Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 7

message: See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.
* Of course. The extremely few dissenting voices barely qualify even as a fringe. Claiming anything else is simply politically motivated dissembling. That we have to have this discussion reflects bad on "western civilization" (ref. Gandhi)--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eject them based upon what policy? --Blue Tie (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Nonsense. They may believe that showing toughness is good for their party ("the softies are voting democratic anyways"), they may believe it's good for their political career (and damn the party line), they may put what they think is their county's interest above what you think is their party's interest, they may think "protecting our guys in the field is more important than party politics", they may think that appearing to protect "our guys in the field" is good politics. Anyways, they are part of a marginal fringe group and have no significant weight of opinion compared to all the other sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Also, do you have a source for the claim that Andrew C. McCarthy is a Democrat? Likewise, I cannot find any party affiliation for White - and neither of them is a career politician, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Both were appointed to their Justice department positions by Democrat Bill Clinton. We are known by the company we keep. Neutral Good (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not evidence that McCarthy and White are Democrats. Believe it or not, a President can select people of the opposite party for appointed positions. As for "the company we keep", McCarthy's Wikipedia article says that he "has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary." Do many Democrats write for those publications? Oh, and why do your recent edits pertaining to McCarthy's position leave out the quote "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture", found in the Wikipedia article about him? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say his Wikipedia article says that? Are you aware that even Jimmy Wales admits that Wikipedia articles aren't necessarily reliable? Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the answer of a person who's engaging in reasonable discussion. You already know that Andrew C. McCarthy has written for National Review--you did bother to read the articles you're citing in this article, right? You can also easily determine whether Andrew C. McCarthy has written for Commentary and worked for Giuliani--shall I point out that you are the one who started talking about his employment history? And, once again, why did you leave out the quote where McCarthy says "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring points when proven wrong is a hallmark of trying to prolong a losing debate, or one with no factual standing. Lawrence Cohen 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably a joke, but judging from the arguments that "we can't say waterboarding is torture" on the Arbitration Evidence page we may well end up with some kind of bizarre compromise lead that does indeed state that waterboarding was universally regarded as torture throughout history, until 2001 when its legal status in the United States was changed by Executive Order of President Bush. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is waterboarding a form of [[torture]], based on sources? 

message: I mentioned this idea above and in the RFC, but I thought I would get a formal vote on this since many people did not actually debate it or voice their opinion.  How would everyone feel about changing the lead to state "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture)..."  
The advantages of this approach is that it allows those to quickly access the debate about this issue if they want to find it (as I think many of the internet traffic does), it does not push any POV and simply links to later in the page, and it links to the area that provides full support as well as details the intricacies related to the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture". Remember (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do you object to the addition or just feel that the addition doesn't do anything to allay your concerns about the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture" as the intro to the article?  If it is the later, then isn't your vote neutral to the addition I proposed but an objection to the whole lead sentence? Remember (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, only three of the first six words are critical. :) Jame§ugrono 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I an US born US resident and I would find any implication _other_ than it being torture to be biased.  Please don't read into the whole American psyche.  There is nobody who questions if it is torture except people that have a political motive.  This can be tested by checking if US soldiers can be acceptably waterboarded by other nations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.98.174 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  So do you oppose the addition of the link in the lead or are you just suggesting that the linked section should be more informative regarding the classification of waterboarding as torture?  If you just object to the informative nature of the linked section, could you please change your vote to neutral on link for lead and oppose the current status of the Classification as torture section (which currently cannot be improved due to the article protection).  I think this would more accurately describe your vote. Remember (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Because the first six words of the article are an "in your face" violation of WP:NPOV. This violation cannot and must not be ignored. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't a debate about the first six words.  This is a debate about adding the link.  How do you feel about adding the link? Remember (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any reason?Remember (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the article that need fixing?  The question is do you specifically object to the addition of a link in the lead and if so why? Remember (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the lead that need fixing?  I'm not asking you to support the current lead.  I asking you for your opinion on the minor addition of the link to the lead. If you object to this please state so and why? Remember (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but No.  I consider the addition to increase the intensity of the already bad NPOV problem by further reinforcing the impression that it is a fact that the Waterboarding is Torture, when in fact that is disputed.  That is the way I see it.  Furthermore you did not ask just about the addition but about the whole lead -- which is what I responded to. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Proposal 

