Talk:Waterboarding

Dunking witches

Not at all sure that dunking witches is much like waterboarding. The dunking was a trial by ordeal, and the victim was told that she was being tried. I.e. the goal was not to convince her that she was to be drowned, but rather to tell her that she was being disciplined and tried. No doubt the effect was torture, and no doubt it was barbaric, and no doubt it was absurd sadism, but I think it's sufficiently different from the calculated effort to dupe a victim into believing that he is dying to not be germane to this article. Geogre 02:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was mentioned as an act of torture, and dunking witches is, well, quite similar to it. Maybe note the difference between ordeal and not? -- towo 10:42, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Text has been changed so that I think both the antecedent of dunking and my hesitation are reflected. Looks like it's in as good a shape as such a horrid subject deserves for now. I pray no one ever has a need to add more examples of its being practiced in the future. Geogre 02:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Q: Can we get a fact check on whether or not water boarding was used in Guatamo bay? Democracy Now! Reported on their July 11th, 2005 podcast that it was considered for Guatamo bay but never used, but has been used on high rank terrorist types in other prisions.

Proof?

No evidence is cited that the US has at any time used waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or anywhere else.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1

6. Water Boarding: 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. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

There is your source. Travb 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to current U.S. usage on detained suspects has more to do with the CIA black camps (Washington Post Article)

The use of water escape techniques for training in the military (which I've experienced) is in no way akin to water torture. It is training under controlled conditions which allows the individual to learn survival techniques without risk to life or limb.

More precisely....

I was a US Army interrogator during the Cold War, and we used waterboarding in our training of infantry troops to simulate torture in mock POW exercises. Our waterboard was inclined, and the subject was positioned such that the feet were on the rasied portion of the board, with the head lower than the rest of the body. The subject was strapped and/or held down, and massive amounts of water poured down his (or her) mouth and nose creating coughing, gagging, spitting, crying, and a feeling that drowning was imminent. Im not a doctor, but the theory was that with the head being lower than the lungs, drowning couldnt really occur. The most useful application of this technique was not in trying to get some John Wayne-wanna-be to give up information, but rather to force him and his unit to watch the meekest, cutest female in the unit get "tortured" for his refusal to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeMo (talk • contribs)

you are talking about the water cure I believe, (but may be wrong) the US military has a "proud" history and tradition of using this torture too. Thanks for sharing your comments, interesting. 69.150.209.25 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV in article

I the deleted POV word "terrorist" and returned the word "suspected"--since no court has convicted these torture victims of being terrorists. Historically, since 9/11, many of these victims of torture and jailing have been released without any charges brought against them.

I deleted "had occasionally engaged" and "was routinely engaging" because the cited ABC article does not seem to mention either words--without a source it is better to use "engaged" without the POV, unsubstantiated "occasionally" and "routinely" adjectives. Feel free to add back these synonyms when you can reference a source.

I find it repugnant that anyone would downplay torture against any group--as the anon did on this recent edit--but that opinion is irrelevant to the NPOV of this article.Travb 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IN response: terrorism is not a legal term. It is a descriptive term. One doesn't need a birth certificate to be born, nor does your child need to have one for you to be a mother. Legal sanctioning is not required for one to "be" something, especially in non-legal matters. Red is red without a legal declaration-- excluse the simplicity; I don't know how else to describe this. Terrorism may involve violating criminal laws, but it is not intrinsically a legal matter. It is natural to call someone a "terrorist" if they belong to a terrorist organization (an organization that targets violence against civilians for political purposes or to create terror).

In any event, I changed "often used" to "may be used" because without evidence, it is hard to believe that captors all over the world are commonly using waterboarding. The use of waterboarding is more specialized. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.168.98 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~

69.95.168.98 wrote: "One doesn't need a birth certificate to be born, nor does your child need to have one for you to be a mother."

Your analogy is weak and falacious--probably a straw man tactic. You are taking a "descriptive term" and then trying to liken it to an analogy that no person could argue with.

"to be born you need a birth"

"child needs a mother"

"Red = red"

Then, your real fallacious leap of faith:

Men that are tortured = terrorists.

To show how weak your analogy is:

So, Americans in Vietnam who were tortured by the Vietcong are terrorists?

Can you be certain with 100% certainty that every person America has tortured is a terrorist? (If so, you must be God himself.)

Don't dress up your contemptable, dispicable justification of torture with word games. You sound like Gonzales: "The Geneva convention doesn't apply." Or applicable to this article, Teddy Roosevelt, "water torture really doesnt hurt anyone." Disgusting and immoral. (See footnotes in the section Water cure, which I created because someone didn't want to face historical facts.)

"terrorism is not a legal term. It is a descriptive term...Terrorism may involve violating criminal laws, but it is not intrinsically a legal matter." Terrorism is not a legal term? I guess all those law classes in law school about terrorism really aren't about terrorism. Actually, it is both.

69.95.168.98 wrote:"Legal sanctioning is not required for one to "be" something, especially in non-legal matters."

Again, a weak argument. First of all, your argument makes a few assumptions:

First, that "terrorism" is not a legal term, that it is only a descriptive term.
Second, but less obvious, you are assuming that every person that America has tortured is a "terrorist". The ACLU just filed a lawsuit with a German man against the US government: America has a fine history of torture. I just got done a few days ago wasting an ignorant jinogist who was attempting to downplay the torture committed in the Philippine-American War.
Third, your definition of terrorist appears to be so broad, that it includes every person that America tortures.

"It is natural to call someone a "terrorist" if they belong to a terrorist organization (an organization that targets violence against civilians for political purposes or to create terror)."

Again, a simplistic argument. First of all, what is a terrorist organization? Is it the list that America puts out every year? FYI, the list of terrorists that America puts out changes, groups drop out and are included back all the time depending on current geopolitics. So one day, terrorist group A is a terrorist, and therefore it is okay to torture them, and the next day they are freedom fighters against a new American enemy, and it is not okay to torture them.

Your argument is also incredibly ethnocentric. Who makes the list? What is the criteria? If the CIA trains and hires death squads are they now terrorists?

By your simple reasoning you appear to live in a world of simplistic absolutes. Like Al-Quaeda does. I find it so ironic how many jingoists on both sides of this war are so very much alike. If the world was only as simplistic as you make it sound.Travb 09:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your post begs the question, is a "jingoist" someone who likes, or someone who fails to dislike, America? I'm curious which it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs)

Modern Waterboarding is only about USA

Is there a reason why the entire 'modern waterboarding' section is nothing but USA waterboarding? Have people forgot this isnt a blog to post anti-american 'sources' but to actually give useful information about the particular subject. Are any of the mentioned pieced together sentences in this section actually useful information on the topic? This isnt a news blog its an encyclopedia. Other than the first two paragraphs, this entire section should just be removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.22.3 (talk • contribs)

If you think there is something too US-centric about the "modern waterboarding" section, I suggest that the appropriate action is to add some information about the use of the practice in other countries, not to delete the information about what is done by US practitioners. If no other countries are known to actively use the practice, then I don't think it is a problem that the US is the only country discussed there. —Wookipedian 08:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the last line from Brian Ross description blockquote. Whoever added it "over clipped" a third paragraph that was not descriptive but instead a POV from a so called human rights group. I'm new here, hope I did it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.78.136 (talk • contribs)

Suspected

Again the anon condones,embraces, and downplays torture. In the cited article, the article states 3 times that these people in captivity are "suspects" or "suspected" of being terrorists.

"However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information."

"Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects."

"Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said."[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

CIA and KSM comments

I'm not sure if the ABC News link is apt citation for these comments. The ABC article doesn't say where the information came from, and since CIA operations and the status of terrorist leaders like KSM are all highly secretive can we really trust these unnamed "sources" the article suggests? --NEMT 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the paragraph that begins '"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.'--agr 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So editorial conjecture is fact now? Ok, good to know, for a second here I thought we were writing some sort of encyclopedia. --NEMT 20:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I cited speaks directly to the issue you are raising and explains why it has to be this way. We give the source of the quote. Those who believe ABC News passes off "editorial conjecture" as fact-checked news are free to disregard what they say.--agr 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEMT personally, I will believe ABC news over some guy on wikipedia. I think most wikipedians would agree. If you don't like what ABC news says, find a verifable source which contradicts ABC news, otherwise your arguments have no merit or standing.

I have no problem deleting the ABC news quote, if you can acutally find a news source which contradicts it.

It is a common, illogical and irrational tactic for people to label a source deragatorily that they disagree with, such as your term "editorial conjecture". Labeling a view in no way lessens the verifiablity of the source. It is an irrelevant argument.

Next you will be calling ABC "liberal pinkos", great label, but it is irrelevant.Travb 05:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section deleted

I removed the following, since it is not sourced, and rather extrodinary to believe:

In some cases the stomach of the victim would be hit with an object or the interrogator's fist causing the stomach to explode or severe damage to the stomach. In most cases, the urethra of the victim would be closed off and massive amounts of water forced down their throat into their stomach. During the inquisition, one case records a man actually "exploding" causing his belly to be ripped open and him to die in a matter of seconds. Please source the info, using ref tags

Travb (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice"

The linked article (5th citation) is about UN criticism - I don't see any statement from the U.S. that waterboarding or other "professional interrogation methods" will become banned. That sentence should be either properly cited or changed to match the article. 27 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.60.87 (talk • contribs)

Wrong title for article?

I question the title of this article. The "Modern waterboaring" section describes waterboarding. The two prededing sections deal with other, earlier forms of water torture, but they are not waterboaring: they don't use a board. Also, many of the linked terms relating to water torture techniques and devices are largely duplicative of one another, in whole or in part. Some of the links are to redirect pages. Does anyone want to try to clean up this area? Finell (Talk) 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "Medieval waterboarding" technique, as described, does indeed involve using a board. I don't see a little duplication in the content at the destinations of some links or the inclusion of some redirects as a major problem. However, the article could probably use some improvement. –Wookipedian 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

An anon added this, I added a fact tag, then another user removed it:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed imminent terrorist attacks on the U.S. after the CIA obtained valuable information from using the water boarding technique. Those attacks were then thwarted by U.S. authorities.

Please add source to add back to article. Travb (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUST be considered torture?

I am a wikipedia novice, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the very first para of this article strikes me as an unwarranted POV statement.

The passive construction ("It must be considered...") is a clear attempt to elide the question: Exactly *who* considers?

More appropriate: "The practice has been heavily criticized by individuals and organizations that consider it a form of torture," or something similar.

Alaska Jack 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]