Talk:Waterboarding

See also: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.

---

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here

No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Updating to ensure this is not archived yet. Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture". Except for the government of the United States. Although this article attempts to be diverse and multi-cultural, no attempt is made to distinguish Cambodian waterboarding from any other type. What about dunking a common form of torture used in Europe? Is that waterboarding? if not than how do you justify the inclusion of the Spanish Inquisition rack? This articles is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue.

As for a "human rights group" Who the hell elected them and what jurisdiction do they have??Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to believe that the references here to the Spanish Inquisition are referring to their use of the rack, however, this belief is mistaken - the references here are to the Tormento di Toca, a form of waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think Chris may have mean to write Tormento de Toca above. The BBC's Spanish-language news reports certainly seem to use this term as the direct Spanish translation of what their English-language reports call "waterboarding". [1] -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is torture

From Innertia Tensor

• 100 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.

What do law professors know about waterboarding? And how are these "100 law professors" more valid than the 1000s who did NOT sign this statement? Did JAG officers sign it? Matt Sanchez (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about sources that do not exist, is why they are more important as sources than people who did not sign this statement. Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The defininition of torture is largely a legal one, on both the domestic and international levels. Therefore, I believe law professors' views are relevant. -Lciaccio (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

False and somewhat naive. The definition of torture is political. If the American government has not defined waterboarding as torture, what right does Wikipedia have to take that step?Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely wrong. Firstly, torture is defined by a physical process. Politicians try to hide the truth of torture for political reasons. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an organ of the US government. Thirdly, waterboarding has been defined as torture by medical practitoners, torturers, victims, law enforcement officers, and - yes - politicians including those of the US government and even - gasp - in a moment of enlightenment, the US government itself. docboat (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, the definition of torture we are concerned with is a linguistic issue. Legal definitions often try to clearly delineate semantic categories for purposes of clarity and consistency. Politics has nothing to do with the definition per se, although some people bend over backwards to avoid calling something by unpleasant terms. And it may be surprising to "NG", but the US government does not yet have the exclusive right to determine reality. I don't think they have an official position on gravity, and yet I dare to stay on Earth. And even if they ever claim it has been abolished, I will continue to attract other masses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please stay focussed. There is a legal definition of torture as applied under US and International law. Establishing whether waterboarding meets the legal requirements to fall under that definition evidently is a legal matter and not a political one. Of course, politics are relevant to why a straight forward determination is impossible without a very small group of individuals attempting to create a dispute. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. [2]

reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."

Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't he in the USNR? Not USAFR? Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.

• UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004

• For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

• Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
• Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007

Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mississippi Supreme Court. [3]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

  The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

• Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge [4] states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Lawrence Cohen

• Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
• CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
• Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
• Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
• Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
• Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."

I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

• The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From Akhilleus

Law review articles

• Adeno Addis, "'Informal' Suspension of Normal Processes: the 'War on Terror' as an Autoimmunity Crisis," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 323ff.: "Although prohibited by the U.S. Army and likely illegal under detainee legislation, 'waterboarding,' the torture technique in which a prisoner is secured with his feet over his head while water is poured on a cloth covering his face, is reportedly still practiced." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• George J. Annas, "Human Rights Outlaws: Nuremberg, Geneva, and the Global War on Terror," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 427ff.: "One such memo was prepared for the CIA and is reported to authorize the 'use of some 20 interrogation practices,' including waterboarding, a torture technique in which people are made to believe they might drown." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• M. Cherif Bassiouni, "The Institutionalization of Torture under the Bush Administration," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2006) 389ff.: "Among some examples that may illustrate what was deemed permissible and which were actually carried out are: forcing a father to watch the mock execution of his 14-year old son; placing a lit cigarette in the ear of a detainee to burn his eardrum; bathing a person's hand in alcohol and then lighting it on fire; shackling persons to the floor for 18-24 hours; shackling persons from the top of a door frame to dislocate the shoulders, and gagging persons in order to create the effect of drowning in one's own saliva; 'waterboarding,' which is placing a cloth on a person's head and dousing it with water to create the effect of drowning...These practices sanctioned by the Administration are exactly what Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits, and what the CAT drafters of Article 1 wanted to avoid. The Administration's legal advisors preposterously claimed that the infliction of severe pain and suffering, as defined in Article 1 of the CAT, '[M]ust be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" in order to constitute torture.'" --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thomas F. Berndt & Alethea M. Huyser, "Student Note: Ghost Detainees: Does the Isolation and Interrogation of Detainees Violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?" William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2007) 1739-1740: "Waterboarding is alleged to be the most extreme measure used by CIA interrogators. It is a technique in which the prisoner is "bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him." The effectiveness of the technique relies on creating in the mind of the detainee the feeling of drowning, essentially operating as a mock execution. Mental health professionals report mock executions to have significant mental effects on detainees. Mock executions have been cited by both domestic and international authorities as constituting torture."
• Cristián Correa, "Waterboarding Prisoners and Justifying Torture: Lessons for the U.S. from the Chilean Experience," Human Rights Brief 14.2 (2007) 21-25: "Despite its recent prevalence in the Western news media, waterboarding, or 'the submarine' (as it is known in some Latin American countries), is anything but novel in the realm of torture. Waterboarding entails many different methods of torture, each using water to suffocate detainees and provoke the sensation of drowning. The effect results within a few seconds or minutes and leaves no external injuries, thereby eluding a definition of torture which requires proof of injury, bleeding, or other physical harm. Waterboarding has been designed to cause intense psychological pain while granting technical impunity to those administering the punishment." --Akhilleus (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Christian M. De Vos, "Mind the Gap: Purpose, Pain, and the Difference between Torture and Inhuman Treatment," Human Rights Brief 14 (2007) 4ff.: "Categorizing levels of ill-treatment and their respective criminality is a work of legal fiction that can confuse as often as it clarifies. For better or worse, these distinctions exist in law; however, if they are to serve any purpose, it should not be to permit states to evade criminal responsibility through artifice and technicality, the normative effect of which exceptionalizes torture when, in fact, it remains distressingly common. Indeed, it is a telling sign of our impoverished discourse on the subject that we are now left to wonder whether 'water-boarding' (or, in the more modest characterization of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a 'dunk in the water') is perhaps not as bad as one might think." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Owen Fiss, "Law Is Everywhere," The Yale Law Journal 117 (2007) 260: "It suggested that two practices until then universally understood as torture - the use of scenarios designed to convince detainees that death is imminent, and use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce fear of suffocation ('water-boarding') - though forbidden 'as a matter of policy ... at this time,' nonetheless 'may be legally available.'" --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lisa Graves, "Ten Questions: Responses of Lisa Graves," William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2007) 1620: "The truth of our real policy is only amplified by the infamous Justice Department memos by John Yoo and (now judge) Jay Bybee asserting Geneva does not apply and construing 'torture' to allow numerous ineffective and appalling techniques that readers would rightly consider torture if imposed on them, such as waterboarding to near drowning, which passes Yoo-Bybee because the pain caused is not equivalent to organ failure. Although that part of the memo was withdrawn due to public outcry upon its discovery years after it was implemented, the Administration has refused to disavow the severely flawed underlying legal reasoning arguing for virtually unchecked power for the President." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Amos N. Guiora and Erin M. Page, "The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation, and Torture," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2006) 427ff.: "Water-boarding, a Category III technique, induces the detainee to believe that death is imminent. This technique requires that the detainee be strapped or held down to induce the sensation of drowning as either water is repeatedly poured down the individual's throat or the head is immersed in water. Detainees who have experienced water-boarding have universally expressed an overwhelming fear because the method prevents breathing. Furthermore, according to some reports, a number of individuals have died as a result of water-boarding. There is little doubt that this technique represents torture,..." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Jonathan Hafetz, "Guantanamo and the 'Next Frontier' of Detainee Issues," Seton Hall Law Review 37 (2007) 700: "Meanwhile, the administration has held other prisoners at secret CIA-run detention centers, also known as 'black sites,' and subjected them to 'enhanced' interrogation techniques - the new euphemism for torture - including hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, long time standing, and water-boarding, where the subject is made to feel he is being drowned." --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Peter Jan Honigsberg, "Chasing 'Enemy Combatants' and Circumventing International Law: A License for Sanctioned Abuse," UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 12 (2007) 38: "In fact, Mohammed was presumably subject to the torture method known as water boarding." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Scott Horton, "Kriegsraison or military necessity? The Bush Administration's Wilhelmine Attitude towards the Conduct of War," Fordham International Law Journal 30 (2007) 576ff.: "A specific practice of torture identified and punished by the United States as early as 1902, was a device known as "waterboarding" in which a detainee was through various means made to sense that he was drowning." --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seth F. Kreimer, "'Torture Lite,' 'Full Bodied' Torture, and the Insulation of Legal Conscience," Journal of National Security Law & Policy 1 (2005) 194-195: "At the same time, CIA operatives undertook what might be called 'full bodied' torture of suspected terrorists in secret locations, including denial of pain medication, beatings, sensory assaults, and "water boarding." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Christopher Kutz, "Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics," California Law Review 95 (2007) 235ff.: "The current administration of George W. Bush has decided not to pay those costs. Instead, it chooses to use coercive interrogation techniques that would conventionally be thought of as straightforwardly torturous, including water-boarding, false burial, "Palestinian hanging"...Insofar as the statutory definition of torture includes acts "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which pain or suffering can result from "the threat of imminent death," orders to deploy waterboarding (which by design arouses a sensation of imminent death by drowning) would clearly have focused the minds of U.S. personnel on the consequences of the Torture statute." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• David Luban, "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," Virginia Law Review 91 (2005) 1431: "And torture terrorizes. The body in pain winces; it trembles. The muscles themselves register fear. This is rooted in pain's biological function of impelling us in the most urgent way possible to escape from the source of pain - for that impulse is indistinguishable from panic. U.S. interrogators have reportedly used the technique of 'waterboarding' to break the will of detainees. Waterboarding involves immersing the victim's face in water or wrapping it in a wet towel to induce drowning sensations. As anyone who has ever come close to drowning or suffocating knows, the oxygen-starved brain sends panic signals that overwhelm everything else." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Jamie Meyerfield, "Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of International Human Rights Law Led to Torture," The Harvard Human Rights Journal 20 (2007) 89ff.: "The government, though it balks at the word "torture," has acknowledged the use of coercive methods. In a highly publicized speech on September 6, 2006, President Bush defended what he called 'an alternative set of procedures' used in a 'CIA program for questioning terrorists.' He refused to describe the authorized techniques, but several of them are common knowledge: waterboarding (or near-drowning),...Much of this abuse is rightly called torture...Several of the techniques--including sleep deprivation, forced standing, and waterboarding--are infamously associated with the Gestapo, Stalin's secret police, and the Inquisition...In State Department reports on other countries, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, forced standing, hypothermia, blindfolding, and deprivation of food and water are specifically referred to as torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Mary Ellen O'Connell, "Affirming the Ban on Harsh Interrogation," Ohio State Law Journal 66 (2005) 1231ff.: "Waterboarding involves tying someone to a board and dunking him underwater to the point he fears he will drown. It is plainly a form of torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Jordan J. Paust, "Above the Law: Unlawful Executive Authorizations Regarding Detainee Treatment, Secret Renditions, Domestic Spying, and Claims to Unchecked Executive Power," Utah Law Review (2007) 352-354: "Moreover, some CIA personnel have reported that approved Agency techniques include 'striking detainees in an effort to cause pain and fear,' 'the "cold cell"... [where d]etainees are held naked in a cell cooled to 50 degrees and periodically doused with cold water,' and '"waterboarding" ... [which produces] a terrifying fear of drowning,' each of which is manifestly illegal under the laws of war and human rights law and can result in criminal and civil sanctions for war crimes." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, this article is lengthy (pp. 345 - 419) and is available here, if anyone wants to read it. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Leonard S. Rubenstein, "First, Do No Harm: Health Professionals and Guantanamo," Seton Hall Law Review 37 (2007) 740: "According to the New York Times, psychologists also advised the CIA in devising its 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, or feigned drowning. Indeed, because of their familiarity with, and authorization of, these forms of torture, it is entirely possible, even likely, that the participation of BSCT psychologists in the design of interrogation techniques significantly expanded the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in the interrogation of terror suspects and in the infliction of severe or serious mental harm."
• Jon M. Van Dyke, "Promoting Accountability for Human Rights Abuses," Chapman Law Review 8 (2005) 153ff.: "To give just one of a number of possible examples, the United States has acknowledged utilizing the practice of 'water-boarding,' which involves strapping detainees to boards and immersing them in water to make them think they are drowning. This activity is clearly an example of 'torture' that violates the Torture Convention, but no one has been charged or prosecuted for authorizing or conducting this practice." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Evan Wallach, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts," Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45 (2007) 468ff.: "'Water cure,' 'water torture,' 'water boarding.' Under whatever name, extreme interrogators have long prized the technique, which, unlike other interrogation methods, imposes severe mental trauma and physical pain but no traces of physical trauma that would be discoverable without an autopsy....Certainly, the United States has made it clear, in its courts, both civil and military, and before the national legislature, that water torture, by whatever name it is known, is indeed torture, that its infliction does indeed justify severe punishment, and that it is unacceptable conduct by a government or its representatives." --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

