some would argue that there is a qualitative difference between being waterboarded, and being tortured. 220.255.36.206 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that waterboarding (you make no distinction between waterboarding conducted for very brief periods of time or that conducted for extended periods) does not place the life of the subject in jeopardy is untenable and ludicrous, and shows that you have not carefully read the article by the U.S. expert in this technique, who has an outlook quite different from yours. Badagnani 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So according to you, there is a distinction between "brief" waterboarding and "extended" waterboarding? Are you saying that "brief" waterboarding isn't torture, hence the distinction? In other words, you are saying that some forms of waterboarding are not torture? If so, that's excellent. We've now come to a consensus that waterboarding isn't, categorically, torture. Thank you. 220.255.36.206 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I am not saying that. I'm not sure I can understand the fervency you seem to have to show (wish?) that this practice is not torture. It's certainly very strange, in light of the evidence presented here, again and again. According to our own definition of torture, as stated in the lead of the Torture article (should I present it again, as you seem not to have read it?), inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering for the purpose of eliciting information from a prisoner is "torture," whether it is brief or not. You had stated, emphatically (and quite wrongly) that this practice is not dangerous and cannot lead to the death of the subject, hence my introduction of the concept of waterboarding that is conducted for an extended period, which certainly carries the risk of death to the subject. It's interesting that you continue to questions of me, while you fail to address the ones I have raised. Badagnani 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You said to make a distinction. Perhaps you should explain what your point is instead of questioning my "wishes"? Since no one is arguing for the 'other' side of the debate, I figured I would take up the slack, seeing as POV is being pushed heavily by one side at the expense of NPOV. You don't seem to be able to explain the distinction now, so I'm puzzled as to why you would raise the point in the first place. 220.255.36.206 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that waterboarding victims (either in past eras or in recent years) have died from undergoing this procedure? Badagnani 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

waterboarding is torture "by definition"

Badagnani says that waterboarding is torture "by definition". The argument has been repeated ad nauseum, so I'd like some clarification. Can we have the definition that says waterboarding "is" torture? Thank you. 220.255.36.206 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall I give the definition again? I think I have given it about 4 or 5 times now, since you seem to have overlooked it each time you've made a new comment. The definition shows that this technique is unequivocally a form of torture, notwithstanding the recent fringe opinion by some members of the current U.S. administration. I believe you have not addressed the questions I have asked above, so in this context I'm not sure I want to spend the time addressing yours. Badagnani 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please do. Where does your definition say "waterboarding is torture"? Please quote the exact part that says "waterboarding is torture". If you can't, I understand. We'll just take it that you've failed to answer the question. 220.255.36.206 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture doesn't include the exact quote "cutting off portions of the body is torture" either. To argue that it is therefore not torture is to not understand core ideas about language like "definition" and "meaning." Obviously, cutting off someone's toes for the purpose of extracting information is torture: the necessary and sufficient conditions of "torture" have been met (severe physical or mental pain inflicted to coerce behavior). It doesn't matter if person X or anyone else claims that it isn't torture, if it can be demonstrated that the conditions for definition are met. If Richard Simmons argued tomorrow that ice cream is made out of circuit boards, that doesn't mean the page for "ice cream" should start off with "Ice cream is an edible substance. Most experts agree it is a milk based product." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensional_definition Ofus 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no, but it's pretty obvious that cutting off body parts will result in "severe physical pain" - it results in lasting physical injury. No one disputes that. The problem for you is that waterboarding results in no lasting physical injury, and so does not cross the threshold of "severe physical pain" so as to amount to torture. And that is precisely what is in dispute.

I take it that you are unable to provide the definition asked for? Noted. 220.255.36.206 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. Torture is severe physical or mental pain inflicted to coerce behavior. Your personal definition of torture, limited to only physical pain, is irrelevant. Ofus 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to personal attacks. Why?

And please. I did not "limit" my definition to physical pain. It is just one element of the definition under the Convention Against Torture and 18 USC 2340 that is obviously met by the "cutting off of body parts".

Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage”. Dictionaries don't make much variations. Explain to me what part of chocking is not a physical pain.--Can Not 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding does not obviously meet the threshold in THAT element of the definition. Nor (arguably) any other element of the CAT and 18 USC 2340 definition of torture. Hence the controversy.

And you still have not provided a definition that says "waterboarding is torture". Simply insisting that it "is", as Badagnani has repeatedly done, is not an argument. It's a variation of bald assertion and begging the question. I take it that no definition is forthcoming. 220.255.36.206 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that no definition is forthcoming. Since Badagnani is unable to provide the definition he claims to have stating that "waterboarding is torture", I'll have to reluctantly conclude that his claim is false. 220.255.36.206 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No definition is forthcoming? Could I waterboard you to the point where the pain and panic force you to agree and believe that it is torture? If so, it is torture. If not, waterboarding has no value as a forceful device of manipulation, making it of no use in extracting information and making the question moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.77.142 (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By that standard, you could bore me to the point where dullness and torpor force me to agree and believe that boredom is torture. So boredom is torture? What an exceedingly nonsensical argument. 220.255.114.59 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Forced sensory deprivation (forced boredom) is torture. Any better "rebuttals?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.64.21 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to repeat what I already said, but the definition of torture under US law includes the treat of imminent death, specifically, 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..."The relevant language in 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..." Note that no physical pain is required. And every description of waterboarding says that the victim is made to believe they are going to die. --agr 10:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Erm, it's 18 USC 2340. Not 19. This mis-citation of the torture statute does not inspire confidence in your reply! (I'm joking. I understand it's an innocent mistake.)

2. I dislike repeating too. And I know the definition very well, thank you. I was the one who quoted it to Badagnani when he was still uselessly quoting the Third Geneva Convention. (He's now fond of re-quoting it back to me, as if I wasn't the one who corrected him in the first place.)

3. I never said that only physical pain is required. But physical pain is ONE prong of the definition: specifically subsections (1), (2)(A), and (2)(D) of 18 USC 2340.

4. "Imminent death" has already been addressed below. See my discussion with Ka-Ping Yee. Waterboarding does not involve "threat of imminent death" since the process is halted before death actually occurs. The victim's beliefs have nothing to do with it. "Belief" is not part of the statute.

You're rehashing old ground that has already been covered, and I believe, refuted. 220.255.114.59 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Levinn (sp?) tested waterboarding on the grounds of whether it was constitutional; whether it was torture.(torture is unconstitutional in the united states, or so we are led to believe.) He submitted himself to find it legal or illegal, which is extremely admirable. (i'd be surprised if anyone here does that. i dare you to) He said it's torture. People, waterboarding IS torture.137.49.222.45 (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Threat of imminent death

Above, 220.255.36.206 writes: "Except that there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent. The perceived threat of death is not the same thing as actual threat of death (Russian Roulette, for example)." This is nonsense.

1. Claim: "Death isn't actually imminent." False, for simple reasons:

• Waterboarding suffocates the prisoner.
• Suffocation is a method of killing.
• Suffocation leads to imminent death.

2. Claim: The perceived threat of death is not torture because "it is not the same thing as actual threat of death." Also false:

• Mock execution creates a perceived threat of death.
• Mock execution does not actually lead to death.
• Yet mock execution is considered torture.

I'm not saying you can't make other arguments if you wish. But this particular contention -- that waterboarding fails to meet the "threat of imminent death" qualification for torture -- is straightforwardly invalid. Either one of the two arguments just presented is sufficient to reject this contention. Ka-Ping Yee 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Claim: "Death isn't actually imminent." True, for simple reasons:

• Controlled drowning means that the prisoner does not actually drown.

• The prisoner does not actually drown, so death does not actually occur.
• Since death does not actually occur, there is no imminent threat of death.

2. Good point. Can you provide a source for the claim that "mock execution is considered torture"? Thank you. 220.255.36.206 05:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In the PDF linked, I tried searching for the words "mock" (0 instances found) and "execution" (same). Can you point me to the relevant section?

The PDF is not authoritative law by the way. Army Field Manuals do not have force of law and are subject to routine change by HQ, so I wouldn't take what it says as dispositive. 220.255.36.206 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I guess there's no need now. I've just found out that the Army Field Manual you link to is obsolete and has actually been superseded: this is the latest version of FM 34-52 (now FM 2-22.3), published on September 6, 2006. It's searchable. And nowhere does it state that "mock execution is considered torture". It says that mock execution is prohibited, but that's very different from saying that mock execution "is considered torture".

And to add to what was mentioned above, Army Field Manuals apply to DOD/army personnel only. This is specifically stated in the Preface. So your citation is irrelevant anyway.

Your claim is false. Your second point is as invalid as your first. 220.255.36.206 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The newer Army Field Manual you refer to replaces the listing of examples with a reference to 18 U.S.C. 2340, so we are back to "threat of imminent death." Your argument rests on the claim that no situation may be called "threat of imminent death" unless actual death occurs. Correct? Ka-Ping Yee 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mock execution if it's made clear to the prisoner that he's not going to die.

A colonel threatened a prisoner with a gun several years ago, and then fired the gun over that prisoner's head to get him to break. That was a mock execution, and he was charged for it.

Telling someone he's not going to die while making him wish for death could be torture but it's not mock execution.

Some of the faux "human rights" advocates may say otherwise but their record shows they tend to be biased in one direction only.

-- Randy2063 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic, please. This thread is specifically about the disputed claims (and I quote 220.255.36.206): "there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent" and "Since death does not actually occur, there is no imminent threat of death". Ka-Ping Yee 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a real risk that actual death occurs (like Russian Roulette). Not if the process is halted such that death does not occur. That's why it's called "controlled drowning" - you don't actually drown. You're hardly going to say that bungee jumping involves the threat of imminent death since you don't actually plunge to your death.

Russian Roulette involves the REAL possibility of death built into the scenario (that's why there's an actual threat of imminent death). The latter two don't, unless there's a catastrophic failure of some sort.

And that's just one plausible reason why the US Justice Department concluded that waterboarding did not violate the torture statute. Hence your argument is moot for that precise reason: the DOJ takes the position opposite to you.

Of course, POV-pushers coming down squarely on one side of the controversy don't even want to give credence to the plausibility of the DOJ position; because it means they don't get to say, unequivocally, that waterboarding "is" torture.

If NPOV has any meaning at all, it means acknowledging that significant legal entities disagree. To pretend that the DOJ opinion doesn't exist, and to come down squarely on one side of the debate is to violate NPOV just because you find one side of the debate disagreeable. And that's shameful agenda-pushing. 220.255.114.59 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, stay on topic. Name-calling your opponents "POV-pushers" does not constitute an argument. I do not know if you intended to apply that label to me; nonetheless, as I have refrained from calling you names, I request that you extend me the same respect. And allow me to remind you again, this thread is specifically about your claim that, unless actual death occurs, there can be no threat of imminent death. This thread is not a general argument about all the possible reasons that waterboarding is or is not torture. This is just about your stated interpretation of the phrase "threat of imminent death."

Now, on the topic: to claim that actual death is a necessary part of "threat of imminent death" is to fail to understand the meanings of the words "threat" and "imminent". It appears that you treat the term as if these words have no meaning at all. To demonstrate this let me ask you a few questions:

• What is the difference between "threat of imminent death" and "death"?

Person A is strangling Person B. Person A has been strangling Person B, and Person B has been unable to breathe, for the past 60 seconds. Person B is struggling to escape and running out of oxygen.