message: # Remember (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to support

message: *Oppose - I oppose this because it continues to push a POV. Adding a link does nothing to remove or mitigate the POV-pushing. The first six words of the article are vitally important. They cannot show even the slightest sign of bias. In America, the place where more than half of the world's native speakers of English reside, this entry in Wikipedia will be perceived as biased. This affects the credibility of the entire project. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do you object to the addition or just feel that the addition doesn't do anything to allay your concerns about the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture" as the intro to the article?  If it is the later, then isn't your vote neutral to the addition I proposed but an objection to the whole lead sentence? Remember (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, only three of the first six words are critical. :) Jame§ugrono 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I an US born US resident and I would find any implication _other_ than it being torture to be biased.  Please don't read into the whole American psyche.  There is nobody who questions if it is torture except people that have a political motive.  This can be tested by checking if US soldiers can be acceptably waterboarded by other nations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.98.174 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  So do you oppose the addition of the link in the lead or are you just suggesting that the linked section should be more informative regarding the classification of waterboarding as torture?  If you just object to the informative nature of the linked section, could you please change your vote to neutral on link for lead and oppose the current status of the Classification as torture section (which currently cannot be improved due to the article protection).  I think this would more accurately describe your vote. Remember (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Because the first six words of the article are an "in your face" violation of WP:NPOV. This violation cannot and must not be ignored. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't a debate about the first six words.  This is a debate about adding the link.  How do you feel about adding the link? Remember (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any reason?Remember (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the article that need fixing?  The question is do you specifically object to the addition of a link in the lead and if so why? Remember (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the lead that need fixing?  I'm not asking you to support the current lead.  I asking you for your opinion on the minor addition of the link to the lead. If you object to this please state so and why? Remember (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but No.  I consider the addition to increase the intensity of the already bad NPOV problem by further reinforcing the impression that it is a fact that the Waterboarding is Torture, when in fact that is disputed.  That is the way I see it.  Furthermore you did not ask just about the addition but about the whole lead -- which is what I responded to. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to oppose

message: * Reply to 209.221.240.193: Local politics, and feeling related to them, are not Wikipedia's concerns. Our mission is our own, and we don't take into account political implications or national feelings based on reporting information from outside sources. Lawrence Cohen 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I am going to add the link to the lead right now.  There is roughly 2-to-1 votes to support the proposal and most of the opposition votes oppose the use of the words "Waterboarding is a form of torture" rather than really opposing the link.  If people feel adverse to this, please feel free to voice your opinions below.  Please do not revert without some discussion first.  I am not intent on pushing this without consensus, but I feel that we have as much consensus for this proposal as we will for anything else on this page at the moment. Remember (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: The opinion of Gary Solis Adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge.  (Hypnosadist) 14:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is written like an opinion piece.  The author repeatedly asks rhetorical questions.  However, the article is interesting because it identifies a number of historical incidents that we can research to find additional sources. Jehochman  Talk 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an opinion piece but in a notable online journal and he is someone qualified to have an opinion on the subject. This should not be used as a source on its own because of its strong POV but with others, also i've not run into many pinko-commie Marine Corps judge advocates. Thats important as it shows how fringe the "not-torture" view is. (Hypnosadist) 15:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from the article: "It remains amazing that, in 2007, any intelligent person can have any question that waterboarding constitutes torture, morally and ethically wrong, and contrary to U.S. law, U.S.-ratified multi-national treaties, and international criminal law." I couldn't agree more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is a link.  And there is video too.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *
This is good stuff. Check the articles for extra footnotes that can lead back to other sources, as well. I found a fountain of sources doing that on another article, Bezhin Meadow, recently. Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He starts with a probably bad assumption: "By now, most of us know what the interrogation technique of waterboarding is."  Then he demonstrates that maybe that is not true.  Because he uses analogies of experiences that are by him but not by contemporaries, described as waterboarding and at least some of them do not appear to match to waterboarding. In short, his evidences are not so good and since his logic is based upon them, his logic fails.  I am surprised that someone who is supposedly a jurist would express his opinion so poorly.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Nice CIA method" so can we stop claiming some minor variation in style of waterboarding makes it OK. (Hypnosadist) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting new source 

message: Source links to a 1858 digital archived press report of a black man being tortured to death. The original source is  "Harper's Weekly". Also see the NY Times 1852 and an article on Auburn prison which mentions the "shower-bath" torture in the context of waterboarding. A History of Torture (Scott 1940), p.243, calls this "an amplification" of strapping someone down and pouring water over the face with a watering-can. (It also talks about the use of the "wet cloth" water torture in conjunction with the rack: for some reason I can't access the appropriate page on gbooks at the moment, but it sounds like a combination of waterboarding and the rack). A description from the Warden's report describes its use "produced a suffocation; this is continued for some time, the operator either increasing or slackening the torrent at his pleasure." I am wondering if this information should be added to this article. I am also wondering if the indictment of Hissene Habre by Belgian authorities for water tortures is appropriate in this article; it looks to me like dunking, but there are some references out there that call it waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never learned about such in American History class, either in high school or college. I thought the U.S. Constitution outlawed this? In any case, there are elements different from the general definition of "conventional" waterboarding here, most prominently the seated position and bowl under the chin.  Badagnani (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This does not seem to me to be waterboarding to me, Torture and the United States is probably the place to send it. (Hypnosadist) 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes torture for the purpose of confession pointless, and the United States Bill of Rights prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In practice, up until around 1910 it was standard police practice to beat and torture confessions out of people. Around that time some courts began to deny forced confessions, and the "liberal media" of the time highlighted a lot of the obvious injustices, which led to a fall in beatings, burning tortures, etc. and the rise of water tortures and others that leave no physical marks. Around 1930 there was a lot of public discontent regarding crime, and the Wickersham Commission wrote its "Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement" which basically said that one of the major causes of crime was the fact that innocent people were tortured to confess and went to jail, while the guilty walked free. It was easier to torture a random person into confessing than to do proper detective work. After that more serious efforts were made to eliminate such practices. So, the theory was sound, but it took a while to get put into practice.  from 1852 is an interesting read - they make the point that around 1750 the English had sentenced one senior prison warden to death for torturing prisoners, and the U.S. was supposed to better than that because of the Constitution, and yet 100 years later U.S. prison guards were still committing acts of torture. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shower-bath" torture of black inmates in NY state prison in 1858 

message: FYI: United States National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell's views to the US Congress — BQZip01 — talk 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that one rule of politics is Cover your ass. Politicians are not reliable sources for anything except their own opinions. Jehochman  Talk 09:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Especially when facing a lifetime retirement in the hague as murderous war criminals. Wee bit of self interest, CWA in this. UNDUE WEIGHT Inertia Tensor (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is a reliable source for anything but their own opinions, this includes the people who write the stuff that we call "reliable sources".  In this case, testimony before Congress by a legal official of the executive branch is a good reliable source -- for whatever it was he said, and probably as more than his personal opinion.  These speculations about war crimes are inappropriate discussion for this page and unhelpful in editing.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, he's an involved party in a massive news story, growing bigger even as we discuss this dispute (hint: we should unprotect the article so we can update it).  He's much more involved than any reporter.  There is a material difference. Jehochman  Talk 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not commenting about the protection of the article issue but I do not think he is a bad source.  That he is involved might make him a great source... better than many who are not involved.  But I am far more concerned about the issue of "What is Waterboarding?".  I do not think it is everything that is being called waterboarding but our article has a problem. But on this matter, I think he is a far more reliable source than news reporters who conflate waterboarding with water cure.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting story i have some points. 1)"Michael McConnell, told students at St. Mary's College in Maryland." we don't know what was said to congress as that session was behind closed doors. 2)This source is good enough to say " Michael McConnell says about waterboarding "It has saved lives. And so from my point of view, we've accomplished the mission within the bounds of U.S. law"" But is nowhere near good enough to say much more on the subject of the legality of waterboarding. 3)The warcrimes charges that 30+ americans currently face in europe and the posibility of more (going all the way to POTUS) is what hangs over this whole article and others like it on wikipedia, and most people charged with a crime say "it wasn't me" so it does stretch the credability and reliabilty of Michael McConnell as a source. (Hypnosadist) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also this is about the legality of waterboarding not that it is not torture. (Hypnosadist) 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a link or a cite for the warcrimes charges?  Where were they filed and what court is hearing them?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, there are multiple problems with this.  First it has nothing to do with waterboarding, Second, the charges were dismissed in Federal German Court and so, they do not exist any more.  (Anyone can file charges in court you know, but making them go forward is the trick).  Are these 22 arrest warrants cited in some way and are they related to waterboarding?  If not, then why are we discussing this unrelated matter?  Why is it brought up?--Blue Tie (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent news 

message: This story  from the BBC talks about a canadian training manual that names the USA as a torturer. This is not enough yet to use as a source but could be later if we know more and if this becomes a big issue. (Hypnosadist) 06:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  another story 

message: Our gathering lists of references is helpful, because it can demonstrate the relative prominence that different views should receive in the article.  The reference lists can be used as citations for specific statements.  However, we are not in the business of weighing the references and pronouncing The Truth®. That would be Original research.
What this means is that we should say, "Legal scholars, international organizations, {drop in everybody else} state that waterboarding is torture. {Drop in list of citations}  Begining in {drop in year} the US Government Bush Administration officials, such as {drop in list of names}, and political commentators such as {drop in names of notable people} have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture in all cases."  
This would be the most precise and neutral way to state things.  Rather than telling the reader what to think, we can give them all the information, and they can be as informed about this subject as we are. 
I still prefer to start the article with a specific description of the waterboarding process and the effects on the subject.  The second paragraph can cover its status as torture.  The third paragraph should explain the huge political controversy caused by waterboarding.  The term was obscure until this controversy created worldwide headlines. Jehochman  Talk 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We weigh the references and produce an article where the majority and minority are given proportional weight not equal weight. This is still not proportional to the amount of sources. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: m:VotingIsEvil.  There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that waterboarding is torture.  Why are we letting the fringe modify our behavior?  We do we need to state the obvious?  By showing who says waterboarding is torture, and who says it isn't, we can educate the savvy reader. Jehochman  Talk 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm tired of saying exactly that, the problem is with a handful of editors who refuse to accept that that is what is meant by a neutral point of view and continually misrepresent the policy as 'no point of view'. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you, however, as a practical matter, if we can establish consensus and get the page unprotected by adopting a very strict version of neutrality, that will be good for Wikipedia.   The description of waterboarding that we have, and will hopefully continue to have, will demonstrate to all but the most partisan reader that waterboarding is torture beyond any doubt.  By highlighting who says it is, and who says it isn't, we will show the relative strengths of the arguments and identify who may be covering their ass.   Jehochman  Talk 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wouldn't be 'adopting a very strict version of neutrality', it would be adopting an incorrect misinterpretation of the policy, one that is specifically outlined as incorrect in the policy. This is no help in achieving a good article. We simply cannot just list hundreds of sources in the lead of an article. They can be listed within the article and lead is a summary of the article. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Which experts consider waterboarding to be torture?
a)The doctors.
The formost expert is Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture  (Hypnosadist) 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that is very useful. I've posted the first part to the FAQ, I'd like some more opinions on whether the victims can be considered "experts" in the reliable source sense before posting that. Thoughts on that anyone? henrik•talk 09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that these two particular victims are experts - the one as a specialist on counterterrorism, the other as a published author and journalist whose reports have stood up to 50 years of scrutiny. I also think that Alleg is a very good antidote to recentism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleg is also a good antidote to anti-amercanism as america is not mentioned in his book. (Hypnosadist) 09:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How about a section Legal findings? The point would be to focus on actual court findings, not the hypothetical "what might happen" in the future WP:CRYSTAL stuff. Would include: Evan Wallach "Historical analysis demonstrates U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions." Also could include prosecutions of Japanese, US soldiers and police etc. already listed at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added an initial suggestion based on Mr. Wallach's writings and the open letter to Mr. Gonzales by the U.S. law professors, which I perceive to be the strongest sources. Comments? henrik•talk 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How about historians/historical opinions? Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carrol describes the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition.  also describes the technique but calls it the 'water cure'. Also  quotes a cambodian surviver and Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, describing it as such. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits to Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ 

message: The following is an excerpt from the reference section (#1):
Eban, Katherine. "Rorschach and Awe", Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-17. "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." 
The quotation, referenced above is not found in the cited article "Rorschach and Awe."  It is a clear error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.57.2 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. I suspect you did not notice that the article has 4 pages. The quote is on page 2, at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?currentPage=2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Reference Citation 

message: Please cite the exact policy that *supports* your repeated statement that sources are only allowable to say waterboarding is torture as  some form of legal status. I am officially tasking anyone who asserts this to demonstrate where we can only use legal rulings: show me the Wikipedia policy that backs this claim up. If you cannot, you (all of you) need to stop disrupting this page immediately. Link to the specific passage of policy that supports this idea that we can only call it torture if a legal ruling calls it that. Now. This game has gone on long enough; consensus does not and never needs to be "unanimous" on any Wikipedia page or process. Link the policy.
And please stop referencing legal status in the United States. Simply put, no one cares, because the US is one country and no more important in anything on Wikipedia than any other country: the US is just a name and a body to us. The legal status or lack thereof there will not be used to gauge the overall statements of is/isn't torture on this page.  Lawrence Cohen 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, It is inappropriate to tell someone to stop referencing something saying "no one cares" when it is focused on the topic of the article. It is also inappropriate for you to declare unilaterally what will or will not be used as though you alone judge such things. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am doing is calling on the editors here to quash disruptive tenditious editing. Consensus does not require unanimous support, and I think now that people took AGF to truly absurd lengths to induldge nationalist editors. Time to stop and do the right thing for the 'pedia, rather than the USA. Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The legal status of waterboarding under the US Constitution, UNCAT, ECHR and GC's is important and should be noted on wikipedia, given that we have RS to do this. But you are right in that "no court case since 9/11 has called waterboarding torture" is not reason enough to say waterboarding is not torture. (Hypnosadist) 08:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything related to International Law should be noted as "International Law".  And, in fact, there are no court cases, world-wide, as far as I can tell, that are related to waterboarding.  Legality and torture are two different things.  Something may be legal but still be torture.  Something may also be illegal but not torture.  The two are not necessarily the same thing.  In the United States, however, there are five things that work together:  1) Representatives of the US Government have affirmed repeatedly under oath, that they do not torture.  2) Representatives of the US Government (sometimes the same as in item 1) have affirmed that the US authorizes waterboarding to be conducted and this is confirmed by published documents from the Government.  3).  Representatives (again, sometimes the same as #1) have issued regulatory rulings (which have the force of law when statute and court decisions do not exist) that permit waterboarding.  4). Legal authorities, tasked with interpreting the law for the executive branch have ruled that waterboarding is legal. (this is not the same a court ruling) 5). Some individuals have reported, (in reliable ways) that waterboarding has been conducted under the aegis of US authority.  These all indicate that in the US, waterboarding may be legal under certain circumstances.  I would note, also that the US signs many international treaties with specific stipulations that these treaties are subordinate in the US to the US Constitution. This is deemed necessary because by default, the US Constitution actually suggests that treaties are equal to it and ratification in the Senate would not occur without that stipulation.  As a result, US agreement with treaties that define international almost never includes submitting to authorities or interpretations outside of the US.  That is not a topic for this article, but it may inform some of the editors here regarding legality. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal status in the US is irrelevant to the definition of waterboarding as torture. We are not a legal guide, and do not care about outside ramifications of this article to the US government. The United States government is subservient to NPOV here. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are in violation of one of your own proposed statements of policy on the arbitration page. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And which would that be? Lawrence Cohen 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For some reason you have confused me with someone else.  I have never brought this up.  But it is inappropriate to ask me to stop bringing up something that I think is right to bring up. Just as it would be inappropriate for me to ask you to do that. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status of torture and Wikipedia policy 

message: Just an FYI since people keep mistakenly saying what the CIA does may or may not be "waterboarding", have we all forgotten John Kiriakou already, the CIA agent that detailed the CIA technique? The one that matches our article description? Lawrence § t/e 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the CIA does 

message: Ambassador John Negroponte obliquely confirmed the use of waterboarding in an interview with the National Journal:
I get concerned that we're too retrospective and tend to look in the rearview mirror too often at things that happened four or even six years ago. We've taken steps to address the issue of interrogations, for instance, and waterboarding has not been used in years. It wasn't used when I was director of national intelligence, nor even for a few years before that. We've also taken significant steps to improve Guantanamo. People will tell you now that it is a world-class detention facility. But if you want to highlight and accent the negative, you can resurface these issues constantly to keep them alive. I would rather focus on what we need to do going forward.
::That is a recent article.  "Years" could be "two" or perhaps "twenty".  I wish he had been more specific. Oh well, its probably a good cite as a footnote to some statement that As of 2008 waterboarding has been discontinued by the US. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No just "John Negroponte claims that waterboarding has not been used in years, and it was not when he was director of national intelligence." (Hypnosadist) 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right.  I am not sure.  The question devolves to this:  Does he have the expertise, position and information to be a good source on what has happened since he was National Intelligence Director?  However, I believe that he would be a very good source to say that it was not done by the US Govt during his years in position.  I think he is a good source for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negroponte confirms U.S. use of waterboarding 

