Talk:Torture/Archive 1

message: "torture is practiced by perverted individuals who enjoyed the sadistic pleasure of causing and observing agony"
This seems a bit of a NPOV violation. A good encyclopedia presents facts, not labels.
it appears that the opening of the article defines torture in part by the uses or ends which are sougth by its use: "Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions ..." In light of that i think the previous writer has a point - torture may be a means to a form of pleasure as well as a merely utilitarian technique. The article should be edited to distinguish what torture is from the ends which it serves. it may very well be that it will be difficult to find people willing to perform the merely utilitarian work of extracting confessions,etc., unless they come to like their work! Richard Rosenberg
:I think that's a good point. It reminds me that there have been some interesting reports from South American areas where torture was used by agencies in one or another central government. (I can't remember the details offhand. Amnesty International reported on it, I think.) If I recall correctly, people who had been drafted or coerced into the agencies that were performing torture learned to enjoy it.  Adler thought that there was an innate drive in human beings to exert power over others, and did a great deal of work to untangle seemingly incomprehensible networks of human interactions. Rather than "follow the money," his mantra was "follow the power."  Some people are probably more resilient to the seduction of power, and it may be because they have escaped being controlled in a negative way by other people, do not feel a need to pay somebody back, to make other people feel as bad as they have felt, etc.  
:If it is true that innate features of all humans and/or traumatic events in the personal histories of individuals making it attractive to inflict pain on other people or control them be the use of force or degradation, then it would follow that some people would be unlikely to become torturers on their own initiative but might easily be pushed in that direction by external forces.  
:The torture issue seems to be at the intersection of two larger topics: (1) pathologies (social and individual) and (2) things that people can do to others (for whatever reasons).  
:A root canal procedure is ordinarily a beneficial but painful operation. Sequential root canal procedures could be used to extract information or to be used to obviate the necessity of extracting teeth. What would it be if a person intent on torturing somebody actually benefitted that person by performing a needed root canal?  What we are primarily interested in is preventing and correcting bad behavior. We would look differently at (1) a legitimate dental surgery performed by a qualified individual, (2) the same operation attempted by a quack -- however well intentioned, (3) a procedure performed with the intent of hurting somebody. The corrective action appropriate to a quack is different from the corrective action appropriate to a psychopath. P0M 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perverted Individuals

message: As a starting point for better defining torture, here is what the UN Convention Against Torture says: (taken from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html )
For the purposes of this Convention, 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.
=== extradite ===
At the moment the article says:
:The mere act of handing somebody to another organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention.
But that is not what the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" says. What it says is:
:1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
:2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 
This means that if the person is handed over and it does not involve "expel", "return", or "extradite",  then the treaty had not been broken, even if the "organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention". This may not be in the sprit of the Treaty but it is within the wording.
For example if Country A has armed foreces with expertise which helps Country B to capture Mr X a citizen of country B, inside country B, if Mr X is then handed over to the tortures of country B, the treaty had not been broken because, the person had not been expel, return ("refouler") or extradite. Philip Baird Shearer
:One would hope that apart from just obeying the spirit and letter of the law, our governments would choose to do what is right. Unfortunatly too many seem to think that the right thing to do is to have people tortured.Koonan the almost civilised 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN Convention 

message: At the moment the article says:
:The mere act of handing somebody to another organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention.
But that is not what the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" says. What it says is:
:1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
:2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 
This means that if the person is handed over and it does not involve "expel", "return", or "extradite",  then the treaty had not been broken, even if the "organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention". This may not be in the sprit of the Treaty but it is within the wording.
For example if Country A has armed foreces with expertise which helps Country B to capture Mr X a citizen of country B, inside country B, if Mr X is then handed over to the tortures of country B, the treaty had not been broken because, the person had not been expel, return ("refouler") or extradite. Philip Baird Shearer
:One would hope that apart from just obeying the spirit and letter of the law, our governments would choose to do what is right. Unfortunatly too many seem to think that the right thing to do is to have people tortured.Koonan the almost civilised 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  extradite 