• Does strangulation involve the real possibility of death?
• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?
• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

Ka-Ping Yee 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am staying on topic. I gave you a direct answer. This discussion matters insofar as it relates to the "is/isn't" question. If you're not insisting on coming down squarely on one side of the debate (and violating NPOV), then you shouldn't be taking exception to it. (But apparently you do.)

This is about one plausible interpretation of the phrase "threat of imminent death". And therefore about the plausibility of the DOJ argument. Please do not mischaracterise my response.

Now to your questions.

• What is the difference between "threat of imminent death" and "death"?

Death is actual death. "Threat of imminent death" is the impending, real risk of actual death.

• Does strangulation involve the real possibility of death?

No. Because Person A halts the process and does not allow death to occur.

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?

No. He's struggling to breathe, but isn't actually struggling for "survival" since his life was never at stake.

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

No. Since his death was never "imminent" given that Person A stops the strangulation as a matter of protocol before death occurs. That's the point of waterboarding.

Of course, while demanding answers from me, you completely fail to address my Russian Roulette example (an impending REAL risk of actual death) which illuminates the distinction quite well. So I repeat:

There is no real risk of imminent death if the process is halted such that death does not occur. That's why it's called "controlled drowning" - you don't actually drown because that possibility is foreclosed from the beginning. Likewise, you don't say that bungee jumping involves the threat of imminent death when you aren't actually plunging to your death.

By contrast, there's a REAL possibility - as opposed to a foreclosed one - that when you pull the trigger in Russian Roulette a chambered round will fire.

Please do not say that these aren't plausible distinctions. They clearly are. That we're even having this argument is proof enough of their plausibility. (And therefore the DOJ's position.) NPOV wins. 220.255.114.59 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "No. Because Person A halts the process and does not allow death to occur." I did not say that Person A would halt. I think you misunderstood my example. This is all I specified: "Person A has been strangling Person B, and Person B has been unable to breathe, for the past 60 seconds." Like anyone else, Person B does not have the ability to predict the future.

At that moment, what is Person B experiencing? Imagine yourself in the position of person B, if you like. How would you describe what you are experiencing?

With the scenario clarified, would you please answer my questions again?

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

• If someone is strangled for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

• If someone is waterboarded for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

Thank you.

(By the way, the mere occurrence of an argument does not establish the plausibility of anything. I can argue all day that 2+2=3 and that mere act of arguing does not make it plausible. Plausibility is established by evidence and reasoning.) Ka-Ping Yee 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I did not say that Person A would halt."

Then your example does not apply to waterboarding, since waterboarding halts the process before death occurs. That's the point.

If you want to make an argument by analogy, you better make sure your argument is analogous to waterboarding. If it's not, as your "no halting in my example" shows, then your example is irrelevant.

Since your example is inapposite, your argument collapses.

You then ask:

• If someone is waterboarded for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

Then it isn't waterboarding. It's drowning. Waterboarding, as multiple sources have stated, halts before the subject actually drowns. That is, it stops before actual death occurs.

Your question is akin to asking: "if someone is bungee jumping without a rope, are they not likely to die?" Well then it isn't bungee jumping now is it?

And once again, you doggedly refuse to address my Russian Roulette example, which illuminates the point quite well. By now, you should know full well what I mean. Please do not ignore clear answers to your questions. 220.255.114.59 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to address in that example. We both agree that a person playing Russian Roulette experiences a threat of imminent death. That is not in dispute.

Where we disagree is that I believe a person being strangled experiences a threat of imminent death regardless of whether the strangulation stops at some point in the future, and you do not. I am merely trying to learn exactly what your position is with respect to the meaning of "threat of imminent death." That is all that is on the table in this thread.

Based on what you've said so far, my understanding of your position is that if someone is strangled for a minute and a half, and released alive, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death; and if someone is strangled for five minutes until they die, then they did experience a threat of imminent death all along. Before we continue, let me make sure I have that right. Does that correctly correspond to your understanding of "threat of imminent death"? Ka-Ping Yee 21:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is nothing to address in that example, then there's nothing to address in yours. You clearly disagree that the threat of imminent death in Russian Roulette is different from the "threat" in waterboarding, where there is no real risk of death since that possibility is foreclosed. Yet you refuse to address the example which illuminates this distinction.

My position is that if practice X involves strangling someone and halting before death, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death. If someone is strangled with the full intention of killing him, then it's NOT practice X, since the possibility of death is not foreclosed. Since that possibility is not foreclosed, then there exists a REAL possibility of actual death, and therefore an actual threat. 220.255.112.159 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting theories, but in today's interview here, Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding in 1957, states that he feared he was dying, and further stated that many individuals subjected to waterboarding did die, "accidentally," as a result of undergoing this procedure. So it looks as if your theory (or perhaps you are simply playing "devil's advocate" for the lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department; it is hard to tell) simply does not square with reality. Badagnani 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just heard the interview. Interesting, but I already addressed this above: "Russian Roulette involves the REAL possibility of death built into the scenario (that's why there's an actual threat of imminent death). The latter two [waterboarding] don't, unless there's a catastrophic failure of some sort." According to Alleg, there were drownings because of accidental failures in the application of waterboarding. Sounds like Alleg agrees with me.

Are radio programs reliable sources? Or "fringe opinion" as you call it? 220.255.112.159 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is way off into OR-land. Unless someone has a reliable source for the theory that there's no threat of imminent death unless someone actually dies, this discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --agr 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm demonstrating the plausibleness of the DOJ position (which some editors persistently refuse to acknowledge). As I said above, this argument is moot because a valid authority (the DOJ) takes the opposite position, whether or not you agree with the plausibility of their reasoning. 220.255.112.159 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position: "My position is that if practice X involves strangling someone and halting before death, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death." This is really quite an incredible position. (May I even say breathtakingly incredible? Ha ha.) Your position requires that strangling victims see into the future -- that they somehow predict, accurately, while they are being strangled, whether the strangling will halt before they die, and that these events that have not happened yet actually change what they are experiencing in the present. Since your argument depends on making information travel back in time, it can be safely dismissed. Ka-Ping Yee 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to resort to caricature?

Nobody said anything about requiring the victims to predict the future. The statutory language "threat of imminent death" says nothing about the victim's beliefs or powers of prediction. Do you see "belief" mentioned in the statute? I don't. Whether a threat exists or not is an objective state of affairs that does not depend on the victim seeing into the future.

Nor does it depend on "making information travel back in time" since the possibility of death is foreclosed from the beginning - and that information is already "present" from the beginning. Just because you're unaware of a threat doesn't make a threat non-existent. Similarly, just because you're unaware of a non-threat doesn't make the lack of a threat non-existent. In other words, that a person is unaware that waterboarding will halt does not make the fact that it will halt any less real.

I understand that you're very keen to win the argument and so 'dismiss' it, but please don't put words in my mouth. It convinces no one, not even yourself. 220.255.112.159 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You say: "In other words, that a person is unaware that waterboarding will halt does not make the fact that it will halt any less real." Yet you claim that this thing the person is unaware of changes what they are experiencing such that it is not torture. And at the same time you claim that something that has not happened yet can be treated as a "fact." There's no need for me to repeat the flaws in your reasoning yet again; other readers can judge for themselves whether there's anything sensible about this particular claim you're making. Ka-Ping Yee 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Except there have been no flaws in my reasoning. (Misrepresenting what I say doesn't count.)

Here, a simple example will suffice. If someone programs a machine to stop just before it hits the ground, the fact that I'm unaware that the machine will not actually hit the ground does not change that fact (that it will not hit the ground) one bit.

A person on an amusement park ride that plunges towards the ground is not under "the threat of imminent death" even if he was unaware that the ride actually halts before it hits the ground.

Surely you have no problem wrapping your brain around this obvious fact?

Thankfully other readers will be more charitable and less prone to misrepresentating what I say. 220.255.112.159 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone is driving, he or she is often technically under the threat of imminent death (see car accident for details), and thus in some people's reasoning a person who is driving is torturing himself or herself. As for the proverbial person on a roller coaster, the vast majority of people make it out safely, but there have been a few deaths on amusement park rides "plunging towards the ground" or making other weird moves, occasionally due to drunken stupidity on the part of the deceased. Nonetheless, in both cases, people aim and expect to come out safely. Thus, shouldn't we be talking more about a perceived threat of imminent death, as well as the actual threat of imminent death? Perceptions matter. The person being waterboarded is in the midst of an incomplete (most of the time) drowning, yet there is often the perceived (and sometimes actual) threat of imminent death. Moreover, the person is made to feel pain or discomfort deliberately, for the purpose of punishing or extracting information (often a pretext to punish the same person), and that satisfies my definition of torture (which could in principle extend to any means of deliberate hurting or discomforting of captives for a period longer than an instant). 204.52.215.107 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should amend "discomfort" to mean "excessive discomfort". The boundary between torture and nontorture is often in the eye of the beholder. 204.52.215.107 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did try to make that distinction very early in this discussion, but my interlocutor won't have it. Such distinctions are not very congenial to him/her because it means that the DOJ argument is plausible - something s/he feels uncomfortable acknowledging. If you look at 18 USC 2340 (hereinafter "the Torture Statute"), there is no mention of "perception" in subsection (2)(C). Instead, the Statute mentions "threat". Not "being threatened," not "feeling threatened," but actual threat. If threatened (which connotes a subjective component) had been used instead of threat, then I'd agree with you. But it wasn't.

As it happens, (2)(B) does use the word "threatened" - so by normal canons of statutory construction, you cannot say that there's no difference in meaning between the two. Congress is specific in its choice of terms. All this is OR demonstrating the plausibleness of the DOJ position. It isn't necessary, as I've explained to agr above, but it helps make the DOJ position more palatable, seeing as some editors repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that a contrary view by a significant legal entity is possible. 220.255.112.159 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New WAPO article on Waterboarding

[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Four points:

1. FWIW, this one is also by Evan Wallach.
2. it includes a quote acknowledging that it was "not so painful." The legal definition of torture seems to require pain.
3. the technique in that case was probably different, as it was performed by the Japanese, and another one says it was "almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water." A recent ABC News piece elsewhere suggests they can't suck in the water using the CIA's technique.
4. as I said before, other circumstances in the Japanese cases were different, so the legality may be different.

If they're different techniques then it is entirely possible that one is legal, and the other is not.

BTW: There is a lawyer named Eli Wallach who did some work defending the fascists at GTMO. Does anyone know if they're related?

-- Randy2063 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone have defended the fascists at Gitmo? We haven't tried them yet, and given the cowardice of the Democratic Party in taking impeachment off the table, we're not likely to. Grace Note 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit off topic but my answer won't be.

The fascists at GTMO aren't all due for a trial (sorry, but the laws of war don't require it). Hicks did get a trial, and there will be others.

More to the point, despite their high-minded talk, it appears that the Democrats may not be much different on these matters. All three leading Democratic contenders leave the door open for torture. Looking back further, Gore himself had encouraged extraordinary rendition when he was vice president. It'd be shocked if Democrats wouldn't have waterboarded three fascists.

-- Randy2063 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question

And now, after that digression, back to the original question: is waterboarding torture? The answer, according to the definition of torture in our own article on the subject (as defined by international law), is yes.

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Badagnani 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does your cited definition say that "waterboarding is torture"? Oh wait. It doesn't.

The definition of torture does NOT say that waterboarding is torture. It doesn't mention waterboarding at all.

If the question were so easily resolved, there would be no controversy. Think about it. 220.255.114.59 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment shows simply that you do not understand the meaning of the term "any act." Now let's move on to improving the article, as well as many of the other 1.7 million or so articles we have at Wikipedia. Badagnani 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a wild guess but I'd say it's somewhat unlikely that the U.S. Attorney General referred to "our own article on the subject" when determining that it's not torture. He probably checked the actual treaties and consulted with medical authorities on the definition of pain.