articles in magazines and newspapers

• New York Times. Rather than cite a specific article, I'll note that the NYT has a webpage where info about waterboarding is collected here. Notice that the Times has classified waterboarding as a topic within the general subject of torture--a directory line near the top of the page says "Times Topics > Subjects > T > Torture > Waterboarding". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Charles Krauthammer, "The Truth about Torture," The Weekly Standard, 12/05/2005, Volume 011, Issue 12: "Less hypothetically, there is waterboarding, a terrifying and deeply shocking torture technique in which the prisoner has his face exposed to water in a way that gives the feeling of drowning." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Darius Rejali, "Containing Torture: How torture begets even more torture," Slate, Oct. 27, 2006: "Which brings us to the most notorious torture: waterboarding, or choking someone in water. In 1968, a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division was court-martialed for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam. In fact, the practice was identified as a crime as early as 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Maj. Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he did not hesitate to call torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Books and articles in books

• Christopher Kutz, "The Lawyers Know Sin: Complicity in Torture," in Greenberg, ed. The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 241: "The government lawyers who produced, reviewed, and apparently endorsed these memoranda, including lawyers at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, spent their creative energies shaping a policy whose aim and effect was to legitimate previously illegitimate forms of interrogation and captive treatment--forms ranging from the cruelty and degradation of forced nudity, sexual humiliation, sensory deprivation, and prolonged use of stress positions--to the clearly torturous, most notably including the practice of 'waterboarding,' wherein interrogees are submerged in cold water so as to create the impression of imminent suffocation."
• Kutz (same article), p. 243: "Waterboarding clearly fits the statutory definition of torture, as possibly do techniques of profound humiliation, fear inducement, and physical stress, notwithstanding the memoranda's cramped argument that the later techniques would be merely cruel." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From Hypnosadist

• Gary Solis Adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge. [5] "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."^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mike McConnell Director of National Intelligence [6] "Asked if waterboarding -- the practice of covering a person's face with a cloth and then dripping water on it to bring on a feeling of drowning -- fit that definition, McConnell said that for him personally, it would." ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• This [7] report Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality by Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First has a section on waterboarding and the long term effects of torture as well as the legal aspects of torture.

• 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” [8]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From Edison

• Attorney Andrew Williams, on resigning from Navy Judge Advocate General corps [9] (Knight Ridder pres wire service, Dec 27, 2007.) called it torture. Williams in his resignation letter said waterboarding was used as a form of torture by the Inquisition, and by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempietai. He cites the post-WW2 conviction of Japanese Officer Yukio Asano for waterboarding resulting in a 15 year sentence. Edison (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said ""There's just no doubt in my mind — under any set of rules — waterboarding is torture," in an interview with the Associated Press, and at a conference of the American Bar Association. He further said "One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture," ... "And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is — and will always be — torture. That's a simple statement." A week previous to the Ridge statement that waterboarding is torture, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnellsaid that he would considere waterboarding torture if it were used against him. Reproduced at [10]. Edison (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From GregorB

• American Civil Liberties Union press release: ACLU Outlines Ways Waterboarding has Already Been Declared Illegal by the Federal Government. Says that "American Civil Liberties Union presents indisputable evidence that waterboarding has been repeatedly classified as torture and is banned by U.S. law." Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says: "it is hard to find a more clear-cut form of torture than waterboarding". Another text from ACLU, What is Waterboarding?, describes it as "a paradigmatic torture technique that has long been considered a war crime". GregorB (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Malcolm Nance, a "counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government's Special Operations, Homeland Security, and Intelligence agencies": Waterboarding is Torture… Period. Nance has already been mentioned here as a source. In this article he makes three main points: 1) "Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period.", 2) "Waterboarding is not a simulation.", 3) "If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives." Says also: "There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists". GregorB (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Amnesty International: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Slippery slopes and the politics of torture. Says that "there should [...] be no doubt in any [U.S.] official’s mind that waterboarding is torture".
• Amnesty International: USA: Destruction of CIA interrogation tapes may conceal government crimes. Says that "“Waterboarding” is a form of torture".
• Human Rights Watch: U.S.: Vice President Endorses Torture. Says that "Cheney’s comments on the legality of waterboarding contradict the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Defense Department, as well as fundamental principles of international law".
• Cristián Correa (Senior Associate, International Center for Transitional Justice): Debate on waterboarding is artificial; it is clearly torture. The title says it all.

This is an interesting source as it can add the Pinochet regime to the Historical uses section, though i would like more sources on that if anyone has them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There's also a HRW resource, Waterboarding through history that mentions Hissène Habré, former president of Chad, who was indicted in Belgium for torture. Although drawings are described as "waterboarding", they apparently represent water immersion and water cure. I'm not sure that there is a meaningful difference between those techniques, though. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the number of sources in favor of this position, we should perhaps consider restricting ourselves only to people named Steve. GregorB (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From Henrik

Navy Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift (ret.) is interviewed on MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 17, 2008, (available here) is quoted as saying the following

Plus we have reports, that are credible, that waterboarding, forced nudity, prolonged isolation, are what we are doing. We may parse it legally, they are not in Europe or Canada or Great Britain. They call it for what it is, torture. This debate, which for us, continues politically in Congress is over in Europe. It's over in Canada. We're losing it there, it's done."

henrik•talk 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A Navy Lt. Cmdr in his role as JAG is definitely an expert authority on whether waterboarding is or is not torture. A verifiable legal authority. Lawrence Cohen 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just to make it clear for those who missed it while reading the article: He is retired from the US Navy and currently working as a law professor. henrik•talk 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A Navy Lt. Cmdr Jag who is speaking for JAG, may be a reliable source for JAG. However, if he is speaking for himself, he is only speaking for himself. Was the interview one in which he represented his views as those of the NAVY Jag or as his own? Or did he not say? If he did not say, we may not presume that he speaks for anyone other than himself. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's speaking for himself being a retired Jag, anyone going to call him anti-american? He can be added as yet another source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete bullshit. We don't devalue sources in this way. Once your an expert, you're an expert, period, full stop. Lawrence Cohen 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From neon white

• Richard Armitage, 13th United States Deputy Secretary of State. Interviewed by By Matt Frei for the BBC in washington. He states that he was water-boarded in trainng and answers when questioned as follows "Of course water-boarding is torture," he said bluntly. "I can't believe we're even debating it. We shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff." --neonwhite user page talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[11]
• From the same article above an unnamed cambodian survivor of the Khmer Rouge describes it's use. --neonwhite user page talk 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carrol describes the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition as torture. --neonwhite user page talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Vann Nath, cambodian painter and human rights activist, painted and published memoirs of the Tuol Sleng prison including depictions of water torture. --neonwhite user page talk 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Theodore Roosevelt, [12]

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about everyone on Fox News, including both the right and left pundits on The Beltway Boys. See, both sides agree. Obviously, it must be fair and balanced to say that people in the US believe it isn't torture it is torture it's acceptable if it gets results, whatever it's called. Thompsontough (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we cite McCain and Graham assertion that it is torture, shall we quote Dick Cheney and other politicial, Military, and intelligence officials who assert it is not? Ryratt (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So far this is only a list of sources. So yes, if you can find unambiguous statements by Cheney or other notable sources, list them here. Of course weighting the sources is a separate process. But so far the "is not" side has been extremely weak in finding any sources, let alone sources of a comparable weight to peer-reviewed medical and law journal articles, explicit statements by law professors, and even JAGs, and actual legal decisions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The United States is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture. The main text of the Convention defines torture as follows:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (emphasis added)

Under this definition, it is clear that waterboarding is torture if used on a detainee who does not know that they will not be allowed to drown. (By contrast, as used in training, it is not torture, since the trainee knows they will be rescued).