message: I would suggest to take out the whole reference re Execution. While death is obviously one of the outcomes of torture there appears to me a major difference between "death in captivity" and a formal execution based on a court judgement.
I would also suggest to put in the complete UN convention definition. It is not really a major debating point what constitutes torture. The definition is clear enough and courts around the world have also drawn the lines quite clearly. The controversy - as far as it stands - is more concerned with whether there are instances when torture would be a legitimate.
I will try and continue to update this section
Refdoc
I think the section on Execution is pertinent to the subject of torture. Many listed forms of execution and capital punishment bear much similarity to forms of torture and differ only in their intentions. In a sense execution is torture to a different degree. Whereas one might use electrocution in order to extract information or cause psychological or physical harm, another uses it to execute someone.
Ross
:I disagree with the proposal to remove execution from the scope of this article, although execution surely deserves its own article as well. The reason for my position is that in many legal jurisdictions (particularly Europe and much of the British Commonwealth, including Canada), execution has been ruled to be a form of torture or "cruel or unusual punishment". Furthermore, execution is also recognized as such in international law. It therefore deserves a place on this page. --Todeswalzer | Talk 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution

message: :I'm not convinced about the definition being at all clear and uncontraversial - for instance, this news article referenced on Current events contains the following statement:
:The Geneva Conventions outlaw the torture and execution of prisoners. But rulings by the European Court of Human Rights found that sleep or food deprivation, sustained noise, forced standing and sensory deprivation (called "hooding") are not considered torture.
:Now, I don't know how accurate that statement is, but I don't think anyone from Amnesty International would have quite the same definition, do you?  The Geneva definition suffers because it uses the word severe to qualify pain or suffering, which is actually a very vague term.
:- IMSoP 05:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Geneva Conventions European -European Court of Human Rights 

message: I'm writing about the inclusion of lethal injection as a "potentially painful method" here.  I know there's a huge amount of debate on the issue, but I was unaware that people can feel pain when every nerve in their body has been depolarized.  Pakaran. 02:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah idon't see how killing someone isn't covered by these anti-torture laws, it's clearly the worst way of hurting a person. if they were going to kille me i would think that would be pretty "cruel" "unusual" "inhuman" and any other word they use to describe torture... anyway, just an opinion..--84.195.27.179 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Killing someone isn't necessarily torturous, it can be prolonged and meaningfully painful as a form of torture. Dieing isn't necessarily painful either.
What is it about topics related to torture and interrogation that villains described in detail are largely CIA and Israelies? Has there not been enough torture elsewhere? Or is this back to the pour dirt on the "hypocritical West" agenda while ignoring bigger crimes of the rest of the world? Watcher 10:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: well, the rest of the worlds isn't using a four hundred thousand million dollar defense budget to go claim their moral superiority accross the globe. greaty powers, great responsibility. that sort of stuff.--84.195.27.179 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then you should write to balance the articles. See NPOV for our policy on such things. -- The Anome 10:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Executions lethal injection

message: :Officially sanctioned torture has occurred in the context of the U.S. led war on terrorism [1] where it is frequently held to be justified by necessity.
Tha article referenced in [1] above  Washington Post: Torture Policy (cont'd) Monday, June 21, 2004; Page A18  does not say that in US "Officially sanctioned torture has occurred". What the Americans have done is use simlar criteria to the UK in the early 1970s and tried to use as much physical force as possible without resorting to torture. The only international court ruling on this, is the one by the ECHR when it ruled against UK for The five (sensory deprivation) techniques and found the UK in breach of Article 3 in that the methods amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment but they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood.
This of course is no way binding on the US, but it is an indication of what lawers in international law thinks defines torture and from what the US administration seems to be saying is a similar legal bench mark which they use. This may not be what many people think of as ethical behaviour but it does mean that the US has not breached its treaty obligations and used torture. So as that source does not describe the US using torture "just" methods which verge on torture, I am going to alter it to point to the UK example. Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not US officially sanctioned torture