-- Randy2063 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing again. Where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Oh wait. It doesn't. Nor does it say that "waterboarding is torture".

Give it up. 220.255.114.59 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment shows that you do not have an understanding of the meaning of term "any act," as stated in the international definition of torture. The subject is not particularly amusing. Badagnani 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Oh wait. It doesn't. In other words, the definition does NOT say that waterboarding "is" torture.

I'm sure the DOJ reads statutes more competently. You might want to think about that. 220.255.114.59 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only do all the sources show that this is the case, but U.S. military personnel were courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding against Vietnamese prisoners in 1968, as were Japanese military personnel after World War II. These courtmartials took place because the practice is torture. Waterboarding (which was called "water torture" in earlier eras) does not cease to be torture because a few individuals in the current U.S. administration attempt to change the terminology used. Badagnani 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does this always come up?

U.S. military personnel are not authorized to waterboard enemy prisoners, regardless of whether or not waterboarding is torture. This is especially true if the prisoners fall under the 3rdGC. That also explains why the Japanese example isn't relevant.

-- Randy2063 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Awww. You failed to answer the question.

Badagnani is unable to point out where the definition says "waterboarding is an act which inflicts severe pain or suffering". Hence he is changing the subject, and evading the question. 220.255.114.59 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As of now, Badagnani is unable to answer two direct questions.

Where does your definition say that "waterboarding is torture"? Please provide a quote.

(Badagnani doesn't say.)

Where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Please provide a quote.

(Again, no answer.)

At least one source quoted by Randy above states that the (physical) pain was "not so painful". In other words, not "severe".

Since Badagnani is unable to provide supporting quotes for his claim that waterboarding "is" torture, we'll have to conclude, sadly, that his claim is false. Nothwithstanding his numerous, spurious claims to the contrary. 220.255.114.59 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) stated on November 6, 2007: "Are we going to have to outlaw the rack because there's a question of whether the rack is used improperly in this country?" Every possible torture that fits our international definition of torture does not need to be enumerated in the statutes, if they do indeed fit the definition of Torture, as waterboarding certainly does. Badagnani 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: "if" they do. That's a debatable question with waterboarding, with differing significant viewpoints on either side. Senator Cardin doesn't get to violate NPOV rules either, he's just one side of that debate, however certain he feels about his opinions. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV yet? 220.255.112.159 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"demeaning comments"

Forgive me for butting in here, but why does he have to bow to your personal demands, exactly? He's provided plenty of evidence showing that it is and has been considered torture by many. To ignore that would make a poor article indeed. He doesn't have to bow to your special definitional demands in the face of all these other sources. I'd suggest you take yourself down a notch and start negotiating, rather than making ridiculous personal demands. Also, you may want to review Wikipedia:Etiquette, as you are being a bit rude with your demeaning and sarcastic remarks. Behavior like that doesn't help discussion and can get you blocked from editing. Wrad 02:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Since it was he who started the "definitional" argument. If he can't provide quotes from the definition to support his point, then his definitional argument fails.

As for "other sources", you'll find that I haven't disputed them. In fact, I agree with the opening lede: that numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture. What I disagree with, and what Badagnani has repeatedly tried to push via his definitional argument, is the categorical statement that waterboarding "is" torture. Since this is a live controversy, with significant legal opinions on either side of the debate, my view is that wikipedia ought not to come down squarely on one side of the issue. That would be a violation of NPOV.

Badagnani was asked to support his claims. He was unable to. That's all to it. 220.255.114.59 03:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care who is right. I do care that you're being so rude. The reason this page is blocked is not that there is a dispute. Civilized editors have disputes all the time and are able to resolve them pretty well. The reason it's blocked is because people like you are acting in an innappropriate manner. Stop demeaning others and you just might get your way easier. You can win an argument without demeaning people. In fact, it's easier to win that way. Learn some negotiation and persuasion skills and I guarantee you'll get your way more often. Behavior such as yours hurts the encyclopedia and grinds everything to a halt. It causes good editors to leave. Cut it out. Wrad 03:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Asking for supporting quotes is "rude", and "demanding". And now you're attacking me personally, when I haven't actually demeaned anyone. I mean, really. Take your own advice. Please do not derail this thread. Thanks. 220.255.114.59 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the truth. Statements such as "Oh wait. It doesn't." "Awww. You failed to answer the question." "Amusing again." and "Give it up." Are pretty dang demeaning and are keeping you from getting your way. I don't care if you ask for supporting quotes, but how hard can it be to cut these silly statements out of your dialog? You ARE demeaning people. Stop it. Wrad 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not. You're attacking me because of my stylistic tics? These can be in NO WAY construed as personal attacks. Expressions of amusement, "aww", and "oh wait" don't count. "Give it up" is no different from YOUR "cut it out" and "stop it". Good grief. You're giving me grief because of this? You're derailing the thread now. I have no interest in petty arguments. Sorry. 220.255.114.59 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new section for the derailment. Wrad - I'll stop whatever you want me to stop because I'm not really interested in this argument. Leave comments on my talk page and I'll try to toe your line. 220.255.114.59 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm glad you've agreed to stop, even if you don't agree with how I characterize what you say. I just don't like seeing another editor getting treated this way, even if he is wrong. I've seen good people leave the encyclopedia for less than this. Wrad 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 220.255.114.59 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Notion of NPOV

From WP:NPOV

The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is not the place to argue whether waterboarding is torture. There are notable people who say that it is not, so that viewpoint should be included. This opinion is substantially the minority opinion, so that should also be made clear.

Whether waterboarding is torture "in reality" or "by definition" actually seems to me to be irrelevant from the neutral point of view. Even disagreements which contradict obvious facts or simple logic must be included, if they are held by notable authorities. The point is that what is obvious or simple to one person, might be non-obvious or obviously incorrect to another. Even among ourselves, several points of view on this topic are being argued. Worldworld 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur fully. The United States DOJ is a significant legal entity, and certainly not "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination. NPOV applies everywhere in the article, including the lede. 220.255.114.59 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are the "notable people who say that it is not" torture? Provide a citation to a reliable source and, of course, we should include in the article the views of those persons if they are "notable authorities." All we have above is speculation about what secret DOJ legal opinions might say. That is OR and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The DOJ has not taken any position in public on the question.--agr 04:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OR? Hardly. According to this article, "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning." So the claim is well-sourced and suitable for inclusion. Please stick to NPOV. Thank you. 220.255.114.59 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Ministry of Truth says it is true, then it must be true, eh Winston?140.140.58.8 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it's true. I said it's another viewpoint from a significant legal authority. Please explore the difference. 220.255.112.159 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead of the article is not the place for presenting "all opinions" on a topic, particularly when the fringe opinion is held by so few individuals. However, discussing this opinion in context in the article is just fine. Badagnani 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is the place. There are only two opinions on this topic - either "is" or "isn't". Excluding one means violating NPOV. Bald statements like "Waterboarding is torture" (or its converse "Waterboarding isn't torture") that exclude the other viewpoint have no place in the lede. So please follow NPOV, thank you. 220.255.114.59 06:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition is clear:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Conversely, the fringe opinion that, contrary to the definition, waterboarding is not torture (despite several hundred years of such opinion being the norm around the world, including in the U.S., which court martialed its own officers in 1968 for perpetrating this practice against foreign prisoners), does not deserve to be privileged as "another viewpoint" in the lead. Like a similar fringe viewpoint--that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years in age--such an opinion may deserve its own article, or be discussed in the proper context in the body of the article. Badagnani 06:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Earth being 6,000 years of age is not held by any scientific authority, that's why it's "fringe".

The opinion that waterboarding is not torture is held by the US Department of Justice - a well known legal authority. Accordingly, it is not a "fringe" opinion, however much you want it to be.

Also, the definition argument has already been concluded above. Your definition doesn't say what you claim it says. It does not say "waterboarding is torture". And it does not say waterboarding inflicts "severe physical or mental pain". So there's nothing clear about it. Repeating yourself won't help.

Stick to NPOV. Stop trying to exclude the viewpoint of a valid authority from the lede. 220.255.114.59 07:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the the media reports of the DOJ opinion belongs in the lede and I proposed specific language that does so above under "Proposed Lede." None the less, we can point out that by all reports waterboading causes intense fear of imminent death and that that is one of the definitions of torture under the plain meaning of 18 USC 2340. We should not engage in speculation on how DOJ comes to its reported conclusion. --agr 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, some progress finally. Speculation as to how the DOJ comes to its conclusion is unnecessary, I agree. It's a valid authority, so NPOV means that the lede shouldn't exclude it. As it stands, the lede is a pretty good compromise now - and importantly, neutral.

As to "imminent death", the language is precise: the threat of imminent death. Not the "fear of". A subtle but important difference. Because there's a colourable argument to be made that there does not actually exist a threat of imminent death in waterboarding. (See the "Threat of imminent death" discussion with Ka-Ping Yee, above). As such, the proposed lede should include the usual caveats: "experts describe waterboarding as involving the threat of imminent death" etc. - and not simply the blunt assertion that it does. But this can be worked out later. I hope we're finally coming around to an NPOV consensus. 220.255.114.59 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fear" and "threat" are intimately connected. Here is a def from lectlaw.com: "FORCE, THREAT OF USE - To do something which causes another person to act against his or her will. To use a 'threat of force' or to 'intimidate' or 'interfere with' means to say or do something which, under the same circumstances, would cause another person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm if he or she did not comply." However, I have no problem with language like ""experts describe waterboarding as involving the threat of imminent death." --agr 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

220.255.114.59 writes: "The opinion that waterboarding is not torture is held by the US Department of Justice". I am aware of no such opinion. Please either provide a reference to a US DOJ opinion on the record that says "waterboarding is not torture" or retract your claim. Ka-Ping Yee 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You better retract your demand for retraction then. Numerous secondary sources document the claim.

1. Link. "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning."

2. Link. "One opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in May 2005 authorized a combination of painful physical and psychological interrogation tactics, including head slapping, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning, according to current and former officials familiar with the issue. . . . Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects, including a memo released publicly in December 2004 that declared torture 'abhorrent.'"

3. In the same article, Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First - and no friend of waterboarding - states that Justice Department lawyers say that "waterboarding is not torture": ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture".

4. Link. "The first opinion explicitly allowed a combination of techniques to be used on terrorism suspects, including slapping prisoners’ heads, simulating their drowning through waterboarding . . . . Both opinions were signed by Steven Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel."

5. Link. "The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday’s editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding".

Please don't say none of the above are primary sources (i.e., secret DOJ memos). Wikipedia does not require primary sources and encourages the use of valid secondary sources.

And this one just for people who are still claiming, rather incredibly, that "no one" claims waterboarding is not torture:

Link. "The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 . . . [1-5 omitted] 6. Water Boarding . . . The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners." 220.255.112.159 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Item 3 is immediately dismissed, as it fails to be a reliable source for the DOJ's official opinion in many ways: it is third-hand; it is a belief about what lawyers will say, not what they actually have said; and it is about unspecified lawyers that the administration "stocks" the DOJ with, not the DOJ as an institution.

An authorization of waterboarding is not equivalent to a declaration that waterboarding is not torture. Surely you can see that these two things are different. If you wish to claim that the US DOJ has authorized waterboarding then your items 1, 2, 4, and 5 certainly support that claim. However your claim is that the DOJ is an authoritative source for the position that waterboarding is not torture, for which none of these citations apply. Item 2 only says the memo "did not conflict with administration promises", which is a general claim about the memo as a whole, dependent on what the speaker believed the administration's promises were, and quite different from a direct statement that waterboarding is not torture. All your other quotations don't even mention torture.