message: The previous round of comments revealed many helpful suggestions.  In response, I propose:
: Waterboarding is the practice of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensations of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Waterboarding carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.  In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the [practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.
This would be followed by historical perspectives on waterboarding, and then a summary of the current controversy in the United States which is making headlines around the word.  
See:   
Comments? Jehochman  Talk 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am not trying to accommodate a fringe.  I am trying to improve neutrality.  Please do not ascribe motives to other editors.  What here is factually inaccurate?  The description is precise and subsumes the definition of  torture ("To intentionally force someone to experience agony.").  Rather than give the conclusion, I think we do better by providing the rationale. The word torture is going to show up in the next two paragraphs anyways. Jehochman  Talk 08:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask again that you please read the discussion archives straight through before commenting or proposing further changes to the lead (which is factual, well written, and NPOV at present). Whether you believe you are doing this or not, your proposal (conspicuously removing "torture" from the lead sentence, where it clearly belongs, according to the sources) privileges the politically motivated hammering that has occurred over the past months, where no such privileging is warranted. Badagnani (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does "torture" clearly belong? The definition I proposed subsumes the entire definition of torture, and more. Why repeat ourselves with extra words?  At Holocaust the first paragraph does not include the words "murder" or "genocide", even though those would clearly be accurate. Jehochman  Talk 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Armenian Genocide it's in the title because, like with holocaust the majority consider it a genocide and only a fringe disagree the same as this article. What the article contains is not really relevant as it could easily be described as a genocide without being non-neutral. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but that's not a good analogy, as that article clearly deals with the murder of people, and 99.9% of people coming to that article will already know this.  Even if the proposed lead does subsume the definition of torture, it is not immediately obvious to the uninformed reader that it does so.  At the very least, it should mention that the vast majority of reliable sources consider the practice to be torture. BLACKKITE 09:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the definition of wikt:torture, the proposal I have made unquestionably qualifies as torture.  Explaining is better than labeling.  "Torture" is a label that may not have clear meaning.  "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensations of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent" leaves no room for doubt that this treatment, done in anger, would constitute torture.  Jehochman  Talk 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I ask that you read the discussion archives straight through before commenting or proposing here. It really is important. Regarding "why do we have to call it torture" in the first sentence, we would not begin the Saxophone article by stating that the saxophone is "a curved tube of brass with keys and a reed"; we would say, "The saxophone is a musical instrument..." Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I do not think that banning the t word from the lead will solve the actual problem. The edit-warring and disagreement will just be shifted a couple of paragraphs down. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed wording certainly could appear in the second or third paragraphs about the history of waterboarding and the current controversy.  Having "torture" in the definition (first paragraph) creates the appearance that we have a political bent.  If there were no political dispute, why would we need to say something so obvious?   It's like saying "Water is a wet substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen" when the natural statement would be "Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen."  We should certainly mention "torture" within the historical context, because waterboarding was primarily used for torture.  We should also mention "torture" in the third paragraph about the current controversy, because that's what the controversy is about.  Jehochman  Talk 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, it creates the impression that editors have analysed the sources available and made conclusion based on them. Again it seems like i need to point out that a neutral point of view is not 'no point of view'. You are simply giving far too much importance and weight to the recent controversy. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seem to fail to realize, User:Jehochman (probably from not having read the discussion archives straight through), is that the intent to sanitize the lead by excising the very term that is the definition of what this practice is what is politically motivated. In an effort to "get this dispute over with, already," you are exactly following the dictates of this tiny but extremely vocal minority (including several SPAs and socks) in their politically motivated hammering (whose sole focus seems to have been removing this word from the lead). It's very, very important that you carefully read the discussion archives straight through--it will take time, but is really extremely important that you do so. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, creating an ambiguous lead does not reflect the weight of opinion on the subject, it creates the impression of a wide dispute when, in fact, there isn't one. It shouldn't read more like a political speech than an encyclopedic entry. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *There is a number of international ones in the lists above. Here are some more from Germany: ,, , ,  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Those appear to be nothing more than news reports, repeating what's been going on in the American press. Oh, there's a blog too. I don't see any expert opinions, or any official position statements by governments. Neutral Good (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * You might want to actually read them. Of course they discuss the US events, but they all call waterboarding torture. Heise Telepolis is one of the major online news services. Die Zeit is the most respected German weekly newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel is the leading Berlin daily newspaper, and Der Spiegel is the leading weekly newsjournal. The "blog" is an official comment by the head of the most respected and widely viewed German TV newsbroadcast (written in his official capacity) and discussing if the short except of a waterboarding video in this news broadcast has been too shocking and brutal for the 8 pm main news broadcast (and viewer reactions to it). Your moving of the goalposts is noted.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV proposal #43 

message: Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants” .
BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; 
This is a very good source in my opinion, discuss. (Hypnosadist) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a good source affirming that the APA is against waterboarding and calls it torture. In particular they mention waterboarding and any other form of simulated drowning, which, regardless of who waterboarding is defined pretty much covers the full spectrum.--Blue Tie (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Speaking as advocatus diaboli, I guess: yes, this is a very good source given the reputation of the APA, but it would be even better if it actually said that waterboarding is torture - and it doesn't. It is unclear whether it describes waterboarding as "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". Note that mistreating POWs violates international conventions (Geneva Conventions, that is) and is as such illegal in many jurisdictions, but it is possible to mistreat POWs without actually torturing them. Understandably, this doesn't make a big difference for the APA: their stance is that psychologists should not take part in actions that are clearly illegal. Unfortunately, it's quite a big difference for us at the moment: "being torture" vs. "being illegal". GregorB (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again i did not post this to win a semantic arguement, this is APA's position on waterboarding, that it is illegal and un-ethical for psychologists to be involved with in any way. (Hypnosadist) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source the APA 

message: Interesting and somewhat confusing comments here.  I notice the author of the article gives a reason as to why the government is taking this stand, but does not say where that information comes from -- which would make it more solid to my eye. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article, he said it would be a form of torture if done to him (but did not comment if it would be if done to others). Badagnani (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mukasey does not speak up again 

message: * No pre-2001 sources say waterboarding is not torture. (Hypnosadist) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  to clarify the point, the world and the US considered it torture in world war 2 and vietnam and i believe tried several people for it as a war crime. Now there seems to be a reversal adding weight to the fringe angle. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments