Talk:Waterboarding

Innaccuracy in need of edit

At the end of the third paragraph the assertion is made that "According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized attack on Los Angeles.[12]" The only source cited for this statement is a news website with a slogan "The Right News. Right Now." which leads me to believe that this may not be an unbiased source, and the link to the primary resource on the website is broken. this statement also conflicts with the known chronology of the events in question. Based on a press release from the Bush white house which was released on February 9, 2006 which states "Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html Since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in 2003 it would be impossible to use information obtained from him to stop an attack which was planned for and stopped in 2002.

Request for Edit regarding Waterboarding use

According to the cited references, the article states: Alleged Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. but it should state: In recent years, the CIA used waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) during the 2002 to 2003 time frame. Rodchen (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the intro per above request; alleged suspect is redundant. --agr (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Classification as torture

Let's say that it is "generally regarded as torture".

Although apparently only US Republicans and CIA operatives (of unknown political affiliation) refuse to call it "torture", it would seem not to be a universally accepted point that waterboarding is torture. There are also those (such as the APA) who want similarly to extend the definition of torture to include hooding; forced nakedness; stress positions; slapping or shaking; and isolation.

These are certainly coercive - everyone agrees on this, starting with the advocates of such techniques. In fact, the only reason US anti-terrorist interrogators do these things is to get information on what the "terrorists" are doing or planning: i.e., "We'll make him talk."

For the intro to say simply that it is torture isn't neutral. This would discourage readers from going any further and discovering that there is a controversy. In fact, it would violate our undue weight policy, by implying that a greater percentage of advocates (i.e., 100%) take this position than actually do.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I don't have a position on whether anything "is torture". I'm just trying to make sure that we describe all viewpoints fairly, per NPOV.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. There is no requirement that a fact be universally accepted for it to be stated as a fact in Wikipedia. The Earth article uncritically stated that the earth is around, and does not give any credence to those who claim it is flat. Likewise, a few Bush administration lawyers (who were brought in for the express purpose of giving legal justification for what is clearly illegal activity) not withstanding, everyone regards waterboarding as torture. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the main Bush memo drafter, John Yoo, has expressed doubts about approving waterboarding: http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/22/yoo-forgot-he-approved-waterboarding/ --agr (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some will never confront reality no matter how much it's pocking their nose.TMCk (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it torture is neutral, because it is torture. As previously discussed at great, great length here. We quite rightly don't carry a disclaimer on the lede of the 9/11 article stating that some people think it was an inside job either. People who don't believe waterboarding is torture are in the same loony category as those who think 9/11 was an inside job. --John (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to comment on a commnet, but John, saying that people whose opinion differ from yours are "loony" does not bolster your argument. There is nothing in your comment but opinion. Opinion doesn't count here. Uncle Ed said it best. The LEAD should refer to the technique as "coercive". If you want to discuss the "torture" appelation later in the article, fine. The term has become too politically charged to be in the first sentence. When I saw that, it called into question for me the remainder of the article. The whole problem is that the term "torture" does not have a strict enough definition for wiki to use it. Since it is open to SUBJECTIVE interpretation, it does not belong in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.159.226 (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP goes by the sources and represents a world wide view on the subject.TMCk (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Using John Yoo as a reference with respect to APPROVING waterboarding says NOTHING about its classification as torture. In fact, John Yoo has pointed out that 20,000 of our own military have been waterboarded as training for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Does the US torture its own soldiers? The fact is "Waterbaording is a form of torture" is a politically charged term, intentionally used to slant the discussion, and absolutely does not belong as the lead. It's categorization as torture is ambiguous. I have offered the alternative "waterboarding is a coercive interrogation technique (some argue torture)" as the lead. This phrase, in fact, SETS THE TABLE for discussion, it doesn't try to stiffle it as the current lead does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The US does indeed apply torture technique to its own soldiers. I could not immediately find a highly reliable source for this fact, but the following speaks about the same practices in the British and Australian forces:

Similarly, British SAS training includes a 'Combat Survival' course where trainees: 'receive lessons and lectures in interrogation techniques from people who have been POWs, tortured or have other experiences … At the end [of the training] every SAS man has to withstand interrogation training. The men are blindfolded, put in stress positions and interrogated for over 48 hours. White noise (sound) is also used. After a week on the run, cold, dehydrated and exhausted, the mind sometimes starts to play tricks and reality becomes blurred.'

It is worth noting that the techniques of forced standing ('stress positions'), noise bombardment, blindfolding, poor food, and sleep deprivation are commonly recognized torture techniques – they form part of the 'five techniques' used by the British in 1971 in Ireland and clearly meet the definition of torture as described in Chapter 5. The instructors of the Green Beret training course deny that such training constitutes torture but 'the Army will not publicly disclose what the limits [of the physical and mental pressure put on trainees in the mock POW camp] are so it can maximize the anxiety for future students'.