If you have other sources, please provide them. Otherwise, you really don't have a case here. Ka-Ping Yee 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Item 3 is not so easily dismissed. It is a verifiable quote as reported by a third party source. You don't get to dismiss sources that meet WP:RS so easily just because you'd like to characterise the source as "unreliable". By that standard, all the sources that claim waterboarding as practised by the CIA is torture are unreliable, since it is a belief about what the CIA does, and not what the CIA actually did. Please be consistent.

And clearly you missed source two: "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects". In other words, not torture. DOJ _legal_ authorizations of waterboarding comport with the law and therefore cannot be torture since torture is illegal.

The case is overwhelming: the DOJ does not think waterboarding is torture. That's why there's a controversy. Please stop disregarding perfectly good sources with spurious objections. 220.255.112.159 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have misquoted and misread my comment. Please read comments carefully before replying to them. Ka-Ping Yee 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Have I? You changed your comment while I was replying, but I don't see anything substantively different. All 5 sources document the claim that the DOJ does not think waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. The DOJ asserts legality for waterboarding through its legal authorization of the practice. Sources 2 and 3 are especially specific that the DOJ does not consider waterboarding to be torture. Source 2 quotes DOJ officials themselves saying it ("does not conflict with promises not to torture"), and source 3 quotes an unsympathetic source describing DOJ lawyers as maintaining that "waterboarding is not torture".

Please be consistent. And please stop trying to exclude sources that merit inclusion based on NPOV. 220.255.112.159 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make the sources any more relevant to your claim. You are still failing to address the specific problems I pointed out. I remind you that reading between the lines and drawing inferences on the DOJ's behalf does not allow you to make an authoritative statement about the DOJ's opinion. I am not going to repeat my criticisms again; they are already here for anyone to see. Ka-Ping Yee 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. You do NOT deny that source 2 quotes DOJ officials stating that they do not consider waterboarding to be torture. "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects." (And here, "interrogation techniques" include waterboarding.)

Nor do you deny that The Washington Post is a reliable source. And that it quotes a source stating that Justice Department lawyers say "waterboarding is not torture", and I quote: ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture". WP:RS does not say anything about "third-hand" sources, your stated reason for excluding this source. So, notwithstanding your idiosyncratic notion of what meets the standard of a reliable source - a standard that is NOT found in WP:RS, we can safely state that DOJ lawyers do in fact claim that waterboarding is not torture.

Saying that WaPO is not a reliable source is a stretch, as even you must acknowledge. Please stop trying to exclude obviously reliable sources that merit inclusion based on NPOV. 220.255.112.159 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some logic

If waterboarding fits the definition of torture, then it is torture. If the current article for torture doesn't change (as of 11/05/07, 9:30am pst), then the definition of torture indicates that waterboarding is torture. Any person can have a different idea of what is torture, be it Joe Common Man or President of the U.S., but without a valid logical reason, the current definition stands. If one believes that waterboarding is not torture then one needs to have valid reasons on why the definition of torture needs to be changed. The focus, if it hasn't been obvious by now, is wikipedias definition of torture. I can not detect any errors in logic in the postulate that waterboarding is torture. If one believes that waterboarding is not torture then one also disagrees with wikipedias definition of torture. As it stands, any debate about whether or not waterboarding is torture seems erroneous. Change the definition of torture and then one can debate whether or not waterboarding is torture. Sorry for the heavy handedness. --Lincoln F. Stern 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that waterboarding does not fit the definition of torture, wikipedia or otherwise? Hard to see things from another perspective, I know. But do try. There are smart people in the US DOJ who have been parsing these things for longer than you or I. 220.255.112.159 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That view, though notable in light of current events, is illogical in light of the definition of torture, which has been presented here several times (should I present it again?). Please see today's interview with Henri Alleg, in which he says that many people "accidentally" died during the Algerian War after being subjected to waterboarding. Badagnani 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your definitional argument has already been refuted above (shall I refute it again?). You failed to provide any supporting quotes from the definition stating that "waterboarding is torture" or that waterboarding inflicts "severe physical or mental pain". Despite being asked several times. Editors can scroll up and see that you declined to respond. Repeating yourself won't help. 220.255.112.159 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

18 USC 2340 defines severe mental pain as including "the threat of immanent death." Every source agrees that waterboarding produces an intense fear of death. Your OR attempts to find some ambiguity in "the threat of immanent death" not withstanding, the standard legal definition equates intentionally produced fear with threat. If you have a source that supports your tortured definition of "threat," produce it, otherwise your views have no relevance to this article. This is not a debating society. Wikipedia can rely on the plain meaning of the law, as supported by numerous experts who explain their reasoning. --agr 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's OR, but so is your OR to equate "fear" with "threat" when it isn't the plain meaning. In any event, the argument is moot. The DOJ does not consider waterboarding as torture, so stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I must state that given the current definitions of torture and waterboarding, waterboarding is torture. waterboarding meets the definition of torture. It is a clear logical conclusion. Read the description for torture, then read the description of waterboarding. Logic, by its definition, is unbiased. The only way waterboarding can not be torture is if the current definitions of either one, or both, change. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "logical conclusion" is OR. And a significant legal opinion disagrees. Please do not come down categorically on one side of the "is/isn't" controversy. Wikipedia describes signficant views on either side of the controversy as per NPOV. Even if we grant your "logical conclusion", NPOV mandates that we not exclude the DOJ's view (obviously a significant legal opinion by any yardstick). 220.255.112.159 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The view you want to privilege (the term "significant legal opinion" which you've now mentioned nearly 5 times) is in fact a fringe opinion by a single administration in just one among nearly 200 nation-states, likely constituted to make an "end run" around hundreds of years of agreed-upon definition and practice by nations, by means of redefining the terms themselves. Badagnani 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "privileging" that view. I'm not asserting that that view is correct. I'm saying that it's just another significant viewpoint. You on the other hand are privileging the "is" viewpoint and trying to suppress the DOJ's contrary viewpoint. I'm including both. So saying that I'm privileging anything is absurd when you are the one trying to privilege one viewpoint over another.

Second, saying that the US Department of Justice is "fringe" is laughable. It's a well known legal authority in the United States. Don't like it? Tough. Calling something "fringe" doesn't make it so. I suggest you re-read NPOV if you have problems with that policy. 220.255.112.159 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've stated several times that the DOJ view (whatever that is, since it appears to have changed over time) does need to be described in the article, in proper context, with as much detail as necessary. Then again, the current DOJ appears to have been highly politicized, and that of the next administration may have a different stated view on this subject. Badagnani 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. So WHY are you trying to suppress the DOJ viewpoint by making the lede categorical in its rejection of the DOJ view that is well-sourced in the NYT and WaPo? Your insinuations that the DOJ is "politicized" doesn't change the fact that it is a significant legal entity one bit. 220.255.112.159 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "fringe," as I used it, means "highly unusual" in light of the opinion's deviation from the agreed-upon definition of "torture." Badagnani 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The agreed-upon definition of torture doesn't agree that waterboarding is torture, so it does not "deviate" from anything. The DOJ view is discussed in several mainstream newspapers. That makes it non-fringe. Face it. You're trying hard to suppress a significant legal viewpoint because you have difficulty with NPOV. Try familiarizing yourself with WP:NPOV. 220.255.112.159 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User 220.255.112.159, the description of what constitutes torture is, in part, descriptive of the usage of waterboarding. There is no side to logic. Either a statement is true or it isn't. When an idea is accepted to mean something, and one group wishes to change that definition, it is then up to said group to provide proof to back up their claim. It is not up to the general public to have to prove or disprove any claim forwarded without any proof supporting the claim. The United States Department of Justice has probably made mistakes in the past. Either if they had not, it would be foolish for anyone to accept their claim at face value without proof. All I have seen from the DOJ is, basically, waterboarding is not torture. I have not seen an explanation of why it should not be considered torture. If the reason for something is "because they say so", well that is not a valid proof. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require an "explanation" though. What it requires is reliably sourced information describing the DOJ position. Speculation over the exact legal reasoning behind the DOJ's position has been attempted here but is ultimately OR. Just scroll to the discussions on what constitutes "severe" and what constitutes "threat of imminent death". Suffice to say, the DOJ position is quite plausible. That said, such speculations are irrelevant to the fact that the DOJ's position is well-sourced and thus merits inclusion. There is no "explanation" requirement on wikipedia. Just a "reliably sourced" requirement. 220.255.112.159 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding and water cure

How exactly does waterboarding differ from water cure. Is waterboarding a subset of water cure? Remember 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the latter you put a funnel down the person's throat and pour more and more water down the person's throat. This was done in Medieval Europe, and they would measure how many flagons had been poured. Presumably some would go into the stomach and some into the lungs, but most into the stomach. The Water cure article describes this in some detail. They are just two versions of Water torture. Badagnani 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't some fraternity perform a kind of "water cure" as a form of hazing a few years back? I think I read about it in Playboy (one of the initiatees died, prompting the story about this and other forms of hazing). I don't think a funnel was used, but they did make the hazees drink as much water as they could for a number of hours while trying to keep them from peeing (which obviously failed), and continued pouring water into and around them. 204.52.215.107 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chi Tau at Chico State. [10] 204.52.215.107 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

technique to support interrogation process

wrt. 1st §: waterboarding can't be interrogation, only a technique to support (or defect, depending on pov) the interrogation process. i think calling it interrogation is factually incorrect.

-- .~. 84.133.80.66 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I don't see where the article, as it currently stands, makes this mistake. Ka-Ping Yee 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps user 84.133.80.66 meant the usage of the words "interrogation technique" as being doubtful. No obvious error comes to mind reviewing the material. Could someone else fine-tooth comb the article? --Lincoln F. Stern 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sources

Are blogs published by reliable news sources considered valid sources? One of the claims in the article (that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor) is sourced to an ABCnews blog 'The Blotter'.

Also, reference 45 is sourced to a blog. Does anyone object to its removal? Thanks. 220.255.112.159 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/cia-bans-water-.html"? The page it goes to reads like an article and is presented as such, but the URL implies that it is a blog. I do not object to its removal but one should also try to seek out further source information for the claim presented on the page. I'd do it but I am feeling lazy at this point. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not inherently unreliable sources. What matters is editorial oversight. It's clear that, while ABC News calls that a "blog" (it's basically just an article that allows comments), it has editorial oversight and is a reliable source. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So the consensus is no removal on ABCnews 'The Blotter'? I agree that it's a borderline case (purportedly a blog but published by ABCnews) that's why I asked.