message: I reverted changes by 208.178.23.220, I don't think boilerplate about people not condoning torture is an improvement over the previous version.  BCoates 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: reverted

message: The second paragraph seems to intentionally imply that torture is and will be practiced anyplace in the world as long as the authorities can arrange appearances to protect themselves from facing up to their crimes.  I am not sure that the person who wrote that paragraph intended to make such a blanket condemnation of human nature (or at human nature as it is expressed in the halls of government). Nor am I yet sure that torture will inevitably be practiced in the U.S. providing only that the right face can be put upon the matter -- which seems to me to be the trust of this paragraph. If the writers and others who have worked on this article want to make such a strong claim, then I think it is incumbent upon them to contextualize their charges and also to provide substantiation in the form of scholarly citations, court records, etc. I hope that the U.S. has not fallen to this level of public immorality, but I fear that it has. The facts that I am aware of suggest that civil rights violations, including killing and torture, are visited upon U.S. citizens by governments, quasi-governmental organs (I'm thinking of militias), hate groups, etc.  But they also indicate that higher authorities have successfully acted to redress injustices and terminate illegal practices when state and local governments have become corrupt, and that the activities of militias, hate groups, etc. are routinely fought against both by organs of government and by non-governmental organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law organization.  
As it stands, the paragraphs mentioned have the quality of dark mutterings in the corner. As such, those who believe that governments are corrupt and evil will concur and those who trust government will selectively disattend to these charges. If there is anything provable to be said against any western governments (or other governments for that matter), then that should be said in the open so that it can by fairly challenged by anyone who does not accept the evidence or the reasoning behind the charges. P0M 07:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications of para. 2 -- Intended? 

message: The Spanish Inquisition around 1800? Was it still around? Also, Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 1800s, and he would not have accepted torture (judicial torture had been abolished by the French Revolution). David.Monniaux 15:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circa 1800? 

message: The legal definition should come early in the article not towards the end because one has to define what torture is before describing it. For example it is necessary to define torture as "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".
If this is not done then the explanations of things like  "stress and duress" and "Torture by proxy" and "Secrecy / publicity" are not in context and are not clearly explained. Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The section on the Geneva Convention is long-winded and irrelevant (since no context is established), and unlikely to be what the reader is looking for. This material should be moved to Geneva Convention, and a brief summary of it placed at the end of the Torture article. Legal claptrap is not the target information for the literal term "Torture". Specific instances, statistics, and methods are more likely to be what is sought. Jeeves 00:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section ordering 

message: A recent change says that torture is legal in Israel. Such claims should be provided with citations to specific laws. P0M 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sine I doen't speak fluently legalese please point me to the relevant section. I find "Petitioners challenge the legality of these methods." and "Petition denied." that makes it sound like they have upheld the use of torture. Is a GSS investigator authorized to employ physical means in order to obtain this information? The state answers in the affirmative. The use of physical means should not constitute a criminal offence, and their use should be sanctioned, according to the state, by the “necessity” defense. // Liftarn
"Held: The Court held that the GSS did not have the authority employ certain methods challenged by the petitioners. The Court also held that the “necessity defense,” found in the Israeli Penal Law, could serve to ex ante allow GSS investigators to employ such interrogation practices. The Court's decision did not negate the possibility that the “necessity defense” would be available post factum to GSS investigators—either in the choice made by the Attorney-General in deciding whether to prosecute, or according to the discretion of the court if criminal charges are brought were brought against them." This is the court's own summary (it is very early on in the decision). It says (simplified) [note GSS is Israel Internal Security Service - like MI5 or the FBI]: The GSS cannot apply physical pressure to prisoners - let alone torture them - for whatever reason. The stuff about "necessary defense" is basically saying that Israeli law - technically - allows it; however this Court (the Supreme Court) thinks it is unconstitutional. Given, though, that a GSS operative tried for torture could claim it is not against the law, the Court says it cannot rule out the possibility s/he would get off in a criminal court. The Supreme COurt is effectively saying torture is wrong, physical pressure is wrong, and the law should be changed in order to stop anyone getting out of punishment on a legal loophole. --Batmanand 20:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legalized torture 

