Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 4

message: I understand there are Chinese antecedents of waterboarding (not what is called in English the water torture). Lycurgus 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Guys, I closed that horribly formatting subsection upon subsection section above. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I imagine others couldn't either given it's hyper-layered formatting. Really, due to WP:NPOV and WP:V non-negotiable limits, the torture issue comes down to one incontrovertible, and unfortunately non-negotiable (due to WP:NPOV and WP:V) truth:
:Historically (including in the United States!) waterboarding is/has been considered an act of torture. We need to clearly and simply, and non-dramatically state that fact after describing the physical act of waterboarding. That some countries today in come cases consider it not torture (the George Bush administration) will be noted, as their current opinion, per sourcing limitations. Having reviewed this, Wikipedia can safely per historical sources and sourced precedents say that waterboarding is historically considered torture. That some dispute this notion today in various ways will be then noted. The current United States government view of waterboarding DOES NOT trump historical records that go back to and nearly predate the history of the United States itself, and the United States roll in the debate per WP:WEIGHT will be relegated to a subsection. The world doesn't revolved around our country's debate on this. 
I propose the following for a structural redesign of the article:
# Lead: Physical description of act (paragraph 1). Short historical global overview (paragraph 2). Short overview of physical/mental effects (paragraph 3). Short overview of the modern debates for the 20th/21st century--GLOBAL in scope, as Wikipedia itself is; the United States can have a sentence or two here only (paragraph 4).
# Technique and effects: we can probably have 2-4 total paragraphs on what waterboarding is, and what it does to you. 
# History of waterboarding: we can probably have 3-5 total paragraphs on how waterboarding came to be, and historical uses. 
# Contemporary uses: a paragraph on each notable modern case. We can certainly allocate 1-2 just to the United States here.
# Legality: this section is fairly solid. 2-3 paragraphs total.
Ballpark projected article length: 12-18 paragraphs.
Thoughts? I firmly believe my view above on the view of is/isn't torture is fully compliant with NPOV, V, and RS, which is unfortunately the only thing we are allowed to go by. Any shaping of any article that doesn't comply with all three is functionally vandalism, and unacceptable as it would compromise Wikipedia's integrity as a global neutral resource. Anything that does not utterly comply with NPOV and V will be removed by anyone from the article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal a lot and fully support it.  I would be careful to not confuse all forms of water cure and water torture, which have a long history, with waterboarding, which is very similar but different (since the point isn't to make a person ingest large amounts of water into the stomach but rather into the lungs). Remember 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You have my attention too - give it a go! What I really want to see gone is the confusion being sowed, sometimes deliberately (not here) between those who support waterboarding (without regard to what it is) and those who say it is not torture - big difference. Inertia Tensor 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your 5-point plan, please don't delete/dismantle any content that has been carefully built up over time, without discussion and consensus. Badagnani 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. It would be first a restructure, only, and neutralizing of all tone and language, then later we can trim if needed (doubtful). I'll start knocking up a demo copy in a sandbox tonight or tomorrow. • Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait Lawrence - that sounds different now to what you had proposed. I do not support 'neutralizing' tone for the sake of it - only if there is something inherently wrong with a tone should it be changed. No one has established that to be verifiably the case - which is exactly why I plonked up the sources discussion which you unilaterally closed with no agreement and I am reopening now - DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CLOSING IT AGAIN. Order could certainly do with a lot of work as you said - but tone - NO. There won't be a consensus for watering it down to suit some other sensibilities. You just lost my support with this last comment. Inertia Tensor 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying something other than total observance of WP:NPOV is OK? • Lawrence Cohen 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you will need paragraph 1a, describing the half-dozen or so different things being  called waterboarding (those that are not the watercure and stomach filling.) They are very different and I suspect that those differences are part of what contributes to the heat of the topic. htom 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Neutral Point of View is not the same thing as Neutralize is meant as in this case (or whitewash, sanitize). Neutral and factual yes, but being neutral does not mean not saying things that some people don't like for political or nationalist reasons. Inertia Tensor 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you, I intend to whitewash nothing. Please be sure to AGF. Do you disagree with my summary that NPOV requires us to state unequivocally, as fact, that "historically waterboarding has been considered torture, but some modern governments disagree with this", as detailed by available sources? The wording I quoted may vary slightly, but the message, per NPOV, has to be that. Simply put, we can't imply that the current US (or whatever government) belief is more important than historical fact. We can't imply a matter of wrong or right. We are required say, "Waterboarding is this act (details on physical event).[1] Historically, waterboarding has been considered torture.[2] Today, waterboarding has been used in x capacity.[3] Some modern governments have stated beliefs that waterboarding is not torture.[4]" Something along those lines. Facts, reported by reliable sources, in a neutral, even boring and bland tone, with no histrionics or dramatic tones. We simply are not allowed, full stop, to do otherwise than to adhere to NPOV. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok AGF. let's see, give it a go. The DoJ has no weight whatsoever. In a fiery statement Thursday night after Bonds' indictment became public, the lawyer accused the BALCO investigators of unspecified ethical misconduct and said the Justice Department "doesn't know if waterboarding is torture and can't tell the difference between prosecution and persecution."http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/17/MNU7TE98P.DTL Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Department of Justice is certainly a reliable source about itself and the views of the current American Presidency, so we can note that they don't feel waterboarding is torture isn't torture in the United States context. Keep in mind that just because they say this, and just because we report that they say this about themselves does not make waterboarding any less torture based on the fact that something like 90%-95%+ of the sources say it is torture. Frankly, I'm seeing 1-2 sentences on that specific view, in that light, only meriting inclusion--the US DOJ view will not unduly WEIGHT this article. Waterboarding is torture based on historical evidence and torture, and will be reported that way on Wikipedia. We also will note that some American attorneys and government officials don't think it is. Their minority and fringe viewpoint is notable enough to mention. • Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yawn.  Go back to Malkin's website, please.  We're working on writing an encyclopedia.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Torture is not "a word intended only for emotional response." It's a serious crime defined under U.S. and international law.--agr (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular empty talk 