And about reference 45... wrong reference - I meant reference 47 "unbossed.com". That's obviously a blog that isn't by a reliable news service - comments on removing that? 220.255.112.159 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that's not a good reference, but I found one to replace it (with significantly stronger wordage) in about 10 seconds. [11] —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. If no one else comments I tentatively assume we'll replace "unbossed.com" with the MSNBC reference and retain ABCnews 'The Blotter'. 220.255.112.159 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. Though if someone wishes to debate the ABCnews one then I am all for finding a replacement source. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words - "Controlled Drowning"

I received a rather nasty post (which I repoponded accordingly to) in my talk page from Remember complaining of POV and demanding I use the talk page, which I have been. Ironically, this user has NOT used talk at all. Anyway, I have rolled back the revoltingly POV weasel words creeping in. Considering we are talking about clearly defined torture, I find this attempt to water down such an horrific crime to make it more politically palatable to a handful of war criminals and a rogue regime as an utterly unconscionable act, and certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suspect that even if Red State described this as "Controlled Drowning" there would be an uproar. I propose to revert any such weasel word on site. I suspect that the body of people here in talk seems like they would agree. 89.100.48.103 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh the delicious irony of being accused to have never used the talk page by a anon user who thinks the term "controlled drowning" is POV, when in fact, I was the first person to bring up whether we should use the term "controlled drowning" on the talk page. (See [12]).Remember 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the people here support this version, which I have reverted to. Please re-read this entire page. We cannot definitively call it torture, as we have a relatively clean split in sources--a ton call it torture, a ton do not; many notable experts call it torture, many do not. Our opinions of its status as torture are irrelevant. WP:NPOV is the arbiter of what we call it. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as Lawrence Cohen has just pointed out, do not make wholesale changes to the article as you have. Many editors here have put a lot of work into achieving what we have here now and it's about as balanced as it's been. I don't want to protect the article again but will if needs be. If you're going to make major, controversial changes as you have here, please bring it to the talk page first - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying off this for a few days now, however I strongly contend that consensus on this FULL talk page is waterboarding is torture - end of story. Thuis far I can see 2 objectors. BTW - have you seen tonight's CNN poll - Even 69% of Americans (as in the people who's gic is doing the torture on their behalf) consider it torture. 89.100.48.103 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. A significant legal opinion disagrees. Stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My intent was not to make wholesale changes - but to revert them until a concensus was achived. Looking at the history, it looks like for many months a very fragile concensus was achieved, as with anything this can evolve, and a few days ago Laurence made an edit which kicked of that edit war I regret getting sucked into. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should stay at the pre-Laurence's halloween edit, until a new consensus for change is established - thus far I simply don't see that. As such I contend that I am not making major changes - but preventing (and reverting major changes until a consensus is achieved. Obviously with 2RRs I am backing off for others now as we don;t want to go back down the war road. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Allison, Not that I have behaved well - I know I really was out off line in that war a few days ago - however, I really don't think it is appropriate for you to revert it as I have contended that that version is what was stable for a long time until someone else brought in the controlled drowning business without seeking consensus? Shouldn't the last consensus achieved version stand until a new consensus is arrived at. Instead you are bringing yourself into the edit issue by 'imposing the NEW POV version which does not have any consensus knowing full well that I can't revert it back. I am not going to - obviously, but many editors would feel at this stage they would have to bring in other older WB editors to revert it, so instead of having me objecting to consensus busting, multiple people would come back for a soccer match over the issue. 89.100.48.103 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have no interest whatsoever in the content, or in who's POV is the right POV here. What matters to me is that this situation doesn't degenerate into another full-on war. Now, things have been progressing steadily since the 5th and a lot of work was put in here before that. I deliberately only added a limited full prot for that reason as I trust you guys to get on with the job and settle your differences. Now, as I said, progress has been made here - like it or not - and the onus is on you right now to get involved with the others and bring your views to the table, not revert to a revision that you like, thus showing contempt for all the work the others have put in over the last week or so - Alison ^❤ 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm backing out now for a few days, but we all know someone such as Reinhold/AGR will revert it soon as always happened. I really think you should hold the old consensus version until something new is negotiated here. Me in or out will not affect the level of outrage non-US editors will point at this new change wo/ consensus. As long as that new version is there it will be a magnet. I think it is better that it is magnet for a handful of Bush supporters and others who confuse the arguments Is it torture with Is it justified - than a magnet for virtually the entire planet (including 69% of American's per CNN).89.100.48.103 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to controlled drowning

Back to 89.100.48.103's original topic, what is the feeling of editors on using the words "controlled drowning"? Do people feel that this is inaccurate, imprecise, original research or too POV to one side or the other? I myself think it is fairly descriptive if the point of waterboarding is to introduce water into the lungs in a controlled fashion, but I am worried that we are pushing the use of a term that is not widely accepted or used. So from my view any official sources using the term controlled drowning would alleviate my worries. I am also surprised that 89.100.48.103 thinks that this term is POV towards the Bush administration given the fact that the term "controlled drowning" sounds like a scary form of torture to me. Remember 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine and well-sourced. Most editors don't seem to have a problem with it. I say keep it. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is well sourced- see comment below [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Simulates"

Someone has added the qualification "simulated" again. This technique does not "simulate" anything; as we now know from the sources, the person is actually drowning (the process of simultaneous inhalation and ingestion of water is called "drowning" in English) and people have died as a result. Badagnani 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, and I'm not particularly fond of the term myself but it IS sourced, no? 220.255.112.159 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "simulated drowning" is a term that has been widely used in the media. I don't know where the term originally came from before it appeared in the media but from the sound of it (it seems euphemistic, like "collateral damage") it likely came from a government news release or document and was simply adopted without close examination. It would be good to do a Lexis-Nexis search and determine what, when, and by whom the first usage of the term "simulated drowning" was. Badagnani 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the use of "simulated/simulating" is misleading. The suffocation/asphyxiation is not a simulation.

May I suggest a more direct definition:

Waterboarding is a torture technique that uses asphyxiation from 
forced water inhalation to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

or

Waterboarding is a torture technique that uses suffocation from 
forced water inhalation to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

Where:

Asphyxiation is the condition of being deprived of oxygen.
Torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted
on a person for punishment, indimidation, coercion, or to elicit a confession.

Nospam150 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "simulated drowning" line is complete B.S. (A lot of stories about SERE is.)

This guy spoke with someone who knows:

Without getting into specifics on his experiences, Mike strongly disputes Nance's exaggerations of waterboarding. There is a word for people who have "pint after pint of water" filling their lungs: dead. "In fact," according to Mike, "they would be very, very dead. By definition, anyone who has drowned is in fact dead. A large percentage of true drownings do not involve ANY water entering the lungs because the epiglottis closes off the air passages as water enters the throat. People who die immediately from being immersed in water actually die of suffocation, not water entering their lungs...."

Yes, he's a blogger, but he's a top tier one.

-- Randy2063 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi, please

Alison, could you downgrade to Semi? The only real fighting is anons going at it with each other. • Lawrence Cohen 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't, sorry. Not for a content dispute especially one in which anon editors are in dialog on the talk page. They have the same standing as anyone else in a content dispute unless there's some very obvious socking going on - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you like, you can have the protect reviewed on WP:RPP. I'll stay clear and you can tell the others there that I'm not averse to a review and prot change if anyone sees fit - Alison ^❤ 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, in hindsight it's probably better this way, since it forces proper discussion rather than us all mashing the RV buttons. • Lawrence Cohen 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

... again. Sorry about that but things have spiralled out of control again. One anon editor has now been blocked for 3RR. This time prot is indefinite until we can work something out here - Alison ^❤ 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are we working out here? I want to know so that we can figure out when we have actually come to an accord on the issues. Is the debate whether we should discuss whether it is torture? Remember 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems largely down to the "torture" word now, and not much else - Alison ^❤ 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia the page on Torture, the international definition of torture is:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Is anyone arguing that Waterboarding does not match this definition for some reason?

Waterboarding is specifically mentioned in Water_torture.

If a president announce that other forms of torture other than this type of water asphyxiation are not torture, Do we just update the Wikipedia pages accordingly? Are electrical shock, asphyxiation, heat, cold, noise, and sleep deprivation really "interrogation techniques", if performed by the US, and torture if performed by the bad guys?

Nospam150 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture issue

It seems like a major dispute in this article is whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture. To deal with this situation I have made several proposals to help come up with a consensus. Please add support or objection below or add another proposal that you think will work best. Remember 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the comment so that one can easily see who supports what. Please put further comments under the proposal you support or oppose. Remember 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. State at the first sentence of the article that waterboarding is a form of torture

220.255.112.159 - No. That's a categorical statement that comes down on one side of the controversy and violates NPOV.

Badagnani - Supports Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is).

Support 1. This is a global encyclopedia and the controversy only affects the USA. There is no need to give this so much attention. This controversy should be, at most, mentioned in a brief paragraph. Even if the USA were to decide that waterboarding is no longer considered torture, it should still be mentioned as: "Waterboarding is a torture technique that..... Recently it has been redefined in the USA as not being torture. etc..." Exceptions can be mentioned, but that doesn't change the global consensus on the issue. --Antonio.sierra 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I refer to the following article:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.

Although many people assert this is untrue, even some notable characters, I have yet to see somebody argue to remove used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews from the lead on account of the perceived controversy. By the same token there is no controversy, outside the Bush administration and its adherents, whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. To state otherwise would misrepresent the facts. Also, the intended new AG has much difficulty in publicly stating it is not torture. I wonder why.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Support 1. There is no logical reason to state waterboarding as non-torture. If waterboarding is redefined as not torture, then I will personally lead a campaign to redefine every form of torture into "non-torture". WP:C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Support 1. The U.S. prosecuted ex-Nazis for war crimes for this exact type of torture during WW2. That's all the sourcing one should need for the statement. --Falkvinge 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2. State at some point that waterboarding is torture, but not in the first sentence which will be used to describe the procedure

220.255.112.159 - No. See 1.

3.State somewhere in the intro that waterboarding has almost always been considered a form of torture when used against a person's will (i.e., not during training exercises) but say that recently individuals within the US administration, politicians, and political pundits have argued that it is not torture and link to later on in the page

220.255.112.159 - Support. That waterboarding has long been considered torture is well-sourced.

220.255.112.159 - With the usual caveats of course, i.e., "numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture" rather than "it's torture". As long as it's not a categorical statement that rejects and excludes the contrary view, I'm fine with it. 220.255.112.159 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 is without a doubt the best and most accurate choice. Though I wish that we could say "it's torture" and leave it at that (whoops, have I said too much? :p), it has received a tremendous amount of attention because of the recent revision of its status by the present administration. That intro is clear, neutral, can be well-sourced, and explains why it's presently a major topic of discussion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani - Supports Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is).

4.State in the intro that some people consider waterboarding torture and other do not

220.255.112.159 - Support. The US Justice Department is a significant legal authority that does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

Comment: other legal authorities determined the Nazis did nothing illegal. Not suggesting any link between Bush and Hitler, merely pointing out that invoking legal authority is no guarantee of sound legal advise.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

5.Never state in the article whether it is or is not torture, but just describe the actual procedure

220.255.112.159 No. There is a clear controversy on the issue and both viewpoints should be included.

Disagree with statement. Just because there are people who believe that the Earth is flat, that humans are not mammals, and that the moon is made of blue cheese, doesn't mean that those facts should be mentioned in the respective articles to include "both viewpoints", as if the baloney were carrying just as much weight as the well-established facts, in an attempt to give the illusion of a balanced controversy. Claiming waterboarding is not torture is about as relevant as claiming the moon is made from blue cheese. Just because it happens to be terribly inconvenient for some people that the US has engaged in these activities, doesn't change the fact surrounding them. --Falkvinge 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Other proposals?