However, in signing the Convention Against Torture, the United States made some reservations. Among them was the following:

. . . the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. (emphasis added)

Subject to this reservation, it is equally clear that waterboarding as it has been used on detainees is not torture. There is no severe physical pain; the severe anguish is mental. And the United States, in ratifying the convention, has said that it will only consider mental anguish to constitute torture if it is prolonged. Since KSM allegedly lasted about 2 minutes, and the others for less time, the mental suffering was not prolonged, so it was not torture. 76.118.179.214 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• 76.118 that is Andrew C. McCarthy's position and it is noted, dispite being based on his flawed (as in totally wrong) medical opinion. That is waterboarding does not cause severe physical pain when it does due to the oxygen deprivation (as noted in the many sources we have from people who have been waterboarded), and that short exposure to to torure does not cause long term harm (when it does and we have the medical evidence to say so). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Some remarks: First, the convention explicitly defines the term "for the purposes of this Convention", not in general. Secondly, I will absolutely maintain that being slowly drowned - even if you know you will be rescued - is "severe physical suffering". Just try to dive 25 m without equipment. If you are reasonably fit, you will feel as if your lung is about to burst (if you are unreasonably fit, substitute 75 m ;-). There is nothing "mental" about this, it is simply the body telling you it wants oxygen. Of course, an additional mental component can make things worse - if at the end of the dive there is a swimmer above you (so you cannot immediately surface), you will very likely experience quite some mental anguish. Finally, if you look at the medical sources, it is very obvious that waterboarding can and does result in long-lasting mental trauma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."

And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively. There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.

Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis. After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.

UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is? I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Wikipedia is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs. It either does or it doesn't. The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.

I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions. Some are better than others, but they're still opinions. Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth. In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category. Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Wikipedia does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Wikipedia reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here. I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.

I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions. For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial. That was merely a legal opinion. It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. 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).

There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion. (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.) The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.

It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture." That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.

I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Patrick Lee, "Interrogational Torture," The American Journal of Jurisprudence 51 (2006) 143n43: "Whether water-boarding is torture in the proper sense is not clear. It seems to be a very effective practice for obtaining desired information, but it does not seem to cause at least any long-lasting harm. One might at first think that it is an instance of mock execution, but it does not cause the detainee really to think that he will die. One might argue that it does not reduce the detainee to a 'dis-integrated' state, because the process seems to be effective so quickly. It seems to bring about in the individual an almost intolerable feeling of impending harm or even death. On the other hand, one might argue that being in such a state is being in a severely 'dis-integrated' state. If the first argument is correct then I think it is not torture and that it is (in some cases) morally permissible. If the second argument is correct, then it is torture and it is morally wrong. I am not sure which argument is correct." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Heather MacDonald, "How to Interrogate Terrorists," in Greenberg, ed. The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 92: "Later, the CIA is said to have used 'water-boarding'--temporarily submerging a detainee in water to induce the sensation of drowning--on Khalid Sheik Mohammmad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Water-boarding is the most extreme method the CIA has applied, according to a former Justice Department attorney, and arguably it crosses the line into torture." (This is in an article that generally defends the Bush administration's interrogation policies, so it's all the more notable that MacDonald is uneasy about waterboarding.) --Akhilleus (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah, notable conservative pundits; Congressman Ted Poe, a licensed attorney. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Farah is widely considered an extremist. --neonwhite user page talk 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity count? Thompsontough (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

• Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. [[13]] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, this arguement clearly deserves mocking. Simple logic leads to the direct conclusion that waterboarding is torture. Some group of people WHO ARE USING IT say its not torture. That reeks of bias. We can rely on the US government for laws, but we can't rely on them for facts.--Can Not (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • And a group who are not using it are saying that it is; more bias! Relying on the US (or any) government for facts is usually not indicated. htom (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it could not be torture. Even if it causes no "pain" in the traditional sense, if it is capable of making someone so physically uncomfortable that they will do something against their will, then what is it? It is also true that something like the forced Russian Roulette games in the Deer Hunter were not causing "pain" in the traditional sense, but would that not be considered torture? If the captured American soldiers were being waterboarded by Al-Qaeda, would that be okay? The intellectual dishonesty of not calling it torture astounds me 98.207.98.174 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Input needed for FAQ question

I've just added the question "Is the viewpoint that waterboarding should not be described as torture a fringe view?" to the FAQ and would like to hear some of the arguments pro and con. This gets very close to the heart of the conflict, but lets please try to keep the discussion constructive. Please don't debate each other in the arguments section, just post what you feel is the strongest argument for an affirmative or negative answer to the question. If you think the question itself should be phrased differently, please let me know on my talk page and I'll take your input into account. henrik•talk 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

• No pre-2001 sources say waterboarding is not torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• No non-american sources say waterboarding is not torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• No medical sources say waterboarding is not torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• No left-wing or centerist sources say waterboarding is not torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• No case law says waterboaring is not torture/illegal. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accoridng to WP:FRINGE, fringe theories are those which 'depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view'. In this case i believe it is the direct opposite to the mainstream view, considering the clear evidence that not only the current mainstream view but the mainstream view historically is that this is torture. --neonwhite user page talk 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• The 'fringe' sources are very much opinion pieces rather than reliable independent sources.
• The theory is 'a novel interpretation of history', if you consider the ignoring of past precedence in US and international law. --neonwhite user page talk 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Discussion

• I find wikipedia is even debating this repugnant. Of course water boarding is torture. As User:Neon white mentions, often the US has supported international law, treaties, and conventions as long as those agreements supported US policy. When those agreements conflict with US policy, they are disregarded. These violations are then quickly forgotten and American civil religious dogma quickly returns. Trav (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are no pre-2001 sources that ever mention the term waterboarding as we are using it here. That is why no pre-2001 sources would declare that it is not torture. None declare that it is. It is not discussed prior to 2001. In fact, I have a challenge: Find a source prior to 2001 that uses the term "waterboarding" (not surfing). I have taken that challenge myself and I am trying to find one. I searched one database of newspapers and did not find any references to waterboarding prior to 2001. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly relevant, since we have reliable sources that tell us that waterboarding did happen before 2001. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. We have sources that say it happened. I am not so sure how reliable they are, if the term is not well defined or is conflated with other things. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Blue Tie, this is exactly what we've been discussing above. Why should we value your opinion over that of people like Evan Wallach and Cristian Correa? They have demonstrable expertise in legal subjects, whereas all we know about you is that you're an anonymous Wikipedia editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should value my opinion as another editor of wikipedia. I have not suggested anything but that. I do not see any reason for you to imagine that I have said something else. Where have I said that my opinion of Waterboarding should be above that of Evan Wallach? I cannot imagine such a thing. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie, as you've already noted, Wallach equates the "water cure" and waterboarding. You have argued that this is a mistake, and you have just said that you are unsure how reliable Wallach's article because waterboarding is "conflated with other things." In other words, you are using your own judgement (and your own original research) to say that Wallach's opinion is mistaken. Since you have no apparent expertise in the subject, why should I value your argument over Wallach's? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely mischaracterizing my position. I am not holding my opinion or original research to be say that Wallach's opinion is mistake. How could I? It is impossible since it is my opinion that he is NOT mistaken... he is right. So your assessment is as far off as it can possibly be.

I believe in "No Original Research" as the wikipedia rule for articles, but "No original research" doesn't mean we check our critical judgment at the door. it is entirely reasonable to evalute the quality and reliability of various sources. In this case, I observe a legal opinion paper that has an intent of showing that waterboarding is ... or should be... illegal. It is not intended to define what waterboarding is. It is not intended to explore technical differences. It is intended to put them all together as you would put together robbery of a car and safe-cracking as crimes. Not that there are not very significant differences between the nature of those crimes but they are both criminal acts. We would not use a legal document arguing that car-jacking and safe-cracking are both crimes to say car-jacking = safe-cracking.

And so, using the normal critical thinking skills of a wikipedian editor, not doing original research but simply evaluating the source, I do not see this as a good source for defining waterboarding. In fact, it is a particularly bad source for that because it is intentionally conflating various things all in the name of torture... or illegality... to make a point.

However, I do consider it an excellent source for a legal scholar's opinion that waterboardng is torture and should be illegal. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "critical thinking" is a tendentious misreading of Wallach's article. It's not an "opinion paper", it's an analysis of legal history. Wallach says that waterboarding has been found to be torture in U.S. courts for over a century, since the time of the Philippine-American War. He makes it quite clear that the current technique is not appreciably different than that used by the U.S. in the Philippines and Vietnam, or by the Japanese in the Second World War. Another article by Wallach in the Washington Post makes the point plainly: "One such set of questions relates to 'waterboarding.' That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed...After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war..." and so on.

(The cited article was published on the opinion pages. htom (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

That may apply to the Washington Post article, but it doesn't apply to the article in the Coumbia Journal of Transnational Law'. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Volume 45, Number 2, where it was an "essay", not an "article"; not being a lawyer, I have no idea what that distinction means, but they made it. htom (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. Other law reviews make a similar distinction, but at the moment I can't figure out what it signifies. I'll try to figure it out later; maybe we should ask a lawyer. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think essays are simply shorter pieces than articles, based on this page. I might be wrong about this, of course... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't agree with Wallach's argument, which you're cetainly entitled to do, but that doesn't justify distorting what Wallach says, nor to use your own definition of waterboarding to conclude that Wallach's article isn't a good source. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I could say that your failure to recognize an opinion paper by calling it an "analysis" is tendentious misreading. But such things do not promote good feelings. Try a little kindness. And if you find yourself unable to do that, then at least ordinary good faith and courtesy.

Meanwhile, let me point out that Wallach's statements are not the only ones on the matter... and a lawyer who actually practices in this specific area (Wallach does not) is on record as saying that there is no case law on waterboarding. Again, Wallach's paper is a good source of a legal expert's opinion, but it is not intended to specifically define waterboarding. To use it for a purpose beyond its intent is a real misreading of the source. This is true even if I agree with the way that paper defines it.