message: I have moved the growing information on specific countries into the Uses of torture in recent times article which is in line with the original move of country information from this article into that sub-article. This keeps controversial POVs in the one sub-article and saves the spaghetti linking as was starting to happen with the section on Israel. The Soviet Union information should probably be moved from this article/section into TiRT as well....  --Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture in recent times

message: Alleged detention and interrogation practices
The following are some of the detention or interrogation practices that are alleged to have been authorized or used by the USA during the "war on terror". Some appear to have been tailored to specific cultural or religious sensitivities of the detainees, thereby introducing a discriminatory element to the abuse. Techniques are often used in combination. Neither gender nor age has offered protection. Children, the elderly, women and men are reported to have been among the subjects of torture or ill-treatment. This list does not claim to be exhaustive.
          o Abduction
          o Barbed wire, forced to walk barefoot on
          o Blindfolding
          o "Burking" – hand over detainee’s mouth/nose to prevent breathing
          o Cell extraction, brutal/punitive use of
          o Chemical/pepper spray, misuse of
          o Cigarette burns
          o Claustrophia-inducing techniques, e.g. tied headfirst in sleeping bag, shut in lockers
          o Death threats
          o Dietary manipulation
          o Dogs used to threaten and intimidate
          o Dousing in cold water
          o Electric shocks, threats of electric shocks
          o Exposure to weather and temperature extremes, especially via air-conditioning
          o Flags, wrapped in Israeli or US flags during or prior to interrogation
          o Food and water deprivation
          o Forced shaving, ie of head, body or facial hair
          o Forcible injections, including with unidentified substances
          o Ground, forced to lie on bare ground while agents stand on back or back of legs
          o Hooding
          o Hostage-taking, i.e. individuals detained to force surrender of relatives
          o Humiliation, eg forced crawling, forced to make animal noises, being urinated upon.
          o Immersion in water to induce perception of drowning
          o Incommunicado detention
          o Induced perception of suffocation or asyphxiation
          o Light deprivation
          o Loud music, noise, yelling
          o Mock execution
          o Photography and videoing as humiliation
          o Physical assault, eg punching, kicking, beatings with hands, hose, batons, guns, etc
          o Physical exercise to the point of exhaustion, e.g. "ups and downs", carrying rocks
          o Piling, i.e. detainee is sat on or jumped on by one or more people ("dog/pig pile")
          o Prolonged interrogations, eg 20 hours
          o Racial and religious taunts, humiliation
          o Relatives, denial of access to, excessive censorship of communications with
          o Religious intolerance, eg disrespect for Koran, religious rituals
          o Secret detention
          o Secret transfer
          o Sensory deprivation
          o Sexual humiliation
          o Sexual assault
          o Shackles and handcuffs, excessive and cruel use of. Includes "short shackling"
          o Sleep adjustment
          o Sleep deprivation
          o Solitary confinement for prolonged periods, eg months or more than a year
          o Stress positions, eg prolonged forced kneeling and standing
          o Stripping, nudity, excessive or humiliating use of
          o Strip searches, excessive or humiliating use of
          o Strobe lighting
          o Suspension, with use of handcuffs/shackles
          o Threat of rape
          o Threats of reprisals against relatives
          o Threat of transfer to third country to inspire fear of torture or death
          o Threat of transfer to Guantánamo
          o Threats of torture or ill-treatment
          o Twenty-four hour bright lighting
          o Withdrawal of "comfort items", including religious items
          o Withholding of information, e.g. not telling detainee where he is
          o Withholding of medication
          o Withholding of toilet facilities, leading to defecation and urination in clothing
4.250.168.145 16:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: American torture

message: "so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations. 
Whose opinion is this? Is there a reference for it? It would seem to me that if any government is able to "authorise" (give authority for) anything in a certain territory, then it has de-facto jurisdiction.
Pmurray bigpond.com 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose opinion is this? 