Comments on proposals above

1. No. That's a categorical statement that comes down on one side of the controversy and violates NPOV.

2. No. See 1.

3. Support. That waterboarding has long been considered torture is well-sourced.

4. Support. The US Justice Department is a significant legal authority that does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

5. No. There is a clear controversy on the issue and both viewpoints should be included. 220.255.112.159 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 is without a doubt the best and most accurate choice. Though I wish that we could say "it's torture" and leave it at that (whoops, have I said too much? :p), it has received a tremendous amount of attention because of the recent revision of its status by the present administration. That intro is clear, neutral, can be well-sourced, and explains why it's presently a major topic of discussion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With the usual caveats of course, i.e., "numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture" rather than "it's torture". As long as it's not a categorical statement that rejects and excludes the contrary view, I'm fine with it. 220.255.112.159 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is). Badagnani 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture does not mention waterboarding, so your claim is just false. Stop trying to suppress the viewpoint of a significant legal authority in the US Justice Department. Just because you think a well-known legal authority like the DOJ is fringe doesn't make it so.

NPOV means including both viewpoints on the issue. By attempting to exclude the views of a significant legal authority in the lede, you're privileging one side of the debate, and violating NPOV.

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" . . . . Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

NPOV is clear. Stop asserting your preferred viewpoint as being judged as "the truth". 220.255.112.159 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) stated on November 6, 2007: "Are we going to have to outlaw the rack because there's a question of whether the rack is used improperly in this country?" The name and description of every possible torture that can be devised, which fits our international definition of torture, does not need to be enumerated in the statutes, if they do indeed fit the definition of Torture, as waterboarding certainly does. Badagnani 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: "if" they do. That's a debatable question with waterboarding, with differing significant viewpoints on either side. Senator Cardin doesn't get to violate NPOV rules either, he's just one side of that debate. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV yet? 220.255.112.159 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding clearly fits into the international definition of Torture, as presented earlier several times. Your wish to privilege, in the lead, the fringe claim that waterboarding is not a form of torture, would be similar to stating in the lead of the Miocene article that "the Miocene is a period that either existed from 23.03 to 5.33 million years before the present, or did not exist at all because many prominent individuals, including many scientists at Brigham Young University, believe in the Young Earth--that is, that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years in age." There's nothing preventing us from discussing that claim, in context, in the proper section of the article, but when something is clearly torture, according to the international definition (and which the U.S. has prosecuted its own citizens, military personnel, and military personnel of other nations such as Japan) for practicing this variety of water torture, your insistence that this fringe redefinition be privileged in the lead does not have any merit. Badagnani 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop muddying the waters with illogical ripostes trying to contravene WP:NPOV. The view that the Earth is 6,000 years of age is not held by any scientific authority, that's why it's "fringe".

The view that waterboarding is not considered torture is held by the US Department of Justice - a well known legal authority. Accordingly, it is not a "fringe" opinion, however much you want it to be.

And no, waterboarding doesn't "clearly fit" the definition of torture. The definition doesn't even mention waterboarding, so it's not clear that it fits (that's why there is a controversy between significant legal viewpoints). Have you familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV yet? 220.255.112.159 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Young Earth creationism, approximately 5% of U.S. scientists believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. That is certainly a notable number. Conversely, fewer than 0.5 percent of the world's nations categorize waterboarding as "not torture." Badagnani 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I said scientific authority. Chemists and biologists are not authorities in geology, so cannot be considered valid scientific authority on the age of the earth. Your survey includes scientists who aren't authoritative, and so is irrelevant.

And you do not know how many of the world's nations categorize waterboarding as "not torture", so don't pull a speculative, unsourced figure out of thin air.

So much for your specious, unsourced, comparisons. POV-pushing to exclude a significant legal authority won't work.

Stick to NPOV. Familiarize yourself with it. 220.255.112.159 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

International law considers waterboarding a form of torture. The wikipedia definition of torture is given by interpretation of it from international law. We should be consistent. And as a side note, I think you should consider the long precedent about this issue in the USA (because the contemporary controversy is only in the USA) and not throw it away just because the present government "thinks" it should be reviewed. Consider the example about the holocaust given by Nomen Nescio just above. --Xer0 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if everyone refrained from arguing with each answer to the original query. My first choice is option 1, then 2 (not much difference, really). From WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, ..." The DOJ legal opinion has never been published; it's a secret. As an open encyclopedia we don't have to give any weight to secret opinions beyond mentioning their reported existence, especially where there are numerous published opinions to the contrary.

However, in the interest of avoiding endless edit wars, I can live with option 3, and have suggested language to that end in "Lede Proposal" above. I do have one issue with proposal 3 as described. We should not mention training exercises in the article lede. Any number of heinous acts are acceptable when done as part of a training exercise. It's a minor point at best, even for the body of the article. I find the last two options unacceptable. --agr 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why (4) unacceptable? Seems pretty well sourced that there are two sides to the debate. Why deny that there is a controversy? Thanks. 220.255.112.159 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the goal here is to try to come up with a compromise. I find 3 less than ideal, but acceptable. Option 4 give too much weight to a rumored secret opinion. The current U.S. administration has NOT taken a formal public position on Waterboarding being torture, so to call it a two sided debate goes too far. The real debate in the U.S. is whether waterboarding should be used on alleged terrorists, usually framed by positing that they possess information which could stop an imminent WMD attack, the so-called "ticking time bomb." That is a very different question. The only reason torture comes into the discussion is that torture happens to be illegal under US and international law. --agr 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual opinion may be secret, but the DOJ's position is not. This has been VERY reliably sourced above in at least 6 sources provided above. As long as there is a significant legal authority that says different, denial that there is a controversy with experts on BOTH sides of the debate is a violation of NPOV. 220.255.112.159 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think compromise is in order. We do not compromise to satisfy the objections by flat earth or intelligent design supporters. Again for centuries it has been defined as torture. The US itself has prosecuted it, on what grounds do we succumb to the fringe legalese by an administration that has strong incentives for preventing the world from calling it what it has always been called: torture.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating an argument that has already been refuted above. No scientific authority thinks the earth is flat. By contrast, a significant legal authority - the US DOJ - does not consider waterboarding to be torture. Why are you trying to exclude a well-sourced position from the article? Stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this article back to saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture" on numerous occasions. I may hold the Wikipedia record for doing this. I consider attempts to portray waterboarding as something-less-that-torture on the same level as holocaust denial and justifications for ethnic cleansing and rape camps. That said, "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus." (WP:Consensus) I think proposal 3 is acceptable because it emphasizes the long and extensive support for the proposition that waterboarding is torture. Arguably that is even stronger than Wikipedia simply stating waterboarding is torture as fact. Acknowledging media reports that the US uses waterboarding and its Department of Justice has written secret opinions saying that it isn't torture, is more an inditement of the present US administration than anything else. The existence of these reports certainly belongs in this article. --agr 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably that is even stronger than Wikipedia simply stating waterboarding is torture as fact. Acknowledging media reports that the US uses waterboarding and its Department of Justice has written secret opinions saying that it isn't torture, is more an indictment (sp) of the present US administration than anything else.", This is a great point. While I may personally harbor great distrust in the current US administration and DOJ, it is still a significant entity in the world today. Readers are going to draw their own conclusions either way (actually most readers are already going to have their own conclusions going in.) In that sense, comprehensively portraying the current controversy on this matter is far more significant than whether the entry categorically states that it *is* or *isn't* torture. Madmaxmedia 21:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I may hold the Wikipedia record for doing this, I suspect I might too, a couple of years... :-) Inertia Tensor 09:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User Nescio, do you have any issues with stating in the lead that "there has been a longstanding widespread international consensus that the use of waterboarding against an individual's will is torture (and giving citations to that effect), but that recently individuals within the Bush Administration, along with U.S. politicians and political pundits have disputed this categorization (and then provide a link to later part in the article where we discuss the issue further). If you do, please state your objections below and any suggested revisions. Remember 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"[T]here has been a longstanding widespread international consensus..." - is there actually one? This claim has to be adequately sourced. And as far as I know, few governments have come right out and stated that waterboarding = torture. Most, if not all, have not expressed any opinion on it, let alone come to a consensus on the issue. Unless well-sourced, I'd be very sceptical of such an overreaching claim. 220.255.112.159 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

If you believe that the waterboarding article is POV and deserves a tag, please put your explanation below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the article comes down squarely on one side of the "is/isn't" debate, thus violating NPOV. Rather than include both viewpoints, the lede categorically rejects one of them (a viewpoint held by a significant legal authority the DOJ). Until this is resolved, the POV tag should remain. 220.255.112.159 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no is/isn't torture debate, there is no usable source that says isn't, there is however a debate as to whether it is or isn't acceptable, with a fair few US entities and politcos supporting it's use. That in no way means they have said it isn't torture. These two different questions have been obfuscated together by those that support the US practices of torturing captives. Inertia Tensor 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a reference for the claim that some people at the US DOJ believe waterboarding is not torture, and the names of those individuals? Apologies if this has already been provided.Ofus 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure.

1. Link. "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning."

2. Link. "One opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in May 2005 authorized a combination of painful physical and psychological interrogation tactics, including head slapping, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning, according to current and former officials familiar with the issue. . . . Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects, including a memo released publicly in December 2004 that declared torture 'abhorrent.'"

3. In the same article, Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First - and no friend of waterboarding - states that Justice Department lawyers say that "waterboarding is not torture": ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture".

4. Link. "The first opinion explicitly allowed a combination of techniques to be used on terrorism suspects, including slapping prisoners’ heads, simulating their drowning through waterboarding . . . . Both opinions were signed by Steven Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel."

5. Link. "The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday’s editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding".

6. Link. "Georgetown Law School professor and blogger Marty Lederman has the complete language of the accord, and concludes: '. . . That's a small consolation, I suppose; but I'm confident the creative folks in my former shop at [the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel] -- you know, those who concluded that waterboarding is not torture -- will come up with something.'"

And (not the DOJ, but a useful reference nonetheless):

Link. "The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 . . . [1-5 omitted] 6. Water Boarding . . . The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners." 220.255.112.159 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. After reading those articles, it looks to me that no one speaking officially for the Department of Justice has openly made or verified the claim that "waterboarding is not torture" (or some similar, equivalent claim). It does look like anonymous people have claimed that some unnamed DOJ officials have secretly stated that waterboarding is not torture.

Would you agree? If so, could you please state your reasoning for asserting that these secret, unverified reports reports of secret, unverified statements of unnamed DOJ employees constitute an official DOJ position that waterboarding is not torture? Ofus 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a "speaking officially" requirement? (I don't think so.)

This verified, reliably sourced statement is pretty clear: "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects".

The standard of verifiability is also clear: publication by a reliable source. The NYT, WaPo and MSNBC are reliable sources, and thus verifiable. I hope we're not trying to exclude reliably sourced information on the basis of raising and demanding more exacting standards for already-well-sourced information. WP:RS is non-negotiable. 220.255.112.159 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is verifiable is that anonymous claims were reported to the media. That doesn't change the fact that these are anonymous claims, and that they haven't been verified by the DOJ as far as I've seen.

As far as "speaking officially": If reliable sources claim that anonymous people claim that organization X endorses proposition P, yet P has not been officially endorsed by X, the claim that X endorses P is questionable. The claim that anonymous people made the claim that X endorses P is what is verifiable and therefore not questionable.Ofus 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Verified: anonymous claims made by "Justice Department officials". The articles accordingly have verified that DOJ officials are making the claim. There's no need for the DOJ to verify it themselves. That's not a wikipedia standard for verifiability.