And because you evidently missed it before, let me repeat again, but this time in bold I happen to agree with Wallach. Also, since you have missed it let me repeat, again in bold: I believe it is a good source. I just happen to characterize what it is good for differently than you do. I would have more confidence that you were giving my words due consideration if you actually read them with comprehension. I would also appreciate it if you would not get upset and make things personal and insulting. Can you try? --Blue Tie (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that you're misreading sources is not uncivil. And really, that's what you're doing. What is your tortured, and incoherent, argument about Wallach's "intent" for, if not to deny that his central point is that waterboarding has been found illegal in U.S. courts for over a century? Or am I misunderstanding you, and you agree with Wallach that Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding after the Second World War? Because, despite your saying just now that you think Wallach's article is a "good source", you've limited that to being a good source for his "opinion that waterboarding is torture and should be illegal." As far as I can tell, you don't think the article is a good source about the history of waterboarding. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that pointing out that misreading sources was uncivil. I say it is you who is misreading sources -- did you notice that? And I try not to be uncivil -- so I do not consider that uncivil behavior.

I consider Wallach's intent to be clear based upon the title of the article. His intent was to describe the legal history of water torture in the US. He clearly believes that waterboarding is one of these tortures. His expertise is law, particularly international laws, so his opinion should not be viewed lightly. I do not agree that the Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for Waterboarding. The existence of treatment that to me (and apparently to Wallach) looks like waterboarding but not called waterboarding (It was specifically called something else) was part of the evidence against them for torture, but they were not prosecuted or convicted on charges of waterboarding. I do not think the article is a good source for the history of waterboarding. But, I think it is a good source for the US History of Legal Decisions (Apologies to Lawrence for US focus) on using Water for Torture -- as that is its intent and it is written by a competent expert in the field. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If waterboarding is new Blue tie, what happened to French Journalist Henri Alleg. Is he lieing about what the paratroopers of his own nation did to him? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly he is not lying. Does Alleg say that he was "Waterboarded"?--Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the picture of waterboarding that got the american squady convicted of waterboarding, if thats not waterboarding what is it? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what it is. It looks to me to be something close to waterboarding. But if it is not labeled "Waterboarding" in the original article, it is original research for us to label it as waterboarding. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And of course the painting of waterboarding in Vann Nath re-education camp Cambodia, did that not happen Blue tie? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is the painting titled "Waterboarding" by the painter? --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its from this blog [14]

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations. His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge.

So yes it is about waterboarding though i think we should ask them for the pictures of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't blogs generally considered unreliable sources? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is reliable. [15]. --neonwhite user page talk 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree. Not in this case. That article is awful in its conflation and lack of precision. I actually find the blog to be better than that article. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is well written and verifiable, you're personal opinion of it's content does not change that. It clear states that Water-boarding was used by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and describes the image It was a naive drawing of a man strapped to a plank, a board, if you like, with another man pouring water over his face with a metal watering can. The kind you use for watering flowers. The face of the man lying down was covered in a blue cloth. The painting looked fairly comical, as if someone was irrigating a human face. There is nothing whatsoever unclear or ambiguous about that. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends what they say or in this case show, are you seriously going to contest these pictures do not show a picture painted by victim of water boarding and the actual waterboard and blue watering-can. You can but at that point i'm going to stop assuming any good faith toward you. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible, by wikipedia standards, to just look at that painting and declare "This is waterboarding". To do so is a violation of original research. If you cannot assume good faith toward me because I want to adhere to wikipedia policies, you are in violation of WP:AGF for a terribly poor reason. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Read wp:nor

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

How is attacking this long standing part of the article useful in creating the FAQ, answer its not its just another front that can be opened in the war on this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that pictures are given exception because editors are encouraged to produce their own pictures. This is not something that is produced by an editor. Also the exception to policy indicates that it is related to things unexceptional non-controversial matters. In this case, an OR interpretation of a picture from a discouraged source (a blog) is marginal. I am not attacking this part of the article. I am concerned about other things... Namely that in an article with lots of contention, we should stick with excellent sources. (As an aside, I also do not like the picture because of the glare in it, but that is entirely not a factor in my thinking. Indeed I was thinking of photoshopping the glare out, previously.)

But your statement appears to lack good faith. Are you unable to exercise good faith toward me?--13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Are you unable to exercise good faith toward me?" I said if you challenge this picture i would stop assuming you were acting in good faith, and i ment it. There is no way any reasonable person can doubt what is depicted in that picture is waterboarding (and saying so is not OR because it is so obvious), you are now engaged in wikilawyering to get rid of it and i do not think that is to make the encyclopedia better. Begin to edit constructively, such as providing new sources or pictures for the article and i may have my faith restored. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you are unable to exercise good faith toward me. However, in your failure to exercise good faith you made some false allegations. I am not wikilawyering. I am not trying to get rid of it. And I do want to make the encyclopedia better. Seeking to have policy applied very carefully and fully is not a bad thing. However, since you have declared that you are not able to have good faith toward me, I will not be responding to your questions or issues in the future since it would be pointless; you would simply assume I am doing something evil. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This guideline (WP:AGF) does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary --neonwhite user page talk 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not pretend this picture is going away, because it never will if you're the only person advocating it. Blogs are acceptable sources if the author is of expert quality on a given relevant subject, and especially for trivial things. David Corn is absolutely a very notable expert. Lawrence § t/e 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blank is an authoritative source who has published widely, and in this circumstance his blog should probably be considered reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that WP:SPS applies. It says that the use of such sources is really discouraged. I believe that in the case of a highly disputed article, only the very best sources should be used, not sources that are marginal. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie some searching has shown that our waterboarding painting is by Vann Nath and our painting would be a nice primary source. 14,000 people went into camp S-21, seven made it out and Vann was one of them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I think the article clearly covers the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition which certainly wasn't identical everytime it was used. However they all had the same purpose so to characterise them differently based on political views in ridiculous. --neonwhite user page talk 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the Wallach paper is not an opinion piece - it is in fact one of the best sources available to Wikipedia. It is entirely apppropriate to quote from it as fact, unless the information has been superceded or disputed by new publications of similar esteem. That means "United States has historically regarded waterboarding as torture.{citeWallach}" and not "Wallach thinks X". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt it is an opinion piece. That is what judges do... they write OPINIONS. Within these opinions they often express facts, but they do not limit themselves to facts, they also use other people's opinions and their own along the way. I think that using this article one should say "The United States has historically considered Water Torture to be illegal and Evan Wallach believes Waterboarding is included in the definitions of Water Torture". --Blue Tie (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be "U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture, which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions.{citeEW}" Since no expert has disputed this statement in any reliable source of similar esteem, the statement stands. If some follow-up paper appears in a legal journal that disputes Wallach, then that can of course be included too. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with that wording. I would say, if this is used, the wording should be something like "Evan Wallach has argued that US courts consistently rule that Water Torture is illegal and he asserts that waterboarding is a form of water torture previously covered by U.S. Courts". I think that would be a more precise wording of what he found and it also places the paper in the area of opinion -- which is what it is. I do not like to clutter articles with titles of people who are quoted, and his current (last 12 years) title is not very good for this purpose but his expertise should somehow be recognized, if nowhere else, at least in the footnote. That is, if this is used. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When this is used, we should use the long title Wallach is most known for, the one you don't care for. It demonstrates and asserts his status as an expert authority on the subject. Lawrence § t/e 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His current title is not particularly relevant to this article and it does not particularly lend weight to his opinion. It is his past positions that make him something of an expert on this matter. That is why I do not care for his current title... but it is what it is. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the words Alleg used. First he wrote about his torture in a book, which I can't find online but it's available from Editions Minuit for 9 euros. Of course he wrote in French so he would not have used the term "waterboarding". Recently he has been interviewed by US news media and if he wanted to draw a distinction between how he was treated and the practice known as "waterboarding" he had a chance to do that. Therefore we can assume that he regards one of the tortures that he underwent as essentially the same as "waterboarding". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What did he say in his recent interview? We cannot imagine what he meant, we can only use what he said.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. [16] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he did not call it waterboarding originally but it is clear that he does now describe it as waterboarding: "Well, I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to." I believe Alleg is a strong source in many regards. Maybe not 100% but more than 90%. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course he did not call it waterboarding, the book was writen in french! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems no arguments have even been put forward against the view that "waterboarding is not torture" in not the height of FRINGE thinking. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They have previously been put forward. There is no reason to re-state them. One of the problems mentioned in the Arbcom case is that people are posting the same argument over and over again. That does not bother me actually but it bothers other people. Since that is so, I do not think it is appropriate to ask people to post again what has already been posted. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"They have previously been put forward" then post a link to the section of the talk page/archive. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that people need to be able to defend their viewpoints if challenged. To do otherwise is to undermine our entire method, which is a Foundation issue and non-negotiable no matter how distasteful. Circular arguments are different--people being pointless stubborn and arguing on the RFAR that they don't like things for personal reasons, not policy. Personal reasons worthless on Wikipedia. That was the problem on the RFAR. In regards to articles, if challenged on your points, you must defend them. Way it works. Lawrence § t/e 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a FAQ does entail revisiting previous arguments, but hopefully for the last time. I would strongly urge those who feel that the arguments above doesn't represent all opinions to amend the list of arguments. henrik•talk 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems no arguments have even been put forward against the view that "waterboarding is not torture" in not the height of FRINGE thinking. Are any people who profess the "waterboarding is not torture" view going to put forward thier arguments or can we put this issue to bed? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reminder on consensus

Consensus absolutely does not and will never require unanimous support. Lawrence § t/e 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of wish you had felt that way in November. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in October and November, before we had collected over two hundred sources and viewpoints on Waterboarding, I bent over backwards in organizing so that all views would be considered at least on talk here. Once I saw the body of evidence and RS were incredibly solidly to one side, I made a decision in my mind that would be best for Wikipedia in direct opposite to my own personal beliefs. And I personally stand by that to this day. And I've never believed consensus had to be unanimous, because the idea is insane. Any one person, or five, could filibuster progress anywhere on Wikipedia then. It would be a very stupid idea. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job. And.. you had a consensus version of the lede, which you then compromised in order to get ... what you supposed.. would have been unanimity. In trying to get unanimity you pushed the lede too far in one direction and it fell over. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right, Blue Tie. Neutral Good (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Please participate

Yes, voting is evil. No one needs to flay the dead horse again here. Simple poll:

• Legal status of waterboarding in any legal jurisdiction: does this carry any extra special value for us, over "opinions" of experts? This is specific to the is/isn't torture question, which is not going to go away until we have a consensus that is acceptable to the bulk of the editors here.

Yes

2. If the law specifically mentions "Waterboarding". Otherwise it may not apply. Perhaps... if it does not use the term waterboarding but describes the process as illegal, that might be ok, though at that point our use of it is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
3. If the law has been applied to convict someone of waterboaring then it is appropriate. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as japanese in the second world war (check) and american troops in vietnam (check). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as its explicitly banned for all US military personel to do it as its torture. Of course its been banned in europe since the late seventies (violation of the ECHR). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No

1. Lawrence § t/e 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Our statement that waterboarding is a form of torture should be based on the ordinary meaning of the word. We are a general encyclopedia, not a law journal. The legal status in various countries, where we have sourced information on it, should be noted in an appropriate section in the body of the text. That a country wishing to use waterboarding might attempt to twist its legal definition of torture to exclude waterboarding has no bearing on what we call it. The discovery of a 1991 GAO document, noted below, that shows both the General Accounting Office and the Defense Department routinely used the word torture in connection with waterboarding should end this discussion once and for all.--agr (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Complex answer

1. It depends. A verdict by a competent court, one way or the other, would certainly carry some weight. But the lack of such a verdict does not mean that we have to discard all other evidence. The notion that "nothing is real until a court in my country has determined it" is entirely fallacious, not to say stupid, and is certainly not even acknowledged as a legal fiction in any jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Also wp:weight means if waterboaring was legal in one country but illegal everywhere else the vast majority should be given vastly more space and time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   I don't disagree, but I want to again point out that the question of the classification of waterboarding as torture and its legality are two distinct issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you the classification of torture is a semantic and medical (there are proceedures to measure and quantify if torture has happened to your patient). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The question is indeed complex. Controversial articles should ideally rely on secondary sources written by experts. Written laws, although relevant, are a primary source, and ideally should be interpreted by expert secondary sources. However, it is appropriate to quote a primary source to illustrate issues identified by a secondary source. (This is my current understanding of Wikipedia sourcing - if I'm wrong, please enlighten me.) Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I doubt if there are enough sources for the article to cover the question of the legality of waterboarding in different jurisdictions. Virtually all jurisdictions have a ban on torture (whether adhered to or not), therefore waterboading is illegal if it is to be defined as torture, however the question has never have been submitted to legal judgement in that jurisdiction. The United States is the exception; there the legality of waterboarding has been raised but the question appears to be still open to debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that it is likely that waterboarding is not illegal in some countries. These may not be countries we would prefer to live in, but they exist. In these countries laws may not be so well codified that they can be reviewed and analyzed either. And, I should also point out that the issues of waterboarding being torture and being illegal are not exactly synonymous. It may be considered torture, but legal (like in those countries I just talked about). So, legality is not exactly a statement that it is not torture in at least some cases.--Blue Tie (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe waterboarding is not illegal in some countries then find sources to that effect. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it works the other way around. In order to assert something, it must be established. If it is illegal in a certain country the laws of that country should be cited. That would be either Legislation, Regulation (or Decree) and/or Judicial Ruling. But you are missing my point by looking for sources. I was not suggesting this be added to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to cite to specific laws. Other RS that discuss the matter in question are 100% acceptable. Laws are primary sources and not preferred. Lawrence § t/e 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But your stance is not supported by history, precedent, practice, or consensus. Lawrence § t/e 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested minor and non-controversial improvements

• Spell term consistently as "waterboarding" throughout. In two places forms of the term are spelled with a hyphen: "water-boarding" and "water-boarded". Elsewhere it is an open compound "water boarding".
• Under "Technique", in the third paragraph "According to some experts, information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable..." the "according to some experts" seems like weasel words and unnecessary, although the overall sentence is supported by a citation from Human Rights Watch. I suggest replacing these four words with "As with any method of torture,". There is no point in confining the information as to reliability of supposed confessions to one particular method of torure. All coerced information-gathering would face the same problem.
• Under "Contemporary use and the United States," fourth paragraph, "answer" should be pluralized.
• Under the section "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed", there is a messy sentence where his name is being pressed into too much service: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once." I suggest it be replaced with: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogators. The officers called this 'bravado' and claimed that he was waterboarded only once."
• In the section "Abu Zubaida", his name is once spelled as "Abu Zubaydah". The third paragraph has the phrase "some discrepancies regarding reports about the amount of times Zubaida was waterboarded." Because the times are countable, the word should be "number of times," not "amount of times".
• Under "Controversy in the United States", fourth paragraph, the word "respondents" is once misspelled as "respondants".
• Under "As a political issue in the 2008 presidential election," there is a confused sentence: "For example, Rudolph Giuliani stated in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, he stated ..." That should read: "For example, in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, Rudolph Giuliani stated:"
• Add "Category:Torture devices" to end of article.
  — Objectivesea (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll support that good hard work, nice improvements Objectivesea. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll start implementing these suggestions. henrik•talk 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Lawrence § t/e 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i suggest one extra edit; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the discription of the picture of waterboarding could Vann Nath be wikilinked to his article.

 Done. (When "water boarding" or "water-boarding" were used in direct quotations I did not change them) henrik•talk 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i suggest yet another minor edit; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Enhanced Interrogation Techniques exists as a wikipedia article, could a wikilink be added to following text in the forth section (Contemporary use and the United States).

  In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed that the CIA engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda.

 Done henrik•talk 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable

I am stunned that the clear fact that 'Waterboarding' is torture is even being debated. The problem here is that Wikipedia is so very US oriented. It makes Wiki unbalanced and frankly, it sometimes make it look very stupid. It is probably symptomatic of a wider isolation of many in the US from world opinion. If these were U.S. citizens being tortured there would be an outcry of (Justifiably) indignant rage. 'Only in America' as the saying goes. This hypocrisy is at the very heart of the plummeting reputation of the U.S.A. around the world. 'Practice what you preach' and 'Do unto others as you would be done to yourself' also come to mind. Anyone on this website who argues that 'Waterboarding is not clearly and blatantly torture, is very, very stupid almost beyond words. All this myopic hypocrisy will come back to haunt the U.S.A, especially when it come to preaching down to other countries about Human Rights and the Environment. A store of problems for the US and American citizens in the future....... So sad, and so utterly, mind-bendingly stupid. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.99.110 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Born in the USA, live in the USA, and I agree. I'm afraid the melting pot is distilling itself. --Mbilitatu (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing morality issues. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble 'Neon White', this is clearly and unequivocally NOT a 'morality' issue, it about fact and logic. Misplaced loyalty and patriotism should not blind anyone into accepting the unacceptable. Their is a lot of waffle on this page about what it was called and when this practice started and when it was called this or that. All, frankly, of little in any relevance. Any procedure that is physical, and causes pain or discomfort or fear of imminent death in the subject are torture. Simple isn't it? The fact that a few yahoos think that the current conflicts justify it's use is irrelevant. I might add that it also makes a mockery of the U.S. Constitution, putting the U.S. into the same category as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. This is clearly not a moral issue, it is most blatantly a factual one. Expending pages of diatribe one what something was called at what date is a total red herring. Unless this Wiki page truthfully and accurately describes 'Waterboarding' as a form of torture, it is holding up the whole principle of Wiki' being of any relevance as a useful source of information. Morality doesn't enter into this issue. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.135.239 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again this is not a forum for dicsussing personal views on the subject, talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? Wikipedia is about verifiable statements, not true ones. Your definition of torture is rather sloppy; not providing supper on Tuesdays may make a prisoner feel discomfort, but it's not reasonably considered to be torture. What you dismiss as waffle and of little relevance is what makes an encyclopedia reliable: the grains of reliable fact are sorted from the blizzard of opinion and guess. You "know" what waterboarding is; we're trying to discover and verify from reliable sources what it is. Your conclusion may be correct, but we are not supposed to jump after it. htom (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issues here are factual or moral. There isn't a huge debate on the procedure. The debate is on what we label it ... torture (with all that comes with that label) or "enhanced interrogation technique". These are perceptual issues, conceptual issues. What is being debated here is which perspective to choose, which label to choose. I imagine that the bulk of the world thinks that this perceptual argument is as silly as debating whether or not The rack is torture or an "enhanced interrogation technique".--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eeesh...There is plenty of sloppy and inaccurate crap on Wikipedia for sure. However, some facts are clear and obvious enough that any reasonable adult accepts them as clear facts. We aren't talking about minor points of academic interest here. We are talking about an issue that is seen as typical of 'Western Hypocrisy' by the Arab world, - quite correctly too as it happens. It's as corrosive as the sort of stupidity we saw at Abu-Graib. It's for the idiotic yahoos who think that it is NOT clearly torture to come up with something concrete to the contrary. Perhaps they might like to volunteer to try the experience.....? Perceptual/conceptual....are you crazy..? Crucifixion....perceptual...??? I think there are a few people in here that need a severe reality check and perhaps a break from the keyboard into the daylight. There is no real issue about what this procedure entails (It's an old procedure, just given a typically stupid euphemistic modern name.), just an issue about the absurd denial that it is not torture... If it's so acceptable, perhaps it should be introduced as a standard induction procedure for all Wiki editors..... PP.

I think you misunderstood my point. I agree it is obvious beyond all doubt that waterboarding is torture. Be that as it may, this debate exists. And I think it exists because interested factions are trying to control the perception by trying to influence the label. Thus, I think this Talk page is mostly arguing over the perception of waterboarding. I don't think there is any reasonable debate to be had over waterboarding itself. Sorry about the confusing post.--Mbilitatu (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a refief...! I think that what clearly needs to happen here is for the burden of 'Proof' to shift to those who are seeking to suggest that the obvious facts should be re-interpreted to fit their politically slanted views. PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.180 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First use of Waterboarding, pre-2000

Has anyone found a use of the term "waterboarding" (or "water boarding" or "water-boarding" (or waterboard, water-board, or water board)) in any reference about interrogation or torture prior to 2000?

I ask about the use of the term waterboarding, not of the act. I am convinced that the act -- whatever it is and was, whether or not it was, is, or will be torture, in several if not many variations -- was done prior to 2000, but I am beginning to have doubts that the act was ever called waterboarding before 2000. What it was called prior to 2000 would be interesting (especially if reliably sourced) but it's not really relevant.

I want, please, a citation to someone using the term "waterboarding" (or variants as above) in this context before 2000.

An article written in 2002 describing acts in 1994, 1944, or 1444 as "waterboarding" does not qualify. An article written in 1994 would.

Thank you. htom (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think you can assume that people have looked for pre-9/11 uses of the word and haven't found any. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Roosevelt was right" source says it was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” in the 1902 congressional hearings. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to find pre-2001 sources then i think that it will be hitting the books time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a search of a newspaper archive and did not find anything. However, I do not think the database (71 million articles) was that good. So I am trying a database that I believe is comprehensive. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So far the oldest article I can find is dated May 13, 2004. In searching though, I found two sources that will be very interesting for this article. One source says that Waterboarding comes from "The dirty war" in Argentina where it was called "el submarino". The other source details the discussions in the US Administration over its interrogation techniques and.. I THINK ... it has a complete official description of what waterboarding is.  !!!! --Blue Tie (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pre-2001 sources:

Navy Training Safety: High-risk Training Can be Safer : by United States General Accounting Office, Toby Roth - 1991

"The GAO reported that the Chinese water board torture is not an official part of the curriculum and some special Naval warfare personnel indicated that the exercise has no place in this training course"

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower - William Blum, 2000

".. tiger cages"—hooded and placed in a 16-cubic-foot box for 22 hours with a coffee can for their excrement—and a torture device called the "water board": ..."

So yes, "water board torture" is not exactly a new term, though was usually referred to as "water torture". The "ing" may be new. I assume that the "waterboarding" phrase was preferred in 2001+, to avoid the word "torture".

I tried to start a similar discussion before. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding&oldid=181937700#Sources_before_2001

Nospam150 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed your previous effort but this is great. You deserve some sort of barnstar. For other editors the link to the oldest reference identified - the 1991 GAO report calls it the "Chinese Water Board". Here is the link: [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the GAO report calls it the "Chinese Water Board Torture" and uses the word torture every time it is mentioned (4 times). The report describes it as follows: "During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/ drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment. " The Department of Defense response to the report, on p.53, refers to it as the "Chinese water torture board."--agr (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work Nospam150! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The books and newspaper articles about the Vietnam War usually call it "the water treatment." Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the the term "Water board torture" was not invented in 1991 either. I hope that we can find earlier references.

On this subject, as Waterboard-ING seems to be a relatively new term, I think we should add some "also known as" clauses to make this article more historically correct. Note, the "Painting of Waterboarding" image predates any use of this exact word.

"Waterboarding (also known as Water board torture or Water torture) is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages."

Where:

• It is called "Water torture" in 1969/1970.
• It is called [Chinese] "Water board torture" in 1991
• It is called torture using a "Water board" in 2000.
• It is called "Waterboarding" in 2001.

You could add Water Treatment too, if that was used in newspapers at the time of Vietnam. I only saw the 1997 book with this. Nospam150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to call it water torture -- even recognizing the sources, because I believe they are identifying it as a type of water torture, but not as the only thing that is water torture. There are a variety of tortures with water. Also, I have not seen a source say it is called "Waterboarding" in 2001, and it is original research to say it is called "Water Torture" in 1969/1970. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This makes no sense. It is as if we should state that the piano did not exist in the early 1700s, because it was called a gravicembalo at that time. Suffocation with water, of a prisoner bound to a board, is, by definition, a form of torture now, and was during the Vietnam War when it was called "the water treatment," during the Khmer Rouge regime, when it was called by whatever Khmer term was used--the practice and definitions are the same. Badagnani (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I think it make sense. If A is a subset of "Alphabet", it is incorrect to say "A is the Alphabet". If a 3-wheel Isetta is a type of Car (some may debate that), it does not mean that Isetta = Car. Isetta may be a type of car (depending), but not all cars are Isettas.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This makes no sense. The opening paragraph does not state, "Waterboarding is torture which consists of the suffocation, by the use of water, on a prisoner who is strapped to a board"; it (properly) states that "Waterboarding is a form of torture..."--by definition, the way an apple is a form of fruit or football is a form of sport. Badagnani (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question:How does it make no sense? Your comment makes no sense to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)The question was, in your context, when the word "piano" was first used to describe a hammered string instrument worked by keys. That the piano was previously called the gravicembalo does not establish when it was first called the piano; it was also called the fortepiano and the pianoforte (and going on about the differences between them is going to show that you're missing the point, I asked about first use of the word to describe the method, not first use of the method.)

• resuming htom (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Water treatment" I heard in the late 1960's, to as the name of the activity described below as "Chinese water board torture" and I suspect that it occurs in some of the autobiographical writing of those who served in Vietnam. Good find, Nospam150, and thank you.

Looking at the entire paragraph devoted to Chinese water board torture in the GAO report, I am inclined to think that the authors are being very careful to distinguish between "Chinese water board torture" (which was not authorized, was discontinued, and is described) and something else (marked in bold, below) which is similar but neither named nor described by them:

The Chinese water board torture demonstration is another potentially

dangerous exercise that has been conducted during IsIJD/S training in the past, even though it was not an official part of the curriculum. During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/ drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment. Some experienced special warfare personnel told us the exercise has no place in HID/S training-training that is specifically designed to provide the basic physical and technical skills essential for a career in naval special warfare. An exercise similar to Chinese water board torture is a part of an advanced survival course where, according to special warfare professionals we interviewed, it more appropriately belongs. In the advanced course, the drill is conducted with a psychologist

present at all times to monitor both the instructors and the students.

I am inclined to think that the distinction that the authors are making may be (eventually) be found to be significant. (And that the undescribed similar exercise is what the government calls "waterboarding"; how different it is we don't know.) htom (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is pure speculation. The paragraph you quote describes the "Chinese water board torture" exactly the way recent press reports that discuss CIA interrogation describe waterboarding. And there is nothing in the quoted text that suggests the "similar" exercise given in the advanced survival course is not torture; on the contrary, we are told it is "conducted with a psychologist present at all times to monitor both the instructors and the students." That hardly suggests it is more benign.--agr (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually htom, has a point. To say that "Chinese Water Board Torture" = "Waterboarding" is actually original research now that I think about it. Though I would agree, it seems to be the same thing, that agreement is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie read wp:nor it says;

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source

the GAO report says;

The Chinese water board torture demonstration is another potentially dangerous exercise that has been conducted during IsIJD/S training in the past, even though it was not an official part of the curriculum. During this exercise, a student is placed on an inclined board with a rag over his face while an instructor pours water over the rag-causing a coughing/drowning sensation. The purpose of the exercise is to simulate prisoner of war treatment.

our article on waterboarding says;

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists 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 process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent

i say without specialist knowledge;

"Chinese Water Board Torture" = "Waterboarding"

hope that helps you understand wp:nor. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same argument applies to this source [18] which has waterboarding called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.”. It says about the chinese water torture;

“A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit on his arms and legs and hold him down, and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin ... is simply thrust into his jaws, ... and then water is poured onto his face, down his throat and nose, ... until the man gives some sign of giving in or becomes unconscious. ... His suffering must be that of a man who is drowning but who cannot drown

Note of course blue tie that this is a secondary source that says that the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” is waterboarding so no chance of OR anyway. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Torture

How about this for an opening paragraph?:

"Waterboarding is an enhanced form of interrogation that consists 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. The subject may experience the sensation of suffocation and some incidental inhalation of water, the subject imagines the feeling of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent, though he or she is in fact completely safe.In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding is performed in ways that leave no lasting physical or psychological damage, it carries the risks of temporary discomfort. The psychological effects on participants in waterboarding have generally been found to be minor to non-existant," -71.84.8.177 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - "enhanced form of interrogation" is a euphemism recently promulgated by a regime using this torture technique. Most of the rest of the statements run counter to the actual sources we've been considering for the past few months. Have you read the discussion archives? Badagnani (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't feed the troll.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

you believe this to be a sock puppet? --neonwhite user page talk 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a vandal. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How? the page is protected? --neonwhite user page talk 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that BlueTie refers to the previous edit history of the proposer. I am inclined to oppose because I am very unsure of the "safety" of the described method; a little study of a drawing of the internals of the human neck shows that face down may less likely to damage the breathing passages (and be less likely to induce the gag reflex.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would normally Support, but since the proposer is clearly an SPA vandal, I will Abstain. Neutral Good (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New sources

A primary source from the DoD that they use waterboarding. [19] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the story mentioned at the start of the above article about the simularities between the SERE tecniques and what happens in iraq and gitmo. [20] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It is evident from the proposed decision at ArbCom that they will not resolve this content dispute for us. We are expected to resolve it outselves. I suggest WP:RFM. I would be willing to accept any result that arises from such a process if it will stop the bickering. Neutral Good (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but it's probably best to wait until after the arbitration concludes. Surprising things can happen during the voting process. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Intent of "Torture" as a distinguishing feature

The underlying problem is that the way the opening statement of this page stands, it does not acknowledge possible use of waterboarding as something that is not "torture". Instead it exclaims that all uses of waterboarding are torture. There is at least an argument that this is not true. Waterboarding was used for US NAVY SEAL SERE training before it was adapted into an interrogation technique for use on "unlawful enemy combatants". (I don't remember where I heard this, I'm afraid, but I did see the movie G.I. Jane). In that form, it did not contain the mens rea element that wikipedia and the UN use to define torture: for "such purposes as obtaining ... information or a confession, punishing ..., or intimidating or coercing ..., or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind." Instead, the mens rea for the waterboarding that the SEALs used was to learn to withstand harsh treatment, not to actually get information. I know it's a subtle distinction, and you could certainly make the argument that even in that situation, it should have been classified as torture, (in G.I. Jane it was used for discriminatory purposes) but that's an opinion that should be acknowledged.

I also think that this article has turned into a competition between a US centric view of wikipedia and an International view, which is unfortunate because it's been an excuse for US bashing which a lot of American users take offense to, and which is counterproductive.

I have a small suggestion. Why don't we just say "Waterboarding, as an act within the definitions of torture of the UN, has been acknowledged by most governments of the world, including the United States, to been used as a form of torture"? This last part is a reference to the Asano case, mentioned in the article, although it would be good to get some more details about what exactly was the "water torture" that was used in that case. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"I also think that this article has turned into a competition between a US centric view of wikipedia and an International view, which is unfortunate because it's been an excuse for US bashing which a lot of American users take offense to, and which is counterproductive." How very perceptive of you. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I call 'em like I see 'em.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The rack could possibly be used for BDSM as well, but it would still be understood and described, by definition, as a form of torture. Waterboarding has been part of SERE training (as verified by Malcolm Nance, who used to be the instructor for this) so that U.S. personnel know what this torture feels like, so that they are better able to withstand it if ever subjected to it in the course of their duties (although, of course, it is banned by international law in the first place, as a form of torture). In this light, your hair-splitting recommendation, relying on the premise that since waterboarding is used in such training, and thus may not be a form of torture in this context, isn't valid. The idea of this training use actually changing the definition of what waterboarding is (a form of torture involving the suffocation with water of a restrained, inclined prisoner) has been proposed, and dismissed earlier in this discussion. Have you read all the discussion archives? I recommend that you do so before commenting further, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One small point Badagnani. You are quite right to have made the assumption that I have not read all of the archived discussions. I also don't think I should have to spend three days doing so before I comment on what I perceive to be a current flaw on the page. If you have a point to make that is covered within the archive, please refer me to it specifically. Otherwise I will assume that your comment is attempting to obstruct me in making a comment. I've also noticed that you've repeatedly told others on this talkboard who you disagree with not to comment before they've undertaken this laborious task, and I find your efforts to be disingenuous and not in the spirit of achieving a fair and balanced discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that implicit in the definition of torture (and perhaps it should be made explicit) is that the victim's participation in the torture is non-consensual (which is slightly different than involuntary.) Branding a victim, and even the serious threat thereof, would be considered torture by almost all legal and moral standards, but if I was to go to the local body mod shop (you know, the place that does tattoos, piercings, ... and brandings), asked for a brand of the EGA on my right shoulder, got exactly the brand I'd asked for ... would you think it was reasonable for me to then complain that I'd been tortured by the shop owner? Now if someone was to drag me off the street and inflict the identical brand on my shoulder, without my consent, my complaint would probably receive considerably more attention; even if it was ordered by a court, I think I'd have a reasonable complaint. Note that the intent here is of the victim, not the doer. People undergoing SERE are volunteers and consent to such training before they undergo that training. htom (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really splitting hairs. The current version is entirely sufficient, and supported by many reliable sources. However, I would agree to "is a torture technique" (which removes that particular hair, as not every application of a torture technique has to be torture). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem, at first glance, that the phraseology "form of torture" is very similar to "torture technique," although the latter seems to carry the implication that there's some sort of art/skill involved in doing it. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly this seems utterly irrelevant to this article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my comments.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more accurate to call the rack a torture device rather than a form of torture. (Wikipedia's page doesn't call it a form of torture but does refer to the rack being used to torture.) If one is using a rack for BDSM, then you are not technically torturing someone (or yourself), but I take your point Badagnani, that generally, the rack is used as a torture device, because it can obviously be used to torture people. The situation surrounding waterboarding isn't so clear. Is a board a torture device? Not generally. I guess I think that wikipedia should not make such assumptions without establishing facts, especially when those assumptions carry political consequences, and in this case, intent is one of the necessary elements to establish the presence of torture. If you assume that all forms of waterboarding are by definition torture, and the SERE training program is an anomaly, then what's the SERE technique? A training technique that uses something other than waterboarding? It sounds like you are making a community standards argument like with obscenity: If most people think it's obscene then it must be. If most people think the rack's a torture device, it's a torture device. If most people think waterboarding is torture, that's what we'll call it. It sounds convincing, especially since the article doesn't mention the use of it in SERE training, which is odd. Stephan Schulz and htom sum up my point nicely. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "waterboarding" describes the act; following this logic the object used to strap the prisoner to would presumably be called a "waterboard." The U.S. military is free to expose its members-in-training to any forms of torture they see fit; what such training does not do, however, is change the actual definition of these forms of torture. Cigarette burns would most likely not be used in such training because they produce marks, though waterboarding (which has been favored historically by some regimes because it does not leave marks on the body) and perhaps other similar forms of torture such as electric shocks may be used in such training. If I put a coffee cup on my stereo, it doesn't become a "coffee table"; similarly, the exposure of military members-in-training to torture techniques does not change the well-understood definition of the action to which they are submitted. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you assume that all forms of waterboarding are by definition torture, and the SERE training program is an anomaly, then what's the SERE technique?" Torture, just in a consenting setting.

"wikipedia should not make such assumptions without establishing facts" We don't, read the many many many sources in the article and at the top of this page. You will see doctors who are world specialists in the treatment of torture who say its torture as well as victims of waterboarding from the three continents and three different wars. Take the hint Waterboarding=Torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So by that reasoning, does Torture=Waterboarding?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple logic games=loss of good faith. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you accused htom of colaborating with the CIA, I don't think I really aspire to be within your conception of good faith. You sound kind of paranoid. However, to counter your somewhat nonsensical comment, I maintain that I am operating within logical limitations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Considering that you accused htom of colaborating with the CIA" No i accused him working in a way that would acheve the CIA's objectives, not the same thing, anyway I WAS WRONG, SORRY HTOM!. But now you have read the archives i don't have answer your questions as they have been all answered before. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration I'll take the shouting and tardiness for sincerity and say "thank you", even though I'm not sure that that's there. htom (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Malcolm Wrightson Nance was the actual head of SERE training and he says that waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture.[21] Badagnani (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I wonder if he was admitting to committing war crimes when waterboarding was being applied to consenting US military personel, or whether he was saying that waterboarding could be classified as torture when used on non-consenting individuals. htom's comment is on point. Intent matters. The UN doesn't punish people for being into BDSM or getting freaky branding tattoos. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Again specious; Nance states that--in the context of his training--"As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.", "as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool" and "waterboarding is a torture technique – period". Badagnani (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Specious? I'm curious as to what exactly I've said is specious. I just said that intent matters. I guess in your opinion, BDSM is a form of torture that should be punished by the UN? Or what? You just want to shoot down an argument that presents a possibility that defining waterboarding unconditionally as torture should be qualified? I understand your concern. The topic is sensitive. And I appreciate your zealous arguments. They are in fact quite convincing in the sense that Nance is probably a good authority on the matter. But Nance's opinion is not a legally binding definition of torture which is what I'm talking about. (As a small aside I will note that the UN has some sway, although probably not enough to get those poor bastards in Guantanamo a fair trial. The definition of torture and waterboarding we should be worrying about is the one that's most relevant at the moment and that's the definition adopted by the US Attorney General and the US Congress. They are the ones who write and interpret the law as applied to the people who possibly are or have actually been waterboarded. That's why we're having this discussion, not because of some academic interest in how POWs were given water torture during WWII. And, no offense, your opinion that my argument is specious without explaining yourself, isn't going to convince them.) You haven't answered my real point: That the intent of the torturer is a necessary component in defining torture, and so the intent of person waterboarding someone is a necessary component of defining waterboarding as torture. That necessary element is not mentioned in this article and so it gives the wrong impression. That's my point. I am NOT saying that waterboarding cannot be used as a form of torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just have to clarify, that although I agree with htom that the intent of an individual in subjecting himself to "torture" may create an affirmative defense for that torture, the definitional issue of the crime of torture involves the intent of the supposed torturer. Therefore, even if G.I Jane allows herself to be tortured, this could still qualify as torture under the UN definition assuming that she was tortured for an illegitimate reason (discrimination), but the intent of the torturer remains the operative intent element, the mens rea, of the crime. It is also necessary in defining the crime.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this logic game? What are you proposing to make this article better or is this more chaff? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence should be modified to say that waterboarding can be used as a form of torture, not that it is a form of torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"waterboarding can be used as a form of torture" What else is it used for? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from SERE where is used to replicate being tortured by the enemy, by being tortured by your peers. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear whether voluntarily subjecting yourself waterboarding can accurately be legally classified as torture within the meaning of the US or UN definitions of torture but I doubt it. The SERE example is an example where that's taken place, but you seem to dismiss its existence so easily. I can also think of Daniel Levin who was writing a White House memo about waterboarding before he got the axe who subjected himself to it. I doubt that the UN could reasonably prosecute the people who supervised that test for torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The first sentence should define the subject. Compare "A hammer is a tool meant to deliver blows to an object" vs "A hammer can be used to drive nails" (but then so can a stone, the blunt side of an axe, an in a pinch, a robust piece of hard wood). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a more apt comparison would be to a noun that describes an action. For example murder. It's more accurate to say, "Murder is a form of unlawful killing of a human person that requires premeditation," rather than just "Murder is a form of unlawfully killing people." The intent of the actor is important to defining the issue. Without premeditation, unlawfully killing someone might not in fact be murder at all. It could be manslaughter. I do not dispute that waterboarding can be defined as torture. I just think that we need to explain why it can be defined as torture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A better analogy would be "cutting a living person's head off is a form of homicide." There may be situations where doing so is lawful, say as a form of execution or when it happens during wartime combat using swords, but it is always homicide. Similarly there may be situations where waterboarding is lawful, as in training to prepare soldiers for possible torture if captured, but is is always torture. --agr (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Homicide does not have a required intent element. Torture does. That is not a better analogy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case people missed it, the intent element (the mens rea) of torture under the UN's definition in the United Nations Convention Against Torture is: for "such purposes as obtaining ... information or a confession, punishing ..., or intimidating or coercing ..., or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind." Under the US's definition in 18 USC 2340, it is: "to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case cdog missed it, we use a standard english definition of torture, and SERE waterboarding is torture. If you want to say the SERE training is not torture then find a source, we have sources that say it is torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, are you referring to English law's definition of torture (as in the United Kingdom's laws)? Or the English language's definition of torture? I propose that you are wrong on both counts. First, I'm not currently aware what the status of torture is under English law, but I seriously doubt it lacks a mens rea element. I invite you to prove me wrong. Second, if you are referring to the English language's definition of torture I seriously doubt you actually mean that because the English language's definition of torture is vague and without a non-vague legally binding definition of torture, there cannot be an application of law, and I assume that's what you're about right? Stopping unlawful torture? At least I hope you are. (Also, it would be nice if you quoted a source rather than just deciding for the rest of us what torture means without telling us.) Anyway, let's just say for argument's sake that the commonly used English understanding of torture is what the torture law refers to. I'll take a standard definition of torture. Say Websters, which can be found here. There are three definitions it gives for torture.

1 a. anguish of body or mind ; agony b. something that causes agony or pain

2. the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3. distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

Under definitions 1 and 3, this argument alone by your reasoning would get us in trouble with the UN (because it's causing an anguish of mind, my mind; and of course this entire argument is a huge overrefinement, as in, you are torturing this argument). The other definition contains a mens rea element: "to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure". That's the intent element that is necessary to define the action of torturing someone. Without it, there would just be an "infliction of intense pain", which would not fully qualify as torture. (We don't prosecute people who inflict intense pain for torture. Think of an injury caused by a motor vehicle accident.) So unless you think that you and I should be punished by the UN for the coversation we've just had, I urge you to actually consider the points that I am making with some seriousness instead of coming at me like an attack dog. I would be interested in seeing any sources you have that say the instances of SERE waterboarding were instances of legal torture that are prosecutable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Or the English language's definition of torture?" Yes thats right, wikipedia is not a legal dictionary. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"I would be interested in seeing any sources you have that say the instances of SERE waterboarding were instances of legal torture that are prosecutable" Never said i had any legal sources about SERE. You got any sources that support you? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly torture involves the intentional infliction of torment, but the procedure of waterboarding is enough to establish that intent. There is no other plausible explanation of why you tied the victim to a board, covered his mouth with a cloth and poured water over his head. It is analogous to tying someone up, putting his head under the guillotine and releasing the rope holding up the blade: there would be no question you intended to cut the person's head off.--agr (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained why I think this page should be altered. It promotes a definition that does not acknowledge that the intent of the "waterboarder" alters whether or not waterboarding is torture, (and torture is vaguely defined in general and not defined at all on the page). I think it's misleading. I also think that politics are starting to get in the way of what should instead be a quest to create the most hosnest definition. I know I have certainly been influenced by my own disgust at my government's acknowledged use of the practice, and I hope those resposible are prosecuted to the full extent of the law for what I consider to be a reprehensible crime. But that's beside the point. I'm afraid that this will be my last edit on this page (for at least a while). It's distracting me from school. You have my opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't suggested any plausible intent for the act of waterboarding other than torture. In addition, you would have to provide reliable sources that make this supposed distinction and these would have to be of sufficient weight to compare with the numerous sources we have that do not split this hair. --agr (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Its official "CIA admits waterboarding inmates"

This story from the BBC ->[22] and on super tuesday, what a coincidence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly shocking. Interesting passage from that article, and keep in mind the BBC is an exemplary reliable source, so we're certainly going to use this:

"Waterboarding, condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments, is an interrogation method that puts the the detainee in fear of drowning."

Very critical wording there. Lawrence § t/e 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so this passage, and possibly a number of others (I admit I haven't read this article too closely) should probably be updated to reflect this admission: "Many reports say that intelligence officers of the United States used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism.". I figure that part is for example now sort of redundant as CIA themselves have admitted to using this interrogation technique. — Northgrove 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources:

An article in the February 7 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald under the headline US admits water torture. Note that this article reports that three (named) people have been subjected to waterboarding, and the confirmation came in hearings before the US Senate by CIA Director General Michael Hayden. Hayden banned the practice in 2006, but it is still permitted with the approval of the AG and the President.

A similar report from the February 7 edition of The New York Times under the hedline Spy Chief Confirms Three Waterboardings. This article uses more guarded language, but does directly quote Hayden's testimony.

It was preceded by a more detailed Reuters report Bush Approved CIA Disclosure on Waterboarding.

Based on these relaiable sources, it seems to me that the article section Waterboarding#Contemporary_use_and_the_United_States can be substantially shortened and re-written in a definitive way. There is no doubt that the CIA has used waterboarding. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2004 "Waterboarding" vs 1991 "Water board torture"

Is the "Chinese Water Board Torture" referred to by the 1991 US GAO report the same as what is referred to as "Waterboarding" in 2004. If they are not the same, how are the acts different, and how are the two terms related?

Should the opening line be:

Waterboarding (also known as "Water board torture") is ...

or

Waterboarding is a CIA interrogation technique similar to "Chinese water board torture" in which ...

Either "Waterboarding" is another name for "Water board torture" which is very similar to the Inquisition Toca torture,

Or "Waterboarding" was invented by some creative CIA agents with too much time on their hands and any resemblance to previous torture techniques is coincidental.

Nospam150 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an etymology section at the start of the history section would be better, or starting each paragraph in the history section with what it was called in that time period. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Waterboarding under the UDHR

This is a small point that I don't think requires debate. The United States Supreme court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." That deserves mention in this article because the article is unclear whether the US is bound to follow the UDHR.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a secondary source that mentions this case, but it certainly seems relivent to the application of the UDHR to waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to write the article

I think the following should be added to the article in the history section between Colonial times and World War 2;

After the Spanish-American War of 1898

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops to waterboard, when the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army. [23]

I'm not bothered about the wording but i think this set of events is important to this article and the current US debate. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any suggestions to improve the above proposed section, or any objections? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

article on CIA's view of waterboarding - thinks its legality is questionable

Interesting article on Hayden's recent testimony - [24]. Money quote - ""It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said. Though now legally questionable, Hayden said waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time period when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees. "All the techniques that we've used have been deemed to be lawful," he said." This information (or at least a link to the article to reflect the CIA's view) should be added to the article. Remember (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

UN special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak: U.S.'s defense of waterboarding "absolutely unacceptable"

See article. Badagnani (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times reports WH says waterboarding is legal

Here's a link to the article. Finally a statement from the administration on the practice [25]. Remember (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding torturers saying it is legal - so...., the question is whether it is or is not torture. criminals do not get to define crimes. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I included this link not to point out that it is legal, just to point out a source to add to the article that shows that Bush administration's definitive statement on waterboarding. Remember (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Broaden

This article is way to American-centric. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, considering that technique has been used for a long time and in many different circumstances. Could we consider using WP:SS to reduce the undue weight given to current US practices (which are only one example of many) once this is unprotected? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SS would help. We do have zillions of extremely good recent sources, and rather fewer old ones. This is not an issue of undue weight, but if anything of systeic bias (and is this case, of systemic bias in the sources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's undue weight because in historical perspective this is just one example. I don't disagree that we have more sources on it; that's obviously true. But when we are trying to present a picture of waterboarding as a general practice it does not make sense to have more than half of the article be examples from the last five years about the US military. Much of the merit of summary style is that it allows basic articles to be balanced and anyone who wants more current information see it as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's inevitable that most of this article is going to be about the recent use of waterboarding by the U.S. against certain people and the political controversy that resulted. But the level of detail in a lot of the article can be reduced--the quotes are too extensive, we don't need to say much about KSM/Abu Zubaida other than that the U.S. gov't. has acknowledged using waterboarding on them, the presidental campaign section can be reduced, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus there is no reason to delete accurate sourced info, i still say the way to remove the US bias is to split the US section of to US waterboarding controversy and leave this article to cover the method, effects and history of waterboarding. At the same time we could do the much needed re-write of the US section now the CIA says it has waterboarded. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Hypnosadist. There should be a separate article on the issue in the United States. I've only heard press coverage about the US regarding this issue, not any other country. Spencer^T♦C 15:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this article doesn't need to tell the story of how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated; he's got his own article, where that information can be found. All this article needs to do is note that "the U.S. has acknowledged using waterboarding against three suspected terrorists after September 2001: KSM, Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri." As for "deleting sourced information", do you really think that having a 10-sentence quote from Rudolph Giuliani is essential to the article? There are an excessive number of quotes and the quotes are excessively long. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"All this article needs to do is note that "the U.S. has acknowledged using waterboarding against three suspected terrorists after September 2001: KSM, Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri."" Thats just not true, it does not give any context to those statements.

"do you really think that having a 10-sentence quote from Rudolph Giuliani is essential to the article?" To this current article, No. To the article US waterboarding controversy they would be very notable quotes as part of the Presidential Race of 08. There is just no need to delete when a split would enhance the encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA allowing contractors to use Waterboarding

Just wondering if you have seen this article yet from the Wall Street Journal, which says: "CIA Likely Let Contractors Perform Waterboarding"

"The CIA's secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program.

Many of the contractors involved aren't large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said. Their identities couldn't be learned.

"The broader involvement of contractors, and the likelihood they partook in waterboarding, raises new legal questions about the Central Intelligence Agency's use of the practice, ..."' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241180470751381.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors in opening paragraph.

Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it 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.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]

Lung and brain damage is lasting physical damage. The inhalation of water and later respiratory ailments that can arise are lasting physical damage. Broken bones are deemed lasting physical damage due to the fact that breaks remain prominant and complications can occur with them for many decades after the injury is occured. Psychological effects may be deemed 'physical damage' under almost all legislation in common law countries as well as most codified countries.

Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians,[8] war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[11] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14]

Any interrogation method that involves applying physical force to a prisoner, restraining them and asphyxiating them especially, would be deemed torture by any sensible educated person. The contention of whether or not it is torture, in my opinion, is merely indicative that there have been trolls present claiming it's a legitimate interrogation method. The fact of the matter is, if there were a census to be held and we were to vote on whether it is torture or not, there would be an overwhelming majority affirmation that it is.

Thus, I suggest someone edit these passages to remove all weaselism, or we'll get straight to the voting. 58.107.154.192 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussions above and in the archives. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --neonwhite user page talk 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Politicians" -> Carter

On two occasions, I believe, an interview with Jimmy Carter on CNN is used for the argument that "water boarding is considered torture by various politicians" or something to that respect. The source, the interview with Carter, however, makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. That source therefore makes it inappropriate for that statement in the article. I would suggest if you would like to keep "politicians" in that you use perhaps something McCain has said about waterboarding. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but due to the attacks on this article its still protected. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is clear consensus, I or any other admin can edit the protected article accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get concensus on a split (see section above) and then this could be delt with in more detail. Meanwhile this story from newsweek is mentioned above as a source for McCain's views [26] and the ref could be added to make "politicians" mean more than one politician. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another article by someone who experience waterboarding

Recent article by a person who was waterboarded in a controlled setting calling it torture. [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great source! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also helps with the etymology of waterboarding as well. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New photo available

File:Des soldats US pratiquaient le waterboarding au Vietnam.jpg