message: I have removed many of the "they"s which are ungrammatical.
For other future editors/writers, please note that "they" should have a plural antecedent. Thus, something like "a person exercises their democratic right by voting" is ungrammatical.
Rintrah
* It is customary to put new talk sections at the bottom of a talk page. So I have moved it here.
:"A person exercise its democratic right by voting" my be grammatically correct but is not normally used. I think it is acceptable to use their in this context as it removes gender from the sentence, is not convoluted, and is in common usage. 
:Specifically your changes imply that for war crimes to be committed there must be more than one person involved. EG:
:* Before you change:Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes...
:* After:Once persons in an international armed conflict have been found guilty of war crimes...
:If you wish to replace they with "he, or she," then although it is clumsy and stilted, I will not object. EG:
::Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or they are not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, they no longer have the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
:with
::Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or she, or he, is not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, he, or she, no longer has the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
:-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A person, who is found guilty of war crimes in an international armed conflict, or is not protected by GCIV because of some other expemption, is no longer protected by the Geneva Conventions.
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: It strikes me that this article is in the wrong order.  It ought to start, after the introduction, with the history of torture and the modern status ought to be way down the end somewhere.  Does anyone have strong feelings about this, and if not, would they mind if I tried to make a more sensible and logical reordering of the sections? Lao Wai 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising? 

message: I noticed someone had changed one of the terms for strappado from "Palestinian hanging" to "American hanging". I've gone ahead and change it back, for now. I am not familar with the term "American hanging", although strappado has been used by American forces at Abu Ghraib. The term "Palestinian hanging" is a loaded phrase, I'll admit, but is used several times in court documents like Aksoy v. Turkey and was used in news reports in the death of Manadel al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib. Is there a source for the "American hanging" term? --YoungFreud 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strappado 

message: The caption refers to a homosexual being tortured.  I'm familiar with this woodblock and all of interpretations I've seen refer to a heritic being tortured, not a homosexual.  Heretics were tortured prior to death to give them an 'opportunity' to recant their heresy and thereby avoid hell.  Homosexuals generally weren't given that option as they weren't heretics, just run-of-the-mill sinners.  I suspect someone's POV at work.  I'm modifying the caption to refer to a Heretic being tortured, not a homosexual.
--Lepeu1999 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture Illustration Caption 

message: Should have some sources before it is merged here. I am removed the merge request, as there are not sources on the article. When there are some then maybe it can be merged in Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death by Rugging

message: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques redirects to Torture, but there is no mention of it in the article. —Pengo 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" 

message: I took out the following sentence:
"The use of torture is even endorsed by vice-president Dick Cheney (and president Bush as well) to help the CIA and its henchmen enforce their economical and political pressure on defenseless individuals and countries."
First, I need to see some references to this, to be sure that it is true. And I can hardly believe it is a good idea to call CIA "henchmen". Put the sentence back if you wish, but please put SOURCES to it, and put the "henchmen" a bit midly, because it is almost unacceptable.
--Msoos 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henchmen? 