Your "speaking officially" rationale is not found in Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability either. So I wouldn't spend too much time making convoluted arguments for it. The DOJ claims are verifiable and well-sourced according to wikipedia guidelines and thus merit inclusion. 220.255.112.159 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If all that has been verified is that some unknown number of DOJ officials have asserted that waterboarding is not torture, then it has not been verified that this viewpoint extends beyond a very small minority of people. While it might possibly be appropriate to give the official DOJ viewpoint such weight, giving such a small minority's viewpoint such undue weight is not NPOV. Ofus 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterisation of what has been verified. "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects". That's the _official_ DOJ legal opinion they are talking about, not just their personal opinion. (Please read my sources again.) So what we have here is DOJ officials describing official DOJ legal opinion - not their own personal opinions. Given that the DOJ is a significant legal authority, these exceedingly well-sourced articles merit inclusion. This is standard NPOV. Be fair. 220.255.112.159 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is needed now is the explanation of why it is not torture from those that say it is not torture. After reading up on torture, waterboarding seems to fall under that category. When experts disagree, then we have to bring the discussion to the why of it instead of just the usage of authority. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have issues with how this article should deal with classifying waterboarding as torture please place your thoughts and support or opposition under the proposals listed in the "How to deal with whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture issue." We are trying to build a consensus there on what should be done and any thoughts are welcome. Remember 13:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require an explanation though. For WP:RS, authority is all that is needed. Speculation on the legal reasoning behind the DOJ position has already been attempted above, and demonstrates the plausibility of the DOJ position, but it's OR and strictly speaking, unnecessary. 220.255.112.159 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These references originated with the infamous "torture memo". This memo/opinion was retracted/disowned by the US government soon after it was revealed. Inertia Tensor 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. These are not references to the Yoo memo that you think was withdrawn. The references plainly refer to an "opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in May 2005". The Yoo Memo that you think was retracted was written in 2002. These are two different memos. Stop peddling your uninformed nonsense. 220.255.112.159 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controlled drowning" used by NPR

From NPR All Things Considered program, November 6, 2007:[14]

“ Waterboarding is a process of controlled drowning used in the Spanish Inquisition and by tyrannical governments ever since.

For more than a century, it has been considered a war crime by the United States and prosecuted as such. The top legal officers of all the military services have testified that waterboarding is illegal under U.S. and international law.

”

Badagnani 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this is a reliable source of information? You didn't even quote a person, you quoted a station.

That's like me saying, "Waterboarding is not torture" From CNN

If you are going to use a quote, please give us specifics. Besides, I would have to question your source, it does not seem reliable to me:

"Wash. Post Media Critic: NPR is Liberally Biased

In CNN interview, paper's Howard Kurtz noted radio network's taxpayer-funded leftward slant."

[[15]]

That's quite some assertion. The CEO of NPR, Kevin Klose, used to run an agency of the U.S. government that was not exactly "liberal" in any way. By the way, check the byline (did you?); it says "Nina Totenberg." Badagnani 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

You claim the CEO Kevin Klose isn't liberally biased, so are you insuating that therefore Nina Totenberg is not biased? I would disagree with you. I would argue that she does not attempt to hide her political affiliation whatsoever. How about the hiring of a presidential candidate's daughter?

"No Conflict? NPR's Nina Totenberg Takes on John Edwards Daughter As Summer Intern" By Tim Graham | May 3, 2007 - 07:27 ET

"Here's another sign that public broadcasters aren't worried about the appearance of Democratic favoritism. National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg -- legendary (or infamous) for championing Anita Hill's unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas, and then yawning at all harassment claims against Bill Clinton -- is hiring the daughter of liberal Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a summer intern, and her NPR bosses "gave the green light, since the election is still 18 months away."

The Washington Post gossip column that broke the story couldn't even get word from NPR as to whether Cate Edwards will stop making campaign appearances during the internship..."

So my statement still stands about NPR. Waterboarding appears to be a partisan issue, because it seems clear that each "side" has their own definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.210.214 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

User 71.109.210.214, what exactly is your objection? Do you believe "controlled drowning" is not the correct term? Do you believe it to be a partisan term? If so what is the correct non-partisan term used to describe waterboarding? Remember 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

To answer your question, I believe the position that waterboarding is a form of "torture" or "controlled drowning" is a moderate or centrist position. One could also call this a conservative position, in light of the historical international and U.S. legal opinion on the matter--witness the recent statements from the Judge Advocate Generals (the chief attorneys of all four branches of the U.S. Armed Forces)--stating categorically that waterboarding, as a form of torture and thus a war crime, is impermissible for use by any U.S. military personnel. I notice that this position has not been mentioned earlier. Badagnani 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

My objection(s)- Calling waterboarding "torture" is an opinion, not a fact. The correct "term" is not 'controlled drowning;' it's waterboarding. I believe it's a partisan term because it seems (overwhelmingly) that both parties have distinct viewpoints on this technique. In my opinion (and many others share the same feelings, regardless of what you find in the mainstream media) waterboarding is a method of interrogation. Some could also refer to it as "coerced confessions".

I think for the simple fact that this issue is the subject of numerous heated debates (as evident of this discussion page, and in politics as well), that until there is a "clear-cut" winner, both terms (Method of interrogation & torture) should be used as the definition of waterboarding until this situation is resolved.

---

Why Controlled drowning is inappropriate,

Drowning is death as caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body's absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. The primary cause of death is hypoxia and acidosis leading to cardiac arrest.

The term drowning indicates death, no death here no drowning. Its akin to the often misused term electrocution. Some alternate wording should be used. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

Reading this page I can't help but notice that people lose the focus of what this is about.

1. Waterboardinghas always been considered torture, even by the US. (sourced as noted before)
2. UNCAT defines torture, as mentioned before, and waterboarding falls within that definition although it is not specifically mentioned. I am sure having an all white policy in any company is not mentioned as such by the law (explicitly defining an all white policy racism) but it is silly to not describe such a company as racist. To insist theat neither statement is allowed is an overly strict and thereby unreasonable application of WP:NOR.
3. Whether or not some individuals contend the earth is flat or some designer is behind the universe does not mean there is an actual global controversy within the scientific community on those topics. To present these examples fair and balanced would violate undue weight. The same is true here. Nobody denies certain individuals suggest it is not torture, but it is clear that most, if not all, legal scholars and institutions that are not linked to the Bush administration have a different view. To claim that we need to represent what certainly is a minority and fringe interpretation of UNCAT on equal footing with the mainstream view that has existed for centuries is disengenious at best.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That waterboarding falls into the CAT definition is just bald assertion on your part. Why do you think there's a controversy between significant legal authorities?

Your comparison to flat earthers and intelligent design is also specious. No significant scientific authority claims the earth is flat, while intelligent design is a metaphysical claim, untestable, and therefore not even in the realm of science, let alone scientific authority.

By contrast, a significant legal authority in the US DOJ does not consider waterboarding to be torture. Note the difference. Suppression and exclusion of a well-known legal authority is a straightforward violation of NPOV. So, unless you're claiming that the US Justice Department is not a significant legal entity, NPOV remains in force, whether you like it or not. 220.255.112.159 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the US DoJ is supposed to be allowed as speaker for the entire planet. In the old days undue weight was applied and as such this comment would not be allowed to balance the opinions.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The DoJ memo was retracted long ago, and was since repudiated. Notwithstanding this, I don't think a torturer saying something is not torture should carry weight. Mention yes, weight no. Would we say Murder is not "unlawful killing" if a Murderer declared that to be so? Inertia Tensor 07:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything about Yoo's DOJ memo. And how many times do I have to link to the replacement DOJ memo that states: "While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum."? Try informing yourself before you reply. The DOJ position is well-sourced. And unfortunately for you, the DOJ isn't torturing anyone. Nor do wikipedia rules say anything about murderers and unlawful killing (and even then you're obviously wrong - there are many forms of killing that are lawful and even forms of homicide that do not amount to murder). Instead of demonstrating ignorance about the law perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:RS and NPOV. 220.255.112.159 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect us to take seriously an opinion on the redefinition of torture from a torturer? Come on. Read the NON-US Gov sources on what is torture. Inertia Tensor 08:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Laughable. Now that you belatedly realised that the subsequent DOJ memos reaffirm the earlier Yoo memo, and that the DOJ does not consider waterboarding to be torture, you're changing tack, saying that the DOJ shouldn't be trusted. Unfortunately for you, the DOJ is a well-known and significant legal authority, and thus merits inclusion. Try sticking to NPOV instead of attempting to exclude a significant contrary view from the subject. 220.255.112.159 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read and understand my comment before responding and lecturing.... Murder is pretty much universally held to be unlawful killing of a person, of course unlawful varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; the clear point I was making, that you didn't seem to understand was if someone convicted of murder says it is not murder but say enhanced population control, are we to take that seriously? BTW you also went on to say "wikipedia rules say anything about murderers and unlawful killing", the English language has quite a few rules though. Unless of course you plan on next unilaterally redefining the definition of murder? I've no idea why you just latched on to murder as the object when it was being used as a corollary only. Inertia Tensor 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no one cares about your irrelevant twaddle on murder. See anything about murder in WP:RS? No. The DOJ provides legal advice. It doesn't torture anyone. Nor was it convicted of anything, so stop begging the question. And the DOJ is a significant legal authority. Familiarize yourself with NPOV. 220.255.112.159 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The DoJ is a part of the US regime/government/whatever and that IS torturing. The guilty party doesn't get to redefine their crime. Inertia Tensor 08:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do "whatevers". And Wikipedia doesn't say anything about "guilty parties" (which the DOJ is not, since you're merely begging the question again. Unless you can cite an actual Wikipedia rule in your favour, please stop trying to exclude the position of a significant legal authority's in violation of NPOV. 220.255.112.159 08:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have issues with how this article should deal with classifying waterboarding as torture please place your thoughts and support or opposition under the proposals listed in the "How to deal with whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture issue." We are trying to build a consensus there on what should be done and any thoughts are welcome. Remember 13:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the position of the US government that Waterboarding is not torture. The position of the US government as to whether waterboarding is torture, is currently : no position. They will not be drawn either way. Now of course wiki cannot go an infer the obvious meaning from that, they probably know well it is - that would be for the readers to do. We can however state it is torture, because every notable source says it is, and no one says it isn't. Inertia Tensor 07:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the position of the DOJ is that it doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture. And this is well-sourced. Scroll up. Plenty of reliable sources on subsequent DOJ memos and the DOJ position. Ignoring it won't work. And for the last time, NONE of the sources are referring to the Yoo Memo written in 2002 that you think was retracted. That you're unaware of the follow-up DOJ memos in 2004 and 2005 and the subsequent well-sourced DOJ position is obvious. So, instead of making ignorant assertions, you should consult the numerous sources already provided and inform yourself on the current state of play. 220.255.112.159 08:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the DOJ doesn't consider waterboarding to be or not to be torture. It refuses to consider - period. Scroll up. Ignoring it won't work. It was very publicly disowned and retracted as an unapproved legal opinion once revealed. Inertia Tensor 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does. At least 6 sources provided above. Read it. And weep. It was the John Yoo 2002 memo that was "retracted". NOT the 2004 and 2005 memos which were referenced in the sources I mentioned. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You're apparently unaware of the follow-up DOJ memos. So again: inform yourself. 220.255.112.159 08:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did see those opinions, and you are right they exist, however as I have said over and over, Do torturers get to redefine torture? - does it count for diddly? For that matter does the DoJ have any role in interpreting law, I though that was the judiciary - a very deliberately separate branch of government.... Inertia Tensor 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lmao. You've seen them now. Again, the DOJ is a significant legal authority. And yes, the OLC (part of the DOJ) has a role in interpreting the law and giving independent legal advice - and its opinions may even be binding law. It counts, even if you dislike what they say. 220.255.112.159 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a particularly funny subject. Yes, this opinion should be mentioned--but not privileged in the lead. Badagnani 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies in the lede. No one is privileging anything except you, with repeated attempts at excluding the position of a significant legal authority from the lede. Unlike you, I'm not saying that one side is right. I am saying that we include significant legal authorities from BOTH sides of the debate (without coming down squarely on one side) - and that includes the DOJ. Wikipedia is pretty clear on NPOV. 220.255.112.159 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find a rather inconvenient concept mentioned there. Undue Weight. That means a couple of lunatics do not get to use their fringe opinion to remove something because it is not 100.000% unanimous. 1vs the world, sorry no dice, not going to happen. Undue Weight. Inertia Tensor 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that there is no undue weight since the DOJ is a significant legal authority. Like it or not, the Justice Department aren't "lunatics". Nor are they "fringe", since the DOJ has been widely quoted and reliably sourced by mainstream news sources (see the 6 sources above, including, inter alia: the NYT, WaPo, and MSNBC). Stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 08:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you subscribe to: THIS DEFINITION then? It is about as logical as giving any weight to a torturer defining torture. Inertia Tensor 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Humorous, but not really relevant. Since the DOJ isn't torturing anyone, the repeated assertion that they do is just false on its face (not to mention an instance of begging the question). And no, I'm not "subscribing" to anything in the sense of asserting that the DOJ position is correct. What I'm disagreeing with is the sustained effort to violate NPOV by excluding the opinion of a significant legal authority from this article (however odious you think that opinion is). 220.255.112.159 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is their very best article. The DOJ is an internal part of the US Gov/administration/executive - as is the CIA. The US Administration does not get to redefine torture because it practices it. See undue weight. Inertia Tensor 08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The DOJ is a significant legal authority whether you like it or not. No undue weight is being accorded to them: only a well-sourced mention of their position on the issue. You are trying to COMPLETELY exclude their mention in violation of NPOV. Doesn't work. Nor is it the DOJ vs. the world as you so piquantly put it above, since the rest of the world hasn't said anything about whether waterboarding is torture or not. Absent the non-existent opinions of other governments, it's the DOJ vs. the US government's critics. Both are well-sourced, both should be included. Please adhere to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You say it is, I agree, I also say in this case NPOV:Undue Weight applies. Regardless, please add it below so we can get others involved. Inertia Tensor 09:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The DOJ opinion (that waterboarding is not a form of torture) should be mentioned--but not privileged as an "alternative definition" in the lead. Badagnani 09:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not being privileged since it is being mentioned along with the non-DOJ opinion. For example, I have no objection and have never objected to (and indeed, have reverted to) Larry Cohen's version stating that "numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture". So that viewpoint is not excluded. On the contrary: it is very much included. By contrast, you're trying to exclude the DOJ viewpoint by coming down squarely on the anti-DOJ side of the debate, and excluding the position of a significant legal authority. That's a straightforward violation of NPOV. 220.255.112.159 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add your DoJ source to the ones below and we can hash them all out methodically, else it will remain a slagging match by both of us, thanks. Inertia Tensor 09:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't be arsed now. Only have time for scattered comments. Maybe tomorrow. 220.255.112.159 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit

Waterboarding actually saves TERORRIST lives.

Think about this:

If there is no way to effectively interrogate terrorists, what incentive is there for the military to ever risk attempting to capture enemies alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit for the article, Daniel Levin, Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, underwent waterboarding so that he could understand it before he wrote an opinion on it. [16] Remember 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly worthy of mention low down, but should carry no weight as we can't have the same people who practice it saying it is or isn't torture due to strong bias. Inertia Tensor 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorial supporting waterboarding

When this page becomes unlocked, it should probably be worth noting the political commentators that supported the idea that the United States should waterboard suspects. Such as this one: [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but as others have said above - we should be clear and not confuse two very different issues/questions.

* Waterboarding {is / is not} torture.

* Waterboarding {is / is not} acceptable {in some cases}. Inertia Tensor 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The likely reason behind the current U.S. presidential administration and Department of Justice ambivalence about whether it is torture boils down to "We want to do it," and, thus they are obfuscating the language and definitions 180 degrees from the agreed-upon meaning. If it's no longer torture, by their tortured reasoning, it's no longer impermissible. Orwell spoke about this very linguistic tactic several decades ago in one of his novels. Badagnani 07:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that the cases where commentators such as that former NY Mayor support the idea that the United States should waterboard suspects, should go in the "United States section", and certainly not the header. Inertia Tensor 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock Proposal

This subcat is NOT for the discussion of waterboarding.

I propose this topic only be unlocked when we have reached a concensus, AND written a resulting draft of the first paragraph in Talk, and it has been signed up on. Inertia Tensor 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacement Header

This subcat is NOT for the discussion of waterboarding, or hashing out a new version - make another sub-cat for that.

When we have reached sort sort of consensus, and have written a proposed replacement of the opener which people agree on, then please place the already-agreed version of it here, Allison or Chaser can then have a look at it, and consider whether it is safe to unlock. Inertia Tensor 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some observations (from entities & people we can use) - Sources Discussion

Let's try a methodical approach instead of this rolling row. The opinion of a wiki editor either way is not what counts here at all. These do.

• Please try to preserve formatting and hierarchical structure when you comment or add additional sources (DoJ) etc, so we can individually comment on them and not make one big mess. Inertia Tensor 08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have a serious disagreement we need to resolve methodically, as all other attempts have failed. IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?.

• Some say yes, and that no one says otherwise
• Some say yes, and that the one (or more?) that says otherwise is afflicted by NPOV:Undue weight (can a torturer say it is not torture and carry substantial weight)
• Some say no, or maybe not, and that tht it is controversial as there are good sources on both sides, so we can't just state Waterboarding is Torture.

Please restrict this to authoritative sources, and discussion of their authority or not, undue weight or not etc. We have to try a new approach. Inertia Tensor 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

100 U.S. law professors

• In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.

START COMMENT HERE

Most likely liberal democratic activists who find fault with this administration whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.240.42 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

John McCain

• According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. [18]

Lindsey Graham

• Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal." --agr 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another great supporting source, thanks agr. Inertia Tensor 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CIA Tunisia Report

• In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

This is not strictly speaking waterboarding, but is the much milder dunking. Inertia Tensor 08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CONTINUE COMMENT HERE

Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program.

• A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see." Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "Yes, it's torture". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.

START COMMENT HERE

Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

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

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

Er, no. 18 USC 2340 does NOT say that "waterboarding is torture." The DOJ relied on this statute for its own analysis, and came to the opposite position. Asserting that waterboarding meets the definition in this statute is bald assertion on your part, begging the question once again, and OR in any event. Since this statute is the basis of DOJ opinion on the issue, we could just as easily say that it supports the DOJ's position rather than yours. 220.255.112.159 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We have no idea what the DOJ relied on. The opinion is secret. --11:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)

Nor does is say Kalpoirygagola is Torture. Now if I pull out all your nails in a unique way, with say shears, and describe this new method as Kalpoirygagola, is that not torture because it does not literally say Kalpoirygagola is torture? I think we have to apply a bit common sense here, and Wiki allows that - simple common sense reading is not considered OR. Thank you for helping me deal with this in a new breakout approach. Inertia Tensor 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But no one says that Kalpoirygagola is torture (or the opposite, that Kalpoirygagola isn't torture). So that's irrelevant to the debate since NO SOURCES are involved for either view. If there's a well-sourced opinion by the DOJ or any other legal authority that says that an exotic method of pulling out your nails with shears isn't torture, then by Wikipedia rules, it should be included per NPOV. Sourcing has everything to do with it. "Commonsense reading" in your case is just an euphemism for your interpretation, assumes what is to be proved (aka begging the question), is OR, and quite irrelevant. 220.255.112.159 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that opinion should be included in the article, in the section about U.S. use of this technique. But it should not be privileged as an "alternate definition" in the lead. Badagnani 09:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani you've said that three times now, and it doesn't make any more sense each time you say it. The DOJ's position isn't being privileged. It merits inclusion along with the non-DOJ opinion. Both opinions merit inclusion, but you'd like to exclude one. So if anything, you are attempting to privilege the anti-DOJ position by excluding the DOJ position. NPOV applies to the lede, whether you like it or not. 220.255.112.159 09:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one should be excluded from the lead, for reasons stated above. Badagnani 09:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. NPOV applies to the lede. We have significant legal authorities on both sides here. 220.255.112.159 09:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with 220.255.112.159 here. The lede should mention reports that the US uses waterboarding and that the DOJ issued a secret opinion justifing that use by claiming waterboarding isn't torture. It's an important part of an unfolding story. Readers can decide for themselves if this indicates "significant legal authorities on both sides" or the feeble attempt of a war criminal's lawyer to protect his client.--agr 11:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

---

• I am archiving this section as there is as close to consensus as we are going to get. We don't all agree (I certainly don't), however people on opposite views have agreed on elements.

• The US law source is valid, readers should be allowed to interpret it themselves.
• The fact that a secret opinion was issued by DoJ that conflicts with it is also noteworthy for mention.
• This does not address whether undue weight applies to the DoJ, is that DoJ opinion just a mention or does it carry weight? - please create a NEW section for the actual DoJ source which is unresolved, where we can trash out the whole undue issue either way, this is purely for mention and use of Particular narrow source - This legal statute. Inertia Tensor 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

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

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

START COMMENT HERE

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e

• "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

START COMMENT HERE

Jurist- Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff

• Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on.

Ref needs tweaking, this is Op Ed, not Jurist saying so. I propose to change the ref to be (as shown in the refs footer - not the article itself)

Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff

Inertia Tensor 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

CONTINUE COMMENT HERE

Jimmy Carter

• Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007

START COMMENT HERE

Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926

• [19]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding.

"The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."

I'm not sure if they were waterboarding the suspect in this case if they were administering the water cure, which as I understand it focuses on forcing the subject to ingest large amounts of water as opposed to only forcing water into the lungs of the victim. -- Remember (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link. "The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed" I think pouring water into someone's nose counts as "forcing water into the lungs of the victim." Seleucus (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But what influence did racism have on this event?--Can Not (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted the race of the defendent because the Mississippi Supreme Court in 1926 would have been extremely biased against any African-American defendant; their overturn of his conviction due to the use of waterboarding should be viewed as especially significant. Seleucus (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

International Military Tribunal for the Far East

The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

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

This is the international war crimes tribunal which tried Japanese war crimes - directly analogous to the tribunal which tried Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg. The United States participated, as did all the major Allied powers. The "water treatment" referenced is waterboarding, based on descriptions cited in "drop by drop". Worldworld 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A description of the "water treatment" from the same page. From the sound of it basically identical to the US technique.

The so-called "water treatment" was commonly applied. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process. There was evidence that this torture was used in the following places: China, at Shanghai, Peiping and Nanking; French Indo-China, at Hanoi and Saigon; Malaya, at Singapore; Burma, at Kyaikto; Thailand, at Chumporn; Andaman Islands, at Port Blair; Borneo, at Jesselton; Sumatra, at Medan, Tadjong Karang and Palembank; Java, at Batavia, Bandung, Soerabaja and Buitennzong; Celebes, at Makassar; Portuguese Timor, at Ossu and Dilli; Philippines, at Manila, Nichols Field, Palo Beach and Dumaguete; Formosa, at Camp Haito; and in Japan, at Tokyo.

Worldworld 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

START COMMENT HERE

ADD YOUR SOURCE FOR OR AGAINST HERE 3 etc

• Cite it here as ref, without [ref] tags though

START COMMENT HERE

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/former-interrogator-enters-waterboarding-fray/index.html?ex=1355029200&en=24bb2ab7b1b414da&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaull (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)