message: When I came to this article simply to find out more about the subject, and I feel that the paragraph in the introduction section beginning with "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. "  is out of place. 
I am simply suggesting that this be moved to a "current controversy" or similarly titled section further in the article.   It seems to me that specific paragraph is less of an introduction on the subject of waterboarding, and more of a current event summary.  It removed from the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia, changing it to a news journal of sorts. This section is also largely irrelevant to people who are simply looking for a description or history of the process.  
as I assume no edits made to the page at the time could possibly be in consensus, I will not add an editprotected tag to this. it is simply a suggestion, it is unlikely that I will be back to make the edit myself once the page is semi or unprotected, so someone else please make the edit if it is deemed appropriate. -aliencam (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Per WP:LEAD "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."--agr (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  movement of introduction paragraph 

message: Anyone object to my asking for it to drop the Full Protection down to a Semi-Protection? It's been a while and things have calmed here somewhat. If it goes nuts again, it will just get reprotected again and we then will probably have to sit down until we hash out everything firmly. • Lawrence Cohen 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgrade Full protection to semi 

message: # Remember (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants involved in resolving lead

message: Waterboarding is a term used to describe the act of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to make the subject feel that they will drown to death.Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007.  "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."  In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and makes the subject believe death is imminent.CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
As early as the Spanish Inquisition a form of waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, intimidate, and terrorize.  The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure."Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said."   Although waterboarding can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch  
Waterboarding is widely considered to be torture.In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.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.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.Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."Michael Cooper and Marc Santora. McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark, New York Times, October 26, 2007. Speaking about Waterboarding, John McCain stated in a telephone interview "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." (See Classification of Torture section below for further details), and nations,including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding as violating prohibitions against torture.
The use of waterboarding gained attention and notoriety in the United States when the press claimed that the Bush administration had used waterboarding to interrogate  some extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
=====Votes to support or oppose Remember's version=====
* Support (of course since it's mine). If you do not like this version please propose your own version or revisions for discussion. Remember (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of the fact that it doesn't have torture at the beginning is there any other objects to the rest of the text? Remember (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object strongly to the lead issue, but aside from that it is smaller stuff which is not such a big deal. This following bit could fall to OR claims, rather not have it "The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject", additionally it is said to be more than an interrogation process, and indeed it is under dispute whether it is really a (workable) interrogation process. Inertia Tensor (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I debated about adding this but I think your assessment is right.  My proposal now strikes that sentence.  Any other suggestions or problems? Remember (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the fact the practice leaves no (physical) scars has indeed been mentioned in the sources as one reason for its use. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, does this mean you think the sentence should be included? Also, do you support or oppose the above suggestion? Do you have any other comments on it? Remember (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remember's version of the lead