message: I deleted this sentence from a section on "Torture by Proxy" for three reasons:
"The United States of America is an infamous example of so-called democratic country, which use torture systematically within its borders and in foreign representations, such a Guantanamo Bay and certain eastern european countries and nothern african countries."
1) I've never edited a Wikipedia article but I've used it several times before and I know for a FACT that by including terms like "infamous" and "so-called" are not neutral point-of-view, at least in the context you use them. If you want to call the U.S. an "infamous example of a so-called democracy", then it is your responsibility to present the FACTS and let the reader decide for himself or herself. For example, talk about what the U.S. did that was infamous, and justify what exact elements or actions make it not really a democracy (if that is you have a factual basis for your claim). There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet to make unsubstantiated allegations or criticisms about the actions of the U.S./the U.S. government. Don't do it here where some people (i.e. myself) actually come searching for useful information.
2) The sentence seemed out of context in the place where it was located within the article. The rest of the section "Torture by proxy" talked about an incident with the British government and Uzbekistan, after which this sentence seemed to come out of nowhere.
3) The sentence had poor spelling, poor structure, and did not follow basic grammatical rules like capitalization of proper nouns, rules that should really be followed so that Wikipedia has a polished and professional look. I may be wrong (i.e. this is only my opinion) but I believe the lack of adherence to grammatical rules serves as yet another piece of evidence indicating very strongly that the author of this sentence simply wished to get a quick jab in at the United States rather than honestly contribute to the article.
Please feel free to comment if you feel the deletion was inappropriate. Thank you everybody.
08:49, 11 December 2005
#I think the same guy added that comment, that added the *same* comment to my stuff. The guy should be warned. He is putting POV. (I would guess that he added the sentence that I removed, as well. See sentence I removed, above) 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infamous? 

message: The current text, with most recent edit, has:
The amendment would ensure an end to the U.S. use of alleged torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and extraordinary rendition, which have become common practice since September 11, 2001.
The way it stands the claim is that the U.S. uses methods of compulsion that allegedly constitute torture, that the U.S. uses inhuman and degrading treatment, etc.  The term "allegation" usually refers to propositions claimed by some to be matters of fact and says of those propositions that they have not been verified.  The term is not usually used to speak of situations where the facts are not in question but the appropriate term to apply to the facts is uncertain or disputed. P0M 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Structure 

message: Should this really be in the list of torture techniques?
:Seems to me it would depend on whether behavior is being forced on someone. Thre may be older people who enjoy interacting with much younger people as a way to make the younger person suffer. It may be that there are people who force parents to watch forced interactions involving the offspring...  Isn't it largely a matter of intent?  If X runs over Y with a motorcycle it may be an accident or it may be because the motorcycle driver (or somebody who gives him orders) wants to see the victim be hurt.  P0M 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophilia

message: Why is there a sidebar on tort law?  If one commits a "tort" one commits a civil offense. Civil offenses are not crimes. You get sued, not imprisoned.  Torture comes from a similar derivation, linguistically speaking, but it is considered a felony, no? If there is some reason for having the sidebar there its relevance should be clearly established. P0M 05:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tort law? 

message: That is a statement. I would not have thought that wikipedia endorses torture. Markus Schmaus 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Torture is also useful &hellip;" 

message: Big scandal and cover-up described in recent Guardian news article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745489,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 
:I added some material in Bad Nenndorf. Someone had already added the links. The agency involved was called Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC). Petri Krohn 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britons tortured many communists to death in 1946 

message: "U.S. compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment will be the topic of May 5 and 8 U.N. hearings in Geneva." -- noosphere 19:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture 

message: "A human rights project, The Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (DAA), released a report in Washington saying that allegations of detainee abuse, torture and killings have now implicated at least 600 U.S. military and civilian personnel deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."  -- noosphere 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Watch implicates 600+ in war prisoner abuse 

message: Is is this too contentious? Skinnyweed 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the section on "effectiveness" 

message: In the section "Other meanings of the word" there was a link to "Genitorture" which I have removed since Genitorture is a redirect straight back to here.  There are a few other pages that link to Genitorture, which I have left alone.  However, it seems there is some need to include at least a definition, expandible by anyone who feels so inclined, under the Genitorture heading, because this article scarcely touches upon the subject.--King Hildebrand 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genitorture 