We cannot therefore know exactly what the mock interrogations involve. However, when these techniques are applied to others they clearly do constitute torture. Former Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill admitted as much when he revealed that the interrogation resistance training of Australian elite troops involved techniques such as sleep deprivation and 'psychological tricks' that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

This is from J. Wolfendale, Torture and the Military Profession, Palgrave Macmillan 2007. Hans Adler 20:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This has also been discussed ad nauseum. Those soldiers are been subjected to a training session VOLUNTARILY in a controlled environment by fellow military buddies. They no doubt experience some of the physical and mental suffering of real torture but they also know and are certain that no harm will come to them and that the duration of the exercise is limited. In summation a voluntarily training session demonstrating the effectiveness of a waterboarding torture session is not the same as a real waterboarding torture session.--LexCorp (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"This has also been discussed ad nauseum." Yes it has. And it's still not settled. Which is why the lead sentence continues to be biased. Sorry, the idea that waterboarding of terrorists is "real" while waterboarding of our own soldiers is somehow "fake" is laughable. However, rather than permitting this article (particularly in its lead) to reflect the fact that there are varying views, thus drawing the reader to the larger discussion, Wiki has allowed a single political view to have sway, thus stiffling debate. Too bad. It damages the credibility of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Added the following to article with citation:

Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Armed Services that there are fundamental differences between SERE training and what occurs in real world settings.[1]

I advise you read both the article and more importantly the testimony of Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg (link to hearing is in the article).--LexCorp (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The declassified Bush administration memos make clear that what was done to CIA detainees far exceeded what is done in SERE training, but that misses the point. The purpose of SERE is to train military personnel to evade capture and what to expect if they are captured. That includes exposure torture. Military training is not done by PowerPoint presentations. The earliest public report of this training said "A Navy spokesman admitted use of the ‘water board’ torture . . . to ‘convince each trainee that he won’t be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.’” It would be irresponsible not to use the real thing in such training. Perhaps the best evidence is the widely reported inability of SERE trainees to resist waterboarding. Are you seriously suggesting that young, fit, highly-motivated US Special Forces, the best of the best, succumb to anything that doesn't rise to the level of torture?--agr (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And it is not me that says it but Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School. Read the article and the testimony.--LexCorp (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ecgberth1, losing a debate is not the same as having debate stifled. Debate on this issue cannot be said to have been stifled. It has gone on and on and on and is all archived for perusal. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp, you argue that the further reference to the article about Dr. Ogrisseg is "unrelevant [sic]. unless we go into why he thinks so which is not the place of the summary." This part of the summary deals with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training. Dr. Ogrisseg's contribution is important. You introduced the article. The doctor's opinion must be fairly represented, even in the summary, not cherry-picked. The "but he still advised against waterboarding members of the SERE class." has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This part of the summary does not deal with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training. It is a direct response to the unqualified argument, in the previous sentence, by Yoo that equates torture to what SERE trainees experience while training. You are the one cherry-picking because you give the impression (by not qualifying it) that the recommendation not to include waterboarding in the SERE program has something to do with said argument when it does not. It is totally unrelated and Dr. Ogrisseg explains in testimony that he was against it because it "produces learned helplessness, a training result we tried strenuously to avoid.". Thus I am reverting to previous version.--LexCorp (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp, you say "This part of the summary does not deal with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training." It ABSOLUTELY does and YOU'RE THE ONE WHO INTRODUCED IT! Read the previous portion of the paragraph. Initially, the paragraph dealt with whether WB is used or not in training ... period. That is the context in which the Yoo comment was offered by the other poster. The comment from Yoo reflects the fact that many soldiers were trained with waterboarding even though the DOD will not answer the question with respect to CURRENT practices. Your introduction of the article about Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony, in fact, is what introduces the "quality" issue. You introduced as a purported comment from Dr. Ogrisseg that there is a qualitative difference between WB in training and in real life, although that misrepresents what Dr. Ogrisseg says in his testimony. I read the entire transcript of the testimony of Mr. Shiffrin, LC Baumgartner, Dr. Ogrisseg, and a number of others. (grueling!) In fact, when asked about WB for interrogation rather than training by LC Baumgartner, in testimony he states "He replied that some people were asking from above about the utility of using this technique against the enemy for the same reasons I wouldn't use it in training. I replied that I wouldn't go down that path because, aside from being illegal, it was a completely different arena that we in the Survival School didn't know anything about" (and later) "and also giving my opinion about the waterboard with respect to training. I don't believe that it should be used anywhere, that was my stance that I was taking at that time." Your statement about what Dr. Ogrisseg testified to is not accurate. In fact, he states more than once in his testimony that he has no experience in the arena of real-life WBing. Even though it strays from the topic, it can stand, I suppose, since in your mind it offers some sort of "rebuttal" to Yoo's simple, factual statement that WB was used to train 20,000 soldiers. But the discussion is not whether there is a qualitative difference but whether it is currently, has been, or should be used. Dr. Ogrisseg speaks to that in saying that he advises against waterboarding members of SERE - that it should not be used. What your "impressions" are, are not relevant. Would someone else be interested in weighing in on this? Otherwise, LexCorp's disruptive edit to REMOVE additional information to try to make some sort of point, will send this article for dispute resolution. I have reworded this portion of the paragraph to better reflect Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony. Because of the way it shifts the discussion (as noted above) the entire Ogrisseg reference should probably be stricken and moved somewhere else in the article. Also, I think the actual testimony of Dr. Ogrisseg provides a much more accurate source than an article that is little more than someone else's opinion/summary about what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by pointing out that WP:AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I do not make disruptive edits. WP:PRIMARY explains that we have to be very careful when using primary source material and that any interpretation of primary source material must originate from a secondary source and not from us and it specifically forbids synthesizing primary source material by editors. Given this I restored the secondary source and its original wording and also suggest that you should find a direct quote from the testimony instead of "reworded this portion of the paragraph to better reflect Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony". As for removing Dr. Ogrisseg entirely from the summary I would agree if we also remove Yoo's comments given that the same arguments can be given for its removal. In fact I will be ok with the entire removal of the 3rd paragraph as it adds nothing about the main subject and it fails to summarize the article. Finally, let me also point out that your interpretation as to the function of the this part of the summary is not in agreement with mine.--LexCorp (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp - Let me state categorically that I did not mean to imply bad faith. If you read this discussion page, however, you will not find that to be the case with every contributor. It is clear that some views will not even be entertained without a response dripping with ridicule. That's a shame. I know the rules of Wiki. If my frustration came out too harshly in this forum, I apologize. I pled for a third-party comment as we seemed to be at an impasse and I was not hearing fair, logical arguments, and truly, I mean no offense by that. For example, you say that you would agree to remove Dr. Ogrisseg's reference from the paragraph ... as long as we remove Yoo's comments "given that the same arguments can be given for its removal". That's the point. The same arguments can't be given. Yoo's comment speaks to whether waterboarding was used as a training technique within SERE. That was the subject of the paragraph. I get that you want to ensure that the point is presented that there is a qualitative difference between SERE WBing and real-life WBing. We can accomplish that with a simple qualifier and the appropriate references. I would propose this:
"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however there are qualitative differences between waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding used in interrogation (ref 22,23).
End of paragraph.
If that is acceptable to you, I will make the change.
As for removing the paragraph entirely, why would you want to do that? The "waterboarding" page would be of little interest to most folks if it were not for its use in the Bush administration and the steps the administration took to justify its use. Associated with that, is its use in SERE training, so that also belongs. Removing it doesn't make sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am one of those editors that think this article is the poster child of Recentism and that it should contain just a description of the torture technique that is waterboarding and a sparse summary of its historical application. Deferring all discussion on the current use and classification controversy to other articles such as Torture and the United States. That is my reasoning on deleting the 3rd paragraph. As for a compromise I would be ok with a slight modification to your suggestion:

"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however experts (in the matter) have stated that there are fundamental qualitative differences between the application of waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23).

My version is an improvement because it identifies the qualitative differences statement as originating from experts (in the matter) as opposed to Yoo's non expert statement. Again the word fundametal because it appears in the source and because it is fundamentally different to subject yourself to the treatment voluntarily than not. Also added the "in real world settings" to make clear the distinction. By the way the part in the parenthesis, namely "in the matter", is optional and if you agree to the compromise it will end in the article without the parenthesis.--LexCorp (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, with respect to scope, those are much bigger fish to fry than we are about here.
As for your suggestions, these are not slight modifications, they are significant, and I think need some refining. I will break them down. First, "experts". So far, we're relying on the Congressional testimony of one expert. As shown in the section "U.S. Military survival training", other psychological experts were used to reverse-engineer the SERE process to use training WBing for interrogation. So I would argue for "An expert" instead. By the way, you state that Yoo's statement is non-expert. Why? Yoo stated that 20,000 SERE trainees were waterboarded. Nothing more. As DAAG, he was certainly in a position to know that. That makes his statement, by definition, expert. He did not make any statement with respect to the WBing itself or how it was carried out. Only on the number. Second, "qualitative" difference is acceptable, but "fundamental", no. That is because Dr. Ogrisseg talks about qualitative differences in his testimony. Nowhere does he talk about "fundamental" differences, in either the testimony or the article about the testimony. The term "fundamental differences" is introduced by Alex Knapp, the author. Mr. Knapp, is a political writer and hardly qualifies as "expert" on WBing. In my opinion, the secondary reference should be stricken. We have the original reference. Everything else in the secondary reference is a political writer's opinion. Not expert and it doesn't really add anything. When an article starts out "One distressing meme ..." you have the opinion of someone with an axe to grind.
The latter changes are good ones as they do clarify Dr. Ogrisseg's position. I would suggest the following:
"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however one expert in the psychological effects of waterboarding has stated that there are qualitative differences between the application of waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your disregard of my secondary source (I could argue equally as for the source of Yoo's comment being the Laura Ingraham Show) and your preference for synthesizing Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony on your own concerns me as it is clear it is going to be difficult for us to reach a middle ground. To you it seems that the fact that SERE training is a voluntary experience is a "qualitative" difference but to me it is a "fundamental" difference. Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony uses neither thus I propose to include it in the sentence and leave it to the reader to make up his mind. You keep stating that Yoo's comment is factual but it is not. He made the comment under his (retracted) thesis that waterboarding is not torture and that if it were so the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to torture. In that sense the statement is not factual. It is a shame that we have allowed this cherry picked statement in the article without being accompanied with its proper context. The fact is that those troops are subjected to a training session (mockup of waterboarding). That is why it is important under NPOV to represent views from other people expressing their expert view that waterboarding is not the same as SERE's training exercise. Yoo is neither an expert in SERE training nor an expert in interrogation techniques nor an expert on torture. He is only an expert on judicial matters (and a discredited one at that). So he is not qualified to make statements as to what goes on in SERE training much less state that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding. On those grounds we really should just remove that sentence from the article as it comes from a non expert source which have been proven unreliable. Anyway I suggest the following:

"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated that there are differences between the application of waterboarding in voluntary SERE training and the application of waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23).

I hope this is ok with you. It is factual and avoids introducing POV terms like qualitative/fundamental whether they originate in the sources or are introduced by us. Also it is much better to identify the expert by naming him and stating his expertise.--LexCorp (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Better source

A far better source for the fact that waterboarding done to CIA detainees was not the same as the procedure used in SEER training is the US Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility final report http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf , page 84, last paragraph.--agr (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GI Jane

I added a mention to the "Examples in Fiction" related to the film GI Jane. This was removed by Raul654, with the comment that dunking is not waterboarding. Apparently Raul654 has not seen the film in question (I saw it two days ago), because there are two separate incidents in the film. The incident that Raul seems to refer to is during the fight between Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, where he holds her head underwater to try and coerce the other men. This is clearly dunking.

However, there is another event, earlier in the film, where Moore's character is strapped face-up on a head-down incline board, with a cloth wrapped over her eyes and nose, as water is poured over her face. This is SERE waterboarding, pure and simple. Unless there is some strong dissent over this incident as portrayed in the film (e.g. the technique as shown is inaccurate), I will restore my entry within a few days. EJSawyer (talk)

I've seen the movie several times, but it's been a while since I last saw it. Yes, I was thinking of the scene near the end where the Master Chief (played by Moretensen) dunks her and mimics raping her. I had forgotten about the earlier scene until you mentioned it. Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have restored the entry. EJSawyer (talk)

your opinion please...

I haven't been following this article evolution that carefully. It used to contain a third level subsection entitled Animatronic_depiction_of_waterboarding_at_Coney_Island. It described the efforts of a conceptual artist, named Steve Powers to install a "waterboarding thrill ride" at Coney Island. This section was removed with the edit summary "rm section is in two other places".

Yes, the ride has an article of its own, and is covered in our article on the artist. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered here as well. The power of the wikipedia lies in how topics are interlinked. I suggest this thrill ride is relevant to this article as well. The thrill ride was a notable critical response to the USA's use of waterboarding, and, as such, merits some coverage in the article on waterboarding. Individuals can differ on the length or wording of this coverage, but I don't think there are grounds to argue there should be no coverage of the waterboarding thrill ride in the article on waterboarding.

I looked in the talk page archives to see if this issue has been discussed before here. I couldn't find an instance and I don't remember an instance.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 Republican presidential primaries

Apparantly this is an issue in politics again, with notable people (maybe-presidents,others) having opinions. Would something on this be worthy of inclusion, perhaps as section 6.4? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-torture-banned-under-us-internationa/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Half the lead section is United States

...not only that, but it starts with "In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was..." initiating the paragraph with no sense that it is in the United States. The entire block of text relating to the US is unworthy to be in the lead section. --ZooFari 05:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)