message: * Support (of course since it's mine). If you do not like this version please propose your own version or revisions for discussion. Remember (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of the fact that it doesn't have torture at the beginning is there any other objects to the rest of the text? Remember (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object strongly to the lead issue, but aside from that it is smaller stuff which is not such a big deal. This following bit could fall to OR claims, rather not have it "The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject", additionally it is said to be more than an interrogation process, and indeed it is under dispute whether it is really a (workable) interrogation process. Inertia Tensor (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I debated about adding this but I think your assessment is right.  My proposal now strikes that sentence.  Any other suggestions or problems? Remember (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the fact the practice leaves no (physical) scars has indeed been mentioned in the sources as one reason for its use. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, does this mean you think the sentence should be included? Also, do you support or oppose the above suggestion? Do you have any other comments on it? Remember (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to support or oppose Remember's version

message: Waterboarding is a form of tortureIn 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.According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is  "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. | http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/page/2/ ]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, 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.Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e 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. 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 which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to punish, and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture.
  
The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror."Variety of Interrogation Techniques Said to Be Authorized by CIA" by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, September 6, 2006 ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the  'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding.""History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005 
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 . US Vice President Dick Cheney  has endorsed the technique for terror suspects, saying it was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives. Cheney endorses simulated drowning, "Financial Times" October 26, 2006 
=====Votes to support or oppose Inertia Tensor's version=====
* Support Obviously, I put it there. This was the last consensus achieved version, however it appears we need a new consensus. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me mull this over - I think your and my points can be resolved. I especially agree with you on McCain - that is there as is because it was used to back up the lead when the torture word got white washed out by some. If the lead is somewhat stable we don't need to go listing sources in main text, unless highly relevant. Off to think. Thank you for a highly constructive answer. I would however also say to dump Cheney from the lead if McCain goes, as I believe that though later denials suggest otherwise - Cheney was talking about WB, and trivialising it. Officially we do not know either way - so like the other UNDUE Weight, he needs to get bumped down - in fact their is a far stronger case for bumping Cheney down that McCain - so certainly Cheney, maybe McCain. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What controversy is there besides that involving the United States government? Because one government may or may not consider something torture has zero bearing on whether it is or not. We have no sources that support what you are saying either, beyond two pundits. Please provide sources or else retract your oppose as unsourced. We make decisions based on policy, not personal views. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inertia Tensor's version of the lead

message: * Support Obviously, I put it there. This was the last consensus achieved version, however it appears we need a new consensus. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me mull this over - I think your and my points can be resolved. I especially agree with you on McCain - that is there as is because it was used to back up the lead when the torture word got white washed out by some. If the lead is somewhat stable we don't need to go listing sources in main text, unless highly relevant. Off to think. Thank you for a highly constructive answer. I would however also say to dump Cheney from the lead if McCain goes, as I believe that though later denials suggest otherwise - Cheney was talking about WB, and trivialising it. Officially we do not know either way - so like the other UNDUE Weight, he needs to get bumped down - in fact their is a far stronger case for bumping Cheney down that McCain - so certainly Cheney, maybe McCain. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What controversy is there besides that involving the United States government? Because one government may or may not consider something torture has zero bearing on whether it is or not. We have no sources that support what you are saying either, beyond two pundits. Please provide sources or else retract your oppose as unsourced. We make decisions based on policy, not personal views. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to support or oppose Inertia Tensor's version

message: Waterboarding is a form of interrogation which uses suffocation to gain the cooperation of the interviewee. By covering the restrained subject's head with wet cloths and pouring additional water over the face, the laryngospasm reflex is induced (that is the larynx or the vocal cords in the throat constrict and seal the air tube) making it impossible for the subject to breath.
=====Votes to support or oppose GageParker's version=====
* Weak oppose- I like the first sentence, but I would need to see some citation to support the physiological claims you are making (because I don't know if they are true).  In addition, while this is a good first sentence, we need to resolve the whole intro and this doesn't provide enough to fully evaluate.  If you add further information, I think you will get more feedback. Remember (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GageParker's version of the lead

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

message: * My only major concern is that the article clearly state upfront that waterboarding is historically (based on the variety of sources) a form of torture, but that some modern government administrations either dispute this (based on sourcing) or simply don't consider waterboarding torture. Basically, rigid NPOV enforcement and nothing less on that is/isn't torture bit.
* We shunt off the heavy emphasis on the United States from the lead section to a detailed sub-section about the United States. We shouldn't be dominating the opening of the article with our country.
That's it for me. • Lawrence Cohen 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Lawrence Cohen]]

message: I haven't been involved with this article thus far, but here are my thoughts anyway:
* The intro should say waterboarding is torture, because saying upfront that some claim otherwise breaks WP:UNDUE. It could be that waterboarding, indeed, is not torture; it could also be that Moon landing is a hoax, but I don't expect that view to be covered in the Moon landing article intro. On top of that, most of the sources that state waterboarding is not torture are not exactly impartial, making WP:UNDUE more egregious.
* Particular views (of US Government and other entities) or references to current events are indeed best left out of the lead section completely.
I feel that the "NPOV" version would invite more edit warring, but the same can be said for the version I'm proposing above, so I'm not really an optimist about unprotecting the article. GregorB (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:GregorB]]

message: I look at this again when I have more time but here are my initial thoughts
: 1. I think the first sentence should just describe the procedure and refrain from categorizing it as torture/nontorture (which can happen in later sentences). 
: 2. The article shouldn't say it is simulated drowning, since it more akin to controlled drowning since water enters the lungs.  If we can't agree on simulated versus controlled we should avoid the terms all together. 
: 3. We should mention that the forced ingestion of water and water into the lungs has a longstanding and widespread history of being torture (such as water torture and the water cure, but that recently some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that it isn't torture (or that even if it is it is justified) and then link to the discussion later in the page.  
:: Suggested intro - Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.  This procedure causes the subject to feel the early stages of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage. The forced ingestion of water into the stomach or lungs has long been considered a form of torture (see also water torture and the water cure).  Recently, some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that waterboarding does not qualify as torture or that even if it is torture that it is justified as an interrogation technique (and then link this last part to a longer discuss part on the page.
Remember (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a big mistake to define waterboarding as including forced inhalation of water. There are likely to be more than one technique in use. A number of sources, including the Life Magazine photograph from the Vietnam War, say cloth or cellophane is first placed over the victims nose and mouth. If we say waterboarding is defined by ingestion of water and therefore torture, it might be used as a justification for other "milder" techniques designed to prevent ingestion. All forms of waterboarding are torture because they produce an intense fear of death, not because of any possible physical harm. --agr (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a big mistake, as the individual in charge of teaching this technique stated very clearly that this is one of the objectives of the technique. If you've actually read the sources we've been considering here, your comment just doesn't make sense. You can believe the official version promulgated by the administration attempting to get the public to accept this technique as "not so bad" or you can accept the testimony of someone to whom this was actually done, and who taught this technique in the U.S.'s own elite counterterrorism unit. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all there is no "official" administration position. They refuse to discuss it on the record. Second, I think you are missing the point. By defining waterboarding in the harshest mode, we leave room for people to argue that less harsh versions are not torture. And in any case, one person's testimony is not enough for us to ignore the other descriptions of waterboarding that are out there. The Fox TV reporters who underwent waterboarding did not report water inhalation, for example. Yet they found it quite effective and even characterized it as torture. There may be, and likely are, different methods used. We don't have to pick one. --agr (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: As I see it, there are three major problems with this discussion.
* Waterboarding is very poorly described, so poorly that it can be said to be undefined. I can think of at least a half-dozen different things that have been called waterboarding. None of them are pleasant. Some of them are physically dangerous to the victim. Some of them are actual interrupted drowning, others are things that seem to trick the body into feeling like it is in danger. Waterboarding is not a boogeyman, but it needs to be described so that the reader knows which techniques (whether one, some, or all) are being talked about.
* The legal status of waterboarding as torture needs to be accurately described for each of the different things being done. I suspect that some of the techniques are definately legal tortue, some of them are possibly legal tortue, and some of them are not. All of them are probably moral tortue, but that is a different question. The politics of those either condemning or practicing it are not part of the legal question (and are probably not properly part of the moral question.)
* American politics has no place in the article. If you can't talk or think about this without Bush bashing, you should disqualify yourself; likewise if you can't talk or think about this without Clinton bashing.
* "OMG Waterboarding is EVIL" is not helpful, even if true.
htom (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Waterboarding is not poorly defined. It involve immobilizing someone pouring water over their head to make them believe they are drowning. There may be variants, but that's the basic deal. Tricking "the body into feeling like it is in danger", at least mortal danger, is of torture under U.S. law. No physical damage is required. --agr (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.
* Waterboarding is not a simulation, and most definitely involves the introduction of water into the breathing passages.  Most accounts of waterboarding involve a cloth (or nothing) over the subject's face; in the few cases that mention cellophane, a hole is poked in the cellophane.  (The cloth or cellophane is used to intensify the effect, not soften it: it acts as a one-way valve, letting the subject's air escape, but forming a seal over the nose and/or mouth when he or she tries to inhale.)  The article should make it clear that causing water to flow into the breathing passages is the whole point of the procedure; that is why, in every description, the subject is specifically positioned with the head tilted back.
* As far as I know, no government agency or representative has stated on the record that waterboarding is not torture -- so the article should not say or imply that this is anyone's official legal opinion.  There have been quite a few evasive statements and refusals to answer by United States officials, and these are fine to quote or mention.  But it would be going too far for the article to make derivations from what has been said and then present that as fact.  Examples of such inferences to avoid: "X refused to say waterboarding is torture" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture".  Or "X says torture is illegal" + "X authorized waterboarding" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture".  When presenting official opinions, the article should offer exactly what has been said, no more and no less.
* I personally believe that "waterboarding is torture" is at least as true as "humans and apes have a common ancestor."  That is, although some people may not accept it, it is firmly supported by  evidence and sound reasoning (e.g. reasoning directly from legal definitions of torture).  The opposing viewpoint is not on equal footing; in fact, arguably "waterboarding is torture" is on even firmer ground than evolution, since there are not even official authorities willing to publicly take the opposing viewpoint.  I am willing to accept an article that does not contain the statement "waterboarding is torture", but not an article that presents a dispute between two equal sides.  I would argue for a statement such as "the overwhelming majority of experts, legal authorities, and historical precedents consider waterboarding to be torture."  As mentioned earlier on this talk page, perhaps a good solution would be to move all discussion of waterboarding's classification as torture to a section devoted specifically to legal status.  This section would state the legal definitions, the historical precedent in literature and legal opinion, and quote the opinions of modern authorities.
Thanks for taking these into consideration. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for "a hole is poked in the cellophane"? None of the sources I found mention this. --agr (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one: Mukasey Unsure About Legality of Waterboarding (New York Times, October 30, 2007) —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ka-Ping Yee]]

message: Again, Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.
*Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).
*I consider torture to be what it is - and the simplest most accurate consise description to a reader - torture should lead, with the mechanics of it following.
*I believe the whitehouse carries no weight as I would consider a murderer saying something is not murder to be noteworthy, but not carrying weight.
*Being neutral to fact, and being neutral to a side are different things. We are not meant to be neutral to perpetrators - we are meant to be neutral to fact.
*No whitewashing, unreasonable glossing over things, revisionism or New Speak. So no controlled drowning, enhanced-(beating-the-shit-out-of people) information gathering, wet ops, special interogation or any other doublespeak. New speak is a gross distortion of NPOV. Later citing somone else's new 'word' is fine, but not in the opener.
*It is what it is. Torture. If you feel uncomfortable about that take it up with your leaders - or change them. But don't try and twist fact to suit them. Demos Cratine
*Common reading of the English language, such as the US code, is not necessarily OR, as has been claimed by some. The Law doesn't say that Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho is torture, even though I take that to mean castration with a tennis racket. So is Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho ok? Come on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Inertia Tensor]]

message: My suggestion would be to remove any direct comparisons of waterboarding to drowning, as drowning implies death in official definitions. Implying death or "simulated" death, is not accurate. Mentioning a condition involving the "fear of drowning", however, is fair.
So something like:
Waterboarding is a torture technique where asphyxiation due to 
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.
or
Waterboarding is a torture technique where suffocation due to
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.
Where:
Asphyxiation is the condition of being deprived of oxygen.
Torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted
on a person for punishment, intimidation, coercion, or to elicit a confession.
---
For those who insist that "torture" is in question, I would ask which definition you are using. Do you disagree with the (often mentioned) international definition of torture, or does some part of the definition not match? If so, which part:
* severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.
* intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as:
** obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.
** punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed.
** intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
* when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Nospam150 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:NoSpam150]]

message: The opinion by the redlinked editor (in his/her first edit at Wikipedia ever) is illogical in light of the massive collection of sources on this issue. The practice is, by definition, torture, and the article should state this in the lead. The fringe opinion, on behalf of some members of the current administration of one country among nearly 200 in the world, that "waterboarding is not torture" (which has been repeated by such individuals as the redlinked new editor) should be mentioned, but not privileged in the lead. Badagnani 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From previous discussion you probably know that I generally agree with your opinion on waterboarding and torture.  But let's keep the discussion away from getting personal.  Repeatedly hinting at V-Indicate's newness to Wikipedia is out of bounds for this discussion.  It doesn't help us reach consensus on the article.   —Ka-Ping Yee 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Badagnani]]