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.

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)

The CIA is very well known internationally. After all, it acts internationally, e.g. when it criminally kidnaps people in Italy [1] while under surveillance by the local law enforcement forces, who are under the impression they are dealing with ordinary organised crime. It is no more necessary to contextualise the CIA as being a US institution than we need to contextualise Paris as being in France.

That the US is making up more than half of the lead isn't a US-centric bias so much as a case of WP:RECENTISM. Readers worldwide will immediately think of the US when they hear of this torture technique, because the US is the country that has popularised it. Hans Adler 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think it is a bit too detailed for it to be a component of the introduction. If it is as such, then it should be reduced to give a more broad perspective. I'm particularly talking about the last paragraph, which in my opinion is too specific and centered on the U.S. --ZooFari 03:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)