Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seymour Hersh redux[edit]

I repost here a note I left on editor Horatio's page, to explain deleting a good faith footnoted edit citing Hersh. He was once a great reporter, and we all admire him for his work in the 1970's at the New Yorker. But in advanced age he seems to have let imagination run ahead of his reporting. We had to delete an inflammatory Hersh claim from Enhanced Interrogation already, when it turned out Hersh was just making it up-- and admitted he was just making it up. That discussion is here. So now we have another inflammatory Hersh claim printed in the London Review of Book to tout his new book, that nobody--not one other source--has corroborated. In fact everybody denies key elements, like the notion that the Pakistanis knew where Bin Laden was. Everybody agrees the Pakistanis were furious we did not let them in on what we suspected, acted without informing them (we did so because we did not trust them not to tip him off). So. Normally a statement with a footnote would be left in, but a statement from a once great reporter who the evidence suggests may well be losing his self-control, needs corroboration.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He made the claims, and had them published in a recognised source, and they have been widely reported on, so I see no reason not to mention it. It would be better to leave it there and perhaps add that the claims had denied by <whoever>. Horatio (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. First, the place for Hersh's claim about Bin Laden is on the Bin Laden page, not on enhanced interrogation. It is of minor or no pertinence here. Second, if Wikipedia is going to say the moon is made of green cheese, we need confirming sources. Cheese experts. Or astronauts who landed in 1969 with crackers and a cheese knife, and found it tasty. One guy showing signs of senile dementia is not enough. Like the last inflammatory Hersh claim that proved to be false (cited above), this is an exceptional claim that needs extraordinary substantiation.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's good enough to be mentioned on the Bin Laden page, I don't see why it's not good enough to be mentioned on this one. It's also relevant in this article where it discusses the finding of Bin Laden, since if Hersh's claims are true then it changes the conclusion significantly. I've read Hersh's article and it doesn't seem to me to be the work of somebody suffering senile dementia. Attacking Hersh alone, without considering the arguments he presents is simply ad hominem. Horatio (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your view. Couuld we have a cite to the specific Hersh article mentioned? Surely not this Hersh interview. Which would certainly seem to corroborate what Dr. Wikipedia says about dementia: "[w]hen people with dementia are put in circumstances beyond their abilities, there may be a sudden change to tears or anger (a 'catastrophic reaction')."ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 23:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This one: Horatio (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Useful cite, thanks. I agree the article looks cogent in style. In substance however, it fails. Take for instance this statement: ". . . bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI at the Abbottabad compound since 2006." How does Hersh reconcile that with Bin Laden's papers: that he considered leaving the compound months before the raid? A prisoner does not get to decide when he leaves. So--avoiding ad hominem arguments-- Hersh's account contradicts the other reporting and evidence (and calls all conflicting accounts "lies"). Which makes it an exceptional claim requiring corroboration--wherever it may be used.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 11:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's quite possible that Hersh is completely wrong, or perhaps right about some things and wrong about others. Who knows. However he made the claims and there has been a lot of publicity about it, and I don't see why they should be eligible to be included on one Wikipedia article (Osama bin Laden, where they have an entire section) but not this one. Horatio (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, half a paragraph at least. The entire section is not actually about Hersh. Horatio (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'anal rape'[edit]

ElijahBosley (talk ☞), your recent edit is, I think, definitely preferable. HOWEVER, I wonder if that kind of detail would be better in the body of the article. Just a thought, I am too busy already with other areas to get involved myself, but put the suggestion. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede is too long, I agree. But reducing this article is like reforming the tax code. Line-by-line, every word has its own lobbyist. You can cope with ideologues one at a time but when they all gang up . . . . ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd hate to add to your torment! I know from experience that it is difficult to make 'partisan' subjects readable as well as RS/neutral etc.Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Torture ?[edit]

This Page should be merged with Torture. Lets be fair, everyone agrees this is a euphemism --MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough reliable sources agree that this is a euphemism, but it is a good idea to have this article, because it discusses the euphemism, its creation and ramifications, as well as the associated torture program carried out under the umbrella of this euphemism. That being said, I would support creating a new article that encompasses all alleged human rights violations carried out by the US government between 2001 and 2009 with this article devoted solely to the euphemism "EIT" (I made a similar suggestion here), but as another user noted, this article probably is that article. Take a look at Torture and the United States and United States war crimes, too.-Ich (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Ich, this instance is a distinct historical phenomenon, which has been, and will continue to be studied and commented on, therefore merging with the general torture article would be inappropriate.Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

British complicity in the Binyin Mohammed case[edit]

I believe that it is the case that the coverage of the High Court case on releasing documents relating to British complicity in the Binyin Muhammed case omits a significant detail. I believe that between the UK Foreign Secretary claiming to the court that the US had strongly requested the non-release of documents and their eventual release to the defence lawyers, it came to light that the UK had actually asked the US to make such a request for the UK's own protection. It may not be wholly relevant to this article, I recall that the details are in one of the refs in the Binyin Muhammed article. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)