message: There has been so much talk on it saying it is a fake. One user has posted that one book, The Medieval Underworld, shows woodcuts of it in use. This I feel can be used as proof that it did exist. There are no pictures to confirm this. I would like someone to show this proof on the article.
:Would you please sign your comments with four tildas (~) so that anyone can follow this thread?  I have looked up the Medieval Underworld that allegedly contained such pictures and I could not find them.  The device is not mentioned in the index and it looks totally bogus to me.  I have to admit I had little motivation and I might have missed them, so if someone else wants to look I am all for that.  But it looks like an urban legend to me. Lao Wai 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pear Of Anguish Proof 

message: I took the liberty of removing Elton John, unless it isn't just a singer.Isaiah A. 06:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elton John 

message: Would it make more sense for the torture article to have the subjects "Psychological torture methods", "Physical torture methods", "Torture devices", and "Methods of execution and capital punishment" be links leading to new pages of the same names rather than large incomplete lists included in the main page? Also by moving the listed items into new pages they could be identified by tags obviously stating that they are not complete lists of various torture devices/techniques. -- 71.208.33.220 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible revision of layout of the torture article 

message: I meant to add the form of torturous execution carried about by pouring a molten metal down a persons throat. However, I vaguely recall a specific term, so I thought I'd mention the method and see if anyone else remembered.69.119.65.231 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods 

message: Apparently the word 'niggers' has slipped into the mix, completely out of context, and my inability to understand enough about how Wikipedia works doesn't let me find out how or where it was inserted to be able to edit it out. 
The following text has been observed in the 'controlling populace' section:
Although information gathered by torture is niggers often worthless, torture has been used to terrorize and subdue populations to enforce state control. cf: Gulag
Highlight mine. So would someone who knows better how to fix... uh... fix? 
204.116.154.118 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Needed (not sure how) 

message: this phrase appears at the bottom of the forth paragraph. In addition to using incorrect punctuation, the phrase makes, with the, "of course" clause, the assumption that the reader has some definitive knowledge that Israel uses torture before reading the article. this phrase is therefore unencyclopedic in tone. I am cleaning up the sentence, and placing Israel at the same level of expectation for torture usage as the other two nations mentioned. I am also removing the "perhaps more surprisingly" phrase, which lends itself subject to individual perspective. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 08:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Including of course Isreal" 

message: That information will continue to be rv'ed as POV and uncited, unless something is done to change its phrasing and its citation.  The current citation goes to an interview that does not even MENTION the United States and Great Britain in connection with Amnesty International, and furthermore nowhere says explicitly what the cited statement says, i.e. "Israel does not abide by the spirit of its treaties."  As such it is speculative and OR.
:oh wait, in fact I've deleted the entire statement, since it is mentioned or supported nowhere in the interview.  Ford MF 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty International and "including Israel, Great Britain, and the United States"

message: I have added a disputed tag to psychological torture and physical torture methods, as not all methods are universally or even by a plurality of the population to be torture.  I have added a dispute and OR tag to the execution/capital punishment section, as it has effectively declared all methods of capital punishment to be torture, along with some general crimes against humanity thrown in that do not constitute torture.  Doing so invalidates the very real problem of torture, by misdirecting attention and confusing topics of concern. - MSTCrow 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Tags 

message: A large part of this article seems to have been deleted by this IP address 86.130.208.0 (see Revision as of 23:24, 10 November 2006 -- Revision as of 19:52, 13 November 2006) with no explanation in the history as to why it was deleted and that IP address only ever made those two edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.130.208.0)
Therefore I think this was a case of vandalism and I am restoring those parts which have not already been restored. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: I've also read that in medieval times torture was a fairly common way to earn a living: bandits would drive around and string up villagers by both feet, then smash one leg with a hammer and 'ransom' them for the other leg. Is it worth going into more detail about different torture-purposes in the middle ages? christians weren't the only people to hurt people. Brentstrahan 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture in history

message: It seems to me that this article is against torture, which in some ways is understandable but I would certainly love to see some arguements in favor of it included to make this article more complete. KenBest 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section Ethical arguments regarding torture --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV