Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Euphemism

I changed a couple words in the lead section to refer to the techniques as euphemisms for torture and added the article to Category:Euphemisms. There are numerous references in media to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as a euphemistic term as shown by the sources I've added. Gobonobo ^{T C} 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this on this article last year.

There are several problems with calling this a euphemism. For one thing, it is only called a "euphemism" by critics of the U.S.-side of the war when they're making a rhetorical point.

As an example, suppose I say that "peace movement" is a euphemism for "defenders-of-fascism." Should that go in Wikipedia? How about if a notable person said that? I think you'd agree that opinions from activists doesn't make something true.

If you want to get legal, the people who call EIT a euphemism are not in a position to know what went through the minds of those who invented the term EIT. You'd need to show that those who invented the term really would have called it torture but needed to substitute a more pleasant term. Like it or not, they did go to lawyers to determine where the line is between torture and rough interrogation. Therefore, they did not believe it was technically torture. And if they didn't believe it, then they didn't invent the term as a euphemism.

You could, of course, choose to imagine that they did think it was torture. But you don't have any references to show what was in their heads at the time.

There's more, of course. Basically, something is a euphemism if it's used in place of another term that would be more accurate.

Your problem seems to be that you've latched onto military expressions that often made fun of by critics, and you've taken their jokes to be serious.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the intentions of the coiners of a term have no relevance on the use of that term in society. Besides, the article only claims that critics regarded Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as a euphemism, despite a broad consensus in the news media. See The Atlantic, The Guardian, Ted Koppel. Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That might make sense if this article was about the term, and the use of that term in society. But the only people I see using the term are those who are talking about EIT.

In fact, waterboarding (the only one of these techniques widely claimed to be "torture") was only one of the techniques, and used only three times. The term itself is about interrogation.

Those references only show that critics of the U.S.-side of the war would like to call it torture. That does not make it a euphemism.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reexamined your Guardian link and found it really works to make my point. That link is not an article. It is, rather, a commentary from a critic of the U.S.-side of the war. In this column he is responding to policies of the NY Times and Washington Post to not refer to waterboarding as "torture" in their news pages.

In other words, the NYT and Post want to retain the ability to claim they are objective.

Why do you want Wikipedia's policies be any different?

I'm reverting your cat, but keeping the link to that column. I do want all of fascism's defenders to be remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been some confusion about what a euphemism is. To call EIT a euphemism does not mean that it is torture. The word enhanced alone makes this term euphemistic since it substitutes a more agreeable term for what would be more aptly described as harsh or severe. Many sources (including Wikipedia) use the term Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to exemplify euphemisms. [1] Gobonobo ^{T C} 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An About.com Guide is not an objective source with expertise in Law of War.

You're right that this is more about what a euphemism is. But you're assuming that harsh and severe were the purpose. They weren't. The only goal was to move in a direction that would gain more information. The most commonly used techniques weren't harsh or severe at all.

As you say, a euphemism is to substitute for a more agreeable term rather than the terms you intended to use. But in this case, they fully intended to use "enhanced" because "enhanced" is what they were after. There was no substitution.

The more fundamental problem is that your threshold for what constitutes a euphemism is extraordinarily low. "Bathroom tissue" and "cemetery" are not euphemisms. Neither are "Old Sparky" or "cement shoes," albeit for different reasons. "Pre-owned vehicle" is close even though it's more of a peacock term than a real euphemism. These are important distinctions for readers who aren't using English as a first language.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who do you think you are fooling? Any inquisitorial torture regime has the purpose of producing confessions. If Cheney's legal advisers had somehow designed a miracle questioning technique, why wouldn't it be used more widely? It'd be tremendously useful for criminal investigation, congressional inquiries, you wouldn't have all that hassle about swearing on the bible...

And stop reverting [2]

• it's not regarded as torture only by "critics of U.S. policy". Is Holder a "critic of U.S. policy", for instance? This formulation is an attempt at equaling people opposed to the torture system of the Bush era with opponents of the US themselves. Unacceptable.
• The New York Times is a US, right-wing, notoriously Bush-friendly, pro-war newspaper. Read something else too and you will see "torture" black on white. What is the second word in Guantánamo torture: UK wants claims of complicity to be heard in secret [3] ? The last in Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture [4]  ? The middle one in CIA medics joined in Guantánamo torture sessions, says Red Cross [5] ?
• how exactly is "Category:International criminal law" not relevant? Rama (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Interrogation is for the purpose of gaining information. Other countries do like "confessions," which they broadcast to their gullible followers. That didn't happen here because 1) the CIA is in the business of gathering intelligence, not prosecutions; and 2) the CIA doesn't work for a socialist state.

Your links make my point. Article titles are for attracting readers in a concise manner, not for the full facts. They aren't necessarily written by the story writers. If you read the balance of the the stories carefully, you'll see they qualify the word "torture" by letting the reader know it's just an allegation. In your second link it uses the phrase "tantamount to torture." Keep in mind that this is the Guardian, which is well left of center.

BTW: The NYT is also left of center, but not as far to the left as the Guardian. I'm actually shocked that the Guardian shows some journalistic restraint here.

The Red Cross is a bit different. If you look at actual quotes from the ICRC report, it makes clear that they are basing their judgment on the claims made by the detainees. Regardless, they are biased, and they're not a source of law.

This isn't a matter of international criminal law. These weren't police interrogations for a criminal case. It's a matter of the laws of war. There is a category for that if you like. That's why people used to talk about the Geneva Conventions until they ran that line as far as it went.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1) The CIA was in the business of gathering intelligence on Iraqi connections and weapon systems that did not exist because of the policy of its government. Call that whatever you wich

2) The CIA is not a State, just like the KGB was not a state. Both, however, are governmental agencies. It happens that both operated galaxies of unaccountable concentration camps and used a range of methods of torture. What "socialism" has to do with it is beyond me. I'd understand if you were discussing the different fashions of torture techniques, but the most proeminent torture techniques used by the USA have precisely been inspired by techniques used in Socialist states to elicit arbitrary confessions. In any case the distinction that you introduce between "confessions" and "interrogation-for-the-purpose-of-gaining-information" is irrelevant: in both cases you will "waterboard", pull fingernails, beat or burn, and get out saying that the purpose was for the victim to spit out something, not to hurt him.

Your attempts with the New York Times are without merit. For a start, you fail to explain how the New York Times sets an international standard for the entirety of the world press -- and it does not. Secondly, you make a claim that is widely disproved -- for a start, the very first reference in the article is The semantics of torture (emph added). That claim of yours is disproved even before being uttered.

Yes there were police interrogations for a criminal case. Where have you been all these years? The Geneva Conventions apply to criminals too, they simply have a different status than prisoners of war; you cannot torture anybody. And it is a matter of international law because Spain has initiated criminal proceedings against John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith under the provision of universal juridiction. Rama (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter here that the CIA was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. They didn't use EIT for that. Besides, the reason they were wrong is because Saddam had fully intended to make his enemies believe he had WMDs. That the CIA, like any government agency, can be fooled is no surprise to those of us who don't want the government having too much control over our private business. But it has no bearing on EIT.

You're missing the difference between this interrogation and that of America's enemies. Perhaps you've forgotten the American pilots who'd been captured, and then forced to "confess" on camera. That's why I said there's a difference between interrogation for information, and real torture for confessions.

The claim that U.S. interrogation techniques were "inspired by techniques used in Socialist states" is a bit much. While there may be links to SERE, those techniques had been softened and regulated for use on aircrews who'd be flying multi-million dollar aircraft a few days later. It's laughable to say that this is real torture. Besides that, many of these techniques go back further than that. The British used similar methods during WWII. It was worse than what the CIA does, yet they still said it wasn't real torture.

Whether or not the New York Times sets an international standard for the entirety of the world press, it practices the same standard that many others do. For example, that editorial suggests that the Washington Post does the same thing. But you do make an interesting point. We should look for the positions of other news editors on how they report this. Then we can let the readers know which types of journalists take the same stand, and which ones are openly willing to parrot the other side.

The "semantics of torture" claim you point to is from an opinion piece in the Guardian's "Comment is Free" section. The writer isn't speaking as an unbiased reporter. That's the same policy as in the NYT. As that one editor said, their columnists are also able to express their own opinions.

"And it is a matter of international law because..."

I didn't say it's not a matter of international law. I said it's not a matter of international criminal law.

The Geneva Conventions are not about the police interrogation of regular criminals. The GCs explicitly say they're only for armed conflicts. This is also why detainees may be held without trial until the end of the war whereas regular criminals are entitled to a trial.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter here that the CIA was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. They didn't use EIT for that": source ?

There is no difference between torture for information and torture for confessions. The "techniques" used by the CIA are inherited from tortures as practised in Northern Korea and the Soviet Union.

You attempt to insinuate that the world press shies away from calling torture as practised in Guantanamo "torture". This is simply factually wrong. Desist.

Oddly enough, the Spanish investigation on torture seems to be a criminal investigation.

The Geneva Conventions define a series of duties for participants in armed conflicts, duties that apply in prisoner of war, on common justice prisoners alike, on civilians, etc. Nobody is "left outside" the Geneva Conventions. The phrase "the Geneva Conventions do not apply" is non-sensical. You cannot torture a common justice prisoner any more than you can torture civilians or prisoners of war. Rama (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a brief look at the timeline for the compilation and approval of EIT, and juxtapose that against the timeline for the run-up to the war in Iraq. They simply do not mesh.

Add that to the fact that none of our sources claim that the CIA might have used EIT in preparation for the invasion of Iraq. I suppose there may be some graphic novels and conspiracy theories depicting the use of EIT back then. If you've got one, please feel free to mention it.

Besides, I thought you were one of those who doesn't believe the Bush administration wanted much data before making up their minds to invade Iraq.

"You attempt to insinuate that the world press shies away from calling torture as practised in Guantanamo 'torture'."

I don't think "insinuate" is the right word. I thought I was more clear than that when I observed that prominent news organizations are careful about making such accusations of torture. Why else do you think they used words like "allegedly"? But like I said, I would like a list of prominent papers that took a position in their reporting policy. It would be interesting to compare that to their relative silence on other issues pertaining to real human rights.

The Spanish investigation (which isn't going anywhere) was seeking a reason to prosecute U.S. officials, and, therefore, might be about international criminal law for the Bush Six (although I have my doubts). It's not about criminal law for EIT because the detainees weren't being held under criminal law.

The applicability of the Geneva Conventions is another subject. You're correct that, even under Common Article 3, it doesn't allow torture. That still brings us back to the definition of torture. The precise line between "torture" and "harsh interrogation" hasn't yet been set.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how they do not mesh. See [6]. In any case, it is all irrelevant.

I care little about what you believe, you do not know what I believe, and what I believe is irrelevant. For the record, I do think that the Bush administration wanted information before the aggression against Iraq; I think it particularly wanted the information that would have justified the invasion and ignored most other.

News organisations are not particularly careful, and use the word "torture" plainly.

The Spanish investigation is a step towards indiction of the "Bush Six" for their role in establishing a culture of torture in the USA that goes by the name of "Enhanced interrogation techniques". Enhanced interrogation techniques is thus exactly as relevant to Category:International criminal law as Genocide is, for instance.

There does not need to be a "precise line". There is no "precise line" between genocide and mass murder either, it doesn't prevent enforcement of international law on this respect. Besides, "waterboarding" is clearly accepted to be torture by everybody, except a handful of people typically involved in the deed. Rama (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you meant EIT used on detainees other than those captured for the war with al-Qaeda. If a detainee is knowledgeable about connections to Iraq, they probably would have asked those questions regardless of whether a war was imminent.

If the Spanish investigation goes anywhere beyond the whining stage, then I'll say it might make sense to link intl criminal law. Right now, it doesn't look like that'll happen in this universe.

There may not be a "precise line" between genocide and mass murder, but we don't tag every mass murder as a genocide.

Waterboarding is not clearly accepted to be torture by credible reporters. I've looked again at some of our sources from the NYT, Washington Post, BBC, ABC News, and they all use terms like "alleged" for objective reporting.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

International criminal law is international criminal law, even if no conviction is made.

"Waterboarding" is accepted to be torture by basically everybody except those who performed it. Rama (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it has to be a conviction. I said "beyond the whining stage." A serious prosecution would be a sign that somebody serious takes it seriously.

(That Spanish lawyer would still be a joke, but at least then it would be a serious joke.)

You'll have to face the fact that the credible press (NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and ABC News) still allow room for doubt.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see what allows you to say that the prosecution is not "serious".

No I do not have to face that. There are many instances of the term "torture" uttered without particular precautions to refer to the abuses practised in Guantanamo. Rama (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The case is not getting anywhere. It's about as serious as a mock trial conducted by Miss Canfield's 8th grade class.

Sure, there are lots of places where people claim that EIT is torture. There are people who say that songs sung by Barney the dinosaur is torture. What makes any of them right? That's why neutral news organizations (such as the ones listed above) use the word alleged.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's rather funny that the article on Guantanamo suicide attempts uses the phrase "allegedly committed suicide" for three fascists who left suicide notes, and yet we're supposed to declare the U.S. government guilty of "torture" simply because critics of the U.S.-side of the war have decided on it. Truly Orwellian.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the USA have used torture. There are doubts that all people reported to have commited suicide in Guantanamo did actually kill themselves. I don't see what is Orwellian about it. Rama (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say that you have no doubts about it. The suicides were suicides. That conspiracy theory is falling apart. Horton should never have put his faith in a worm like Denbeaux.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What I believe or what I doubt is irrelevant. What matters is what the UN and such believe and doubt. Nobody at that level has any doubt that the USA have used torture.

What you believe or doubt is irrelevant (incidentally, I also find it repugnant, I'd be grateful if you could spare me). There are no proofs that these suicides were suicides, and the USA have a record of disinformation about Guantanamo that makes prudence perfectly justified. Rama (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The U.N. is not a world government. They're a bunch of bureaucrats from various governments around the world, including guardians of "human rights" like China and Syria, who want to push their own agenda. They have about as much credibility as the fascists' lawyer who played up the Camp No conspiracy theory.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or the USA. This does not prevent them from issuing authoritative reports and from constituting a reference for international law. But you can refer to reports issued by the ICRC or by close allies of the USA, like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, etc., if you prefer. Rama (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to saying that the ICRC claims that something is torture, as long as we phrase it as carefully as they do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I pulled almost all of the euphemisms I've been categorizing from Euphemisms & Dysphemisms: Language Used As Shield and Weapon by Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, who both have PhD's in linguistics. The about.com page on euphemisms was written by Richard Norquist, who has a PhD in English and rhetoric. Cemetery was borrowed from the Greek for "put to sleep" and bathroom tissue is a euphemism for toilet paper. I'll try and see if somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics can provide some perspective on this, since we seem to be needing an outside opinion. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did these experts also say Department of Defense used to be the War Department? BTW: It was first called the "National Military Establishment" but I've heard they changed it to Department of Defense because the initials "NME" sound too much like "enemy."

From what you say, I can see that cemetery used to be a euphemism, but not that it's a euphemism in English today.

Regardless, asking at WikiProject Linguistics is a very good idea. If they know what they're talking about, and you have references, then I'll buy it for now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how, using Randy2063's logic ("the people who call EIT a euphemism are not in a position to know what went through the minds of those who invented the term EIT. You'd need to show that those who invented the term really would have called it torture but needed to substitute a more pleasant term"), *anything could be called a euphemism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.164.58 (talk)

That's simple. For example, putting a pet to sleep is a euphemism for euthanasia because the person who first coined the term knew full well that the pet wasn't really going to sleep.

If those who developed EIT, and coined the term, had believed it was torture then it would indeed be a euphemism for torture.

If they intended to develop procedures that are less than torture, then they named it as a term for something less than torture.

The people who do call EIT a euphemism have no idea what went through the minds of those who developed it. Some of them are so far off the rails that couldn't ever be trusted for that kind of security clearance.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion is moot. It is a euphemism for torture, and anyone who can read at a sixth-grade level or above will understand that from reading this article, whether or not it explicitly states "is a euphemism for torture"..... I can't believe you are still battling about this insignificance. Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization/cleanup of article

I've done a large restructing of the article to make it more readable. I've organized the events involved in chronological order, preceded by a description of the techniques. So now, instead of a bunch of disjointed, overlapping sections like "SERE", "CIA", "War on Terror", etc, with no visible rationale for choosing them, it flows like this:

1. Techniques used.
2. Development of techniques and training
3. Approval to use techniques
4. Initial reports of use
5. Reactions to reports
6. Call for investigations
7. Debate about legality
8. Ban of techniques

I've also done things like removing POV use of the term "torture" in one instance, and removing a paragraph on the psychological effects of torture, which were not relevant to this article as far as I can tell (they can read about that in torture, if they want).

I've removed the criticism section, which was long and rambling, and only contained content that was easy to integrate in with the rest of the article. I don't see any reason why we need a "criticism" section. Most of it was worked into the "Public/Official reaction" and "Legality" sections.

I altered/removed very little of the content itself, however, and have mostly just moved it into appropriate sections. All of the sections that were removed were merely broken up and moved into sections that made more sense.

I feel that the current format makes much more sense, and is a much more readable and balanced presentation. The article is still in need of a lot of work, but I feel that this will be a very nice start, and will enable us to move on to the content itself in a more effective way.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a lot better this way, but you've lost the difference between EIT by the CIA, and that used by the military. The bits about Rumsfeld, Karpinsky, and Geoffrey Miller are all about the U.S. military's versions. They may also call it EIT but they're very different.

It was always a bit confusing but there's no separation at all now.

If nobody else gets to it, I will try to move it later.

I can understand what you mean about removing the criticism section. My concern is that we lose the names of the critics. It may seem like a small thing to you, but I don't want them forgotten.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel that we've "lost the difference" between the CIA and military's techniques. The discussion of the techniques and policies explicitly describes who was responsible in each case. That organization didn't really make much sense anyway, since in a large number of cases, the CIA and military were jointly working on "interrogating" prisoners. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• We don't lose the names of any critics, everyone that was in that section is still in the article, and is just integrated into the content of the article itself. Nobody will be "forgotten". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On the part I removed, and you put back, that's about one particular fascist's torture he allegedly received when he was rendered to Morocco. EIT has nothing to do with it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please refrain from using ideologically loaded and biased terms like "fascist" when discussing the topic -- try to remain neutral and objective about it when discussing this.
• I feel that it has to do with EIT because of the extensive references to the techniques used being torture. On the other hand, I feel that most of this could be integrated into other sections, and we could just remove this section, along with some of the stuff that doesn't really belong in this article (such as the bit about cooperation between Britain and the U.S., which isn't really relevant) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Joint interrogation is irrelevant. The CIA did not use its versions of EIT in the presence of U.S. military interrogators. We can't let readers be fooled into thinking they're the same thing.

Beating people and using a razor blade on them is not one of the authorized EITs.

And since we're starting to reserve the word "torture" for unbiased sources, I'll hold off on calling jihadists "fascists."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody is "fooling the readers", regarding military vs. CIA techniques, as far as I can tell. In fact, the article has a separate list for CIA vs. military techniques. Can you provide an example of where readers are being fooled? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what you mean by "beating people and using razor blades". Could you explain? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any separate section on military interrogation. We used to have one called "Department of Defense."

The piece that starts with "Stephen Soldz" talks about its use by SERE. That might be better under the development section, but it's not the list of techniques used for interrogation.

Just search for the name "Rumsfeld". It's all over the place in this article. Wherever you see that, you're talking about the military. He had nothing to do with waterboarding or the CIA. If the reader thinks otherwise, then they've been fooled.

Binyam Mohamed claims to have been beaten, and sliced with a razor blade while rendered to Morocco. That's what the section I removed was about. It's not an EIT. It's not even clear that an American interrogator did that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't claim that there was a separate section. I stated that there doesn't need to be one, because that categorization doesn't make as much sense, and that there are no points that I've been able to find where it is ambiguous who was responsible (the CIA vs. DoD).
• Good call on the Soldz bit -- I've fixed that. Thanks for pointing that out.
• As far as Rumsfeld, could you point out a place where this might be confusing? I'm still not understanding how it would imply to a reader that the CIA was involved if they saw Rumsfeld's name.
• I see what you meant by the razorblade thing. I'll go ahead and remove it for now, and re-add the bits that seem appropriate (probably rewritten) later. Thanks again.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the CIA and the military used the term EIT but they were different techniques, and approved by different sets of lawyers. Moreover, they also have different histories.

When the article says waterboarding, then goes to Karpinski and Rumsfeld, and then ends the section by talking about Hayden, then they have no idea what really happened. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with waterboarding, or any of the CIA techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(od)

• I don't find it confusing, and I don't see why a reader would. It states who was responsible for each decision and technique, and there is a separate list for CIA vs. DOD techniques -- I don't see how a reader could get them confused when it explicitly says who was using/approving each group of techniques. What do you see that implies that Rumsfeld had something to do with waterboarding, that CIA/DOD techniques were the same, or that the techniques were all approved by the same set of lawyers, or that they all have the same histories?
• And, I'm not sure Rumsfeld "had nothing to do with" waterboarding -- I've seen some sources which claim that he did, and some that he didn't: didn't, did, for example... but even if he didn't have anything to do with it, that's not relevant as far as the current article is concerned, because there is nothing in there implying that he did.
• -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see why you're confused. That piece in the article referencing Soldz calls them techniques used by the military, but it's written wrong. The reference itself does not say they are techniques used by military interrogators. It's a list of techniques used at SERE school. (The military needs to train people to deal with harsh interrogation because they know from history that nobody complains about human rights when Americans are captured.)

We really need a second section with just the DoD techniques. It shouldn't be mingled with the CIA ones.

None of those links say Rumsfeld ever approved waterboarding. That second one only said that he would need to approve it personally if it ever came up. It's not even certain that it got past their lawyers.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Randy -- you actually seem to be confused in this case. Perhaps you should read the Soldz article, before making claims about what it does or does not say. Here's an excerpt from the section called "Were SERE Techniques Taught and Utilized at Guantánamo? YES.":

The OIG report documents in detail that Ft. Bragg SERE psychologists provided training to interrogators at Guantánamo for the purpose of using SERE techniques to break down detainees:

Read the rest of the article for more, so you'll understand what Soldz, et al. were saying.

• Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Rumsfeld approved waterboarding. You said that he had "nothing to do with waterboarding". I just responded by providing you with a source that said that he did have "something to do with" it, namely that he had written a memo stating that DOD personnel should only use waterboarding in cases where he personally approved it.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it this way: Rumsfeld didn't have anything to do with the waterboarding we're talking about in this article.

You misunderstand me. I said that Soldz isn't the one who got this wrong (or, that part anyway). I don't think it's your fault either, as I think this was mixed up in the previous version. I'll have to look at that OIG report later. Soldz is not the best source we can get on this.

The point is that the article currently says this is a list of the military's EIT. It's not. Soldz does not say it's the DoD list of EIT. He only says it's what they do at SERE.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rumsfeld didn't have anything to do with the waterboarding we're talking about in this article. - nor does the article claim that he did.
• He only says it's what they do at SERE. -- Again, please read the Soldz, et al. article before talking about what it says. They not only said that these techniques are used and taught at SERE, but also stated that these techniques were used at Guantanamo, and that they were taught at the SERE school specifically so that agents could use them on Guantanamo detainees.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Soldz does say those are the techniques used at SERE, and that SERE techniques migrated to Guantanamo. It does not follow, and he did not say, that all of the SERE techniques were authorized for use as EIT. They had a working group to decide what parts of it they could use.

Here's the actual list of techniques: "yelling, loud music, and light control, environmental manipulation, sleep deprivation/adjustment, stress positions, 20-hour interrogations, and controlled fear (muzzled dogs)."

That same list is in Soldz's piece. BTW: The OIG report says that none of the approved techniques were torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• First off, I made an incorrect statement above, which I'd like to correct. The techniques were taught at SERE to psychologists who then taught the techniques to the interrogators at Guantanamo. Sorry about that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• But regardless, the techniques were used at Guantanamo by the United States military. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Please include the OIG argument that the approved techniques were not torture in the section "Debate about whether techniques constituted torture", with a citation. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd ultimately like to see that section expanded dramatically, and balanced out more by adding more views claiming that it is not torture. There were plenty of those out there. I'd like to see it broken up into multiple subsections, and once it gets long enough, perhaps have it spun off into it's own article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some digging later to find the reports that say DoD EIT wasn't torture. I don't think it's as important because the critics are usually claiming the CIA techniques are torture. I also have some arguments on the CIA list.

"But regardless, the techniques were used at Guantanamo by the United States military."

No, they weren't. For use in EIT, Soldz only says the ones I mentioned above (yelling, etc.). The ones we have there for DoD EIT now are not the EIT used at Gitmo.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) Randy -- please read the following, and explain to me how this does not say that the listed techniques were used at Gitmo:

Reports of the treatment of detainees in US custody as part of the global war on terror have paralleled techniques known to have been used as part of SERE training: prolonged isolation, prolonged sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, extremely painful "stress positions," sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights), forced nudity, sexual humiliation, cultural humiliation (such as disrespect to holy books), being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia, the exploitation of phobias, and simulation of the experience of drowning (waterboarding) ... Were SERE Techniques Taught and Utilized at Guantánamo? YES. The OIG report documents in detail that Ft. Bragg SERE psychologists provided training to interrogators at Guantánamo for the purpose of using SERE techniques to break down detainees ...

— Soldz, et. al.

Compare this to the list in the article. I don't see how one could claim that they are not saying that these techniques were used at Gitmo. --Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, some of the techniques at SERE were used at Gitmo.

The OIG report says there was a working group to decide which ones they might adapt. Soltz is wrong when he suggests that they were all used, although I interpret that as a general statement, and not necessarily that he thinks they were all used or approved.

His other list (yelling, etc.) is where he specifically says which ones were used.

This article is about techniques that were used. It's not about those that were used at SERE but discarded.

Why do you not want to use the list of techniques actually used? It's difficult to understand what why you don't.

Besides that, Soltz is not an objective source. It doesn't matter so much when he's quoting the original report, but CounterPunch isn't regarded as mainstream.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy --

• Soltz is wrong... --Unfortunately, you claiming that Soldz, et al. were "wrong" is original research. Do you have reliable sources which question the validity of their work?
• Why do you not want to use the list of techniques actually used? It's difficult to understand what why you don't. -- Again, please refrain from putting words in my mouth, and drop the sarcastic and patronizing tone -- perhaps read WP:Civil, WP:TPG, and WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, I do want to include a list of techniques that were used, but all we have to go by is reliable sources, not our own personal opinions/research of what happened. Soldz, et al. is clearly a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that claims that their report was inaccurate, we can include those responses in the article, following Soldz, et. al's arguments.
• Besides that, Soltz is not an objective source. -- Please see WP:NPOV -- all authors have a bias, but that doesn't prevent us from using them as long as they are reliable. Soldz, et al. are notable and reliable, and I don't know of any works which question the factual accuracy of the work in question. Do you?
• Counterpunch isn't regarded as mainstream -- If you'll take a look at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and search the history for CounterPunch (which is highly notable and has a very strong record for fact checking accuracy, by the way) you will see that the community's consensus has generally been to say that we should look at the reliability of the authors of the article in question for CounterPunch. Soldz, et. al are all quite reliable, notable, and have a strong record for factual accuracy. If you disagree with that, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase that: Your reading of Soldz's view (which, as I explained, I interpreted what you quoted only as a general statement) is not supported by the actual reports he's reading from.

The reference in this article is really from his list of SERE techniques, and not the EIT themselves. His own list of techniques actually used is the same one I cited before.

On CounterPunch, the first link I went to has some good things to say about it, but they agreed that it's decidedly left. They mention Paul Craig Roberts as someone from the right who's appeared in CounterPunch, but he's a paleo-conservative who was also critical of the Bush administration. (Although Roberts himself isn't that far to the extreme, he is sometimes cited by right-wing extremists.)

BTW: I am not working from original research. I have sources that say what was permitted.

Again, the list of DoD EIT techniques actually used are the ones that Soldz himself had listed ("yelling, etc."). Why do you not want to use that list?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Your reading of Soldz's view ... is not supported by the actual reports he's reading from. --This is not "my reading" of Soldz, et. al. Please see the quoted passage from the article above above. Regardless of your interpretation, in the article, they specifically list the techniques that are currently listed in this article as being used by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay. Your personal opinion about whether their research is somehow faulty, and not supported by their sources is irrelevant. Again, please take a careful look at WP:No Original Research. You need to find a reliable source which states that their research is faulty, and then you can add this information into the article following the list of techniques that Soldz, et. al. have listed in their article.
• On CounterPunch ...they agreed that it's decidedly left. -- Everyone has a bias, but as long as they are notable and reliable, then we should just objectively report what the reliable sources say. Whether CounterPunch "is decidedly left" is irrelevant -- you'll see from most discussions on the Noticeboard, that we should look at the authors' reliability to determine whether the article is considered reliable for a given topic. In this case it is -- the authors are notable and reliable. If you have any doubts about it, please take it to the Noticeboard. I don't feel like rehashing this with you again. Again, just to be clear, if you do not think that this is a reliable source, please discuss it at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you choose to bring it up with me again, I will refer you to this paragraph. If you claim again that the quoted passage above does not claim that these techniques above were used at Guantanamo bay by the U.S. military, feel free to file an RfC about it.
• BTW: I am not working from original research. I have sources that say what was permitted. -- You seem to be confused about Wikipedia's policy on original research. This is why I keep recommending that you read WP:No Original Research. I'm not just recommending this for no reason -- I really think you need to read it -- particularly WP:Primary, which is what I think you are misunderstanding. Even more specifically, take a moment to consider what this means: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
• As far as your question about the DoD EIT list, I think it would be better if we stick to reliable secondary sources to make interpretations about this rather than trying to interpret primary documents ourselves. Again, please see WP:Primary.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You're more in tune with OR and synthesis than I am. It's you who's assuming that his discussion of SERE techniques is transferred over his list of EIT in its entirety.

Besides, if your version really made sense, it wouldn't be isolated to one opinionated article in CounterPunch. Soldz would have made a bigger deal of it if waterboarding was really in the DoD list of techniques.

BTW: I was being polite when I said CounterPunch is decidedly left. That was really an understatement.

The interrogation manual might be a primary source, but an OIG report is not. It doesn't matter, though, as there are other sources that go into this.

I do have to confess that I was wrong about something. It turns out that Binyam Mohammed was interrogated by the CIA when he was allegedly sliced up (at least I assume so). The British government released their report on BM's interrogation.

It's not worth putting back into the article. It's no different than the other high value detainees. He got sleep deprivation but his razor story isn't corroborated. I still don't see where that comes from.

Even without the razor, the interesting news for you is that this is described as "torture" in the British press. But that's because (as described in the above NYT article) the U.K. has different standards for what constitutes torture. That probably also depends on whose buildings are smoking at the time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) Randy -- I don't wish to argue with you about what is or isn't torture, or your opinions about CounterPunch, here. I don't feel that talk pages are the place for such debates. I would, however, be interested in discussing your personal views with you on my talk page if you feel like leaving me a message there. I'm always interested in understanding how other people's minds work. I'm quite interested in yours, as a matter of fact, since our viewpoints seem so radically different.

Anyways, as far as your changes to the article,

• I think that the way that you split up the techniques section into DOD and CIA techniques is quite reasonable, and looks a lot less jumbled than the previous version -- good idea.
• I don't agree with your removal of Soldz, et al., but I'll dig through some of my books and find several more sources to go along with it -- all of those techniques were used and approved by the DOD, as I'm sure you're aware, and it seems clear to me that this is what Soldz, et al were saying, but I don't have time to fight over this right now. So it will have to wait for now.
• Thanks for cleaning up the references.
• I don't believe that the extended quote from Andrew McCarthy is warranted to explain that he doesn't believe that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, I'm not really sure if this belongs here since it's only talking about waterboarding, rather than the U.S.'s interrogation programs in general, but I'm willing to let it stay if you feel that it really belongs for some reason.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll send a note to your talk page tonight or tomorrow when I have more time.

I removed the Soldz quote because it didn't apply to that section, and it would have been superfluous elsewhere. The problem was that he characterized the OIG report as saying that the SERE techniques applied were torture, when the OIG report itself says that the methods authorized were not. Basically, what he did would have been a synth violation if we did it here. I think that's perfectly fine for a writer to do, but then we need to say clearly that it's his opinion, and not necessarily that of the OIG. For example, I could have reworded it to say that he's analyzing it this way, but that would belong in a different section. I wondered if it could go into another section, but we've already got plenty on his opinions.

Clipping the McCarthy quote is fine with me. The article is long enough as it is. (I might want to put back three or four words.) He was talking about waterboarding because that was the most controversial technique. His overall reasoning applies to all of them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction remains unacceptable:

• The formulation "regarded by critics of U.S. policy" insinuates that these people are fundamentally opposed to the USA as such. The so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" have been called "torture" by people who cannot be suspected of this.
• "News editors, such as for the New York Times, refer to some of these techniques as "harsh" and "brutal" but do not call them "torture"" is factually incorrect. All is given as a source is the particular angst of the New York Times; however, it is entirely unproven that the reserve observed in the New York Times are widespread, either internationally or withing the USA. Rama (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll think of another way to characterize the critics. We can call them "critics" if you like.

I haven't seen any of the major U.S. non-ideological journalists use "torture" without qualification. A reporter from The Washington Post explains that they just don't want to get sued. ("The reason we say "alleged" murder and things like that is for our own legal protection. So we can't be sued for libel. Take a look at financial reports on the newspaper business.")

It's a bit ironic, given that the U.K. is the haven for such lawsuits. (I'll add the link to the article later if no one gets around to it before I do.)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia has been sued before. It's a lot easier to do when we also claim to have serious NPOV and BLP policies. Don't think for a second that these talk pages won't be used as evidence.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how you have repeatedly called "fascists" people who have been released without charges from US camps, it's downright funny to hear you say such a thing. Rama (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is very funny, considering that part of the reason I started using the word was in reaction to the way detainees' claims about soldiers were often treated as fact before the facts were in.

Besides that, the word "fascist" was used as an epithet. Moreover, the detainees were held IAW the laws of war. Being "released without charge" doesn't mean anything.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What specific "claims about soldiers" is it that were "treated as fact before the facts were in"?

You can't claim that they are neither prisoners of war, interned civilians nor common justice criminals. These people, who have been collectively called "killers" and "the worst of the worst", comprise a number of people who have been released without criminal charges. It means that no grounds for criminal procedures were found against them, as opposed to some other detainees in Guantanamo. I don't understand what it is you fail to understand in this. Rama (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By "claims against soldiers" I meant things like the Koran-in-the-toilet rumor, the Haditha killings, and the "torture" meme (much of which is bunk).

There were no criminal charges for released detainees because the war is a war, and not a police prosecution against criminals. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as such. They can be detained for as long as military necessity requires. And they can be released when military necessity no longer requires. Releasing them does not mean that they were innocent. It only means they're no longer important enough to keep.

The Bush administration said this, and now the Obama administration agrees. That's the way it's always been. It is fully within America's rights under the laws of war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not recall having ever had much interest in the sanitary installations of Guantanamo, but religions humiliations by US soldiers is a well-established fact. The Haditha killings are a well-established fact. The use of water torture is a well-established fact. I don't see what you are trying to say.

Your war rhetoric is nothing but political slogans. Some of the detainees released from Guantanamo have been charged afterwards, because terrorism is a criminal offence. In most cases charges were dropped because there was nothing substantial for the accusation, because the accusation was tainted by its reliance on material obtained by torture, or because the defendants were not in condition to be tried.

You seem to entertain the delusion that the world is divided between the USA and some sub-human terrorists unworthy of basic Human rights. May I remind you that the USA have allies that support the values of democracy and Human Rights, fight at her sides in Afghanistan, and do not appreciate that their cause be tainted by the cavalier attitude of some US officials? Rama (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Haditha killings are still at the tail end of the legal process, but we've seen enough to know that the cries of the so-called "human rights" movement were ill-founded, and probably ill-intended.

It's a tragic story, to be sure. In a war where children are used as human shields without substantial objection, it is inevitable that children will be killed. It is especially tragic that more people whined about the Koran-in-the-toilet rumor than cared about those children.

Again, the lack of criminal charges for detainees means absolutely nothing. The U.S. isn't handing out its intelligence methods and documents to foreign courts.

A lot of the detainees were only guilty of minor offenses anyway. Many, such as the Tipton Three, were more likely held because of their connections, and what could be learned from them about their networks. (Again, this is a war, after all.)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But they are not prisoners of war either. Prisoners of war cannot be shackled, kept in isolation for months, hidden from the Red Cross and from their own families, tortured, etc.

The lack of criminal charges against an individual means either one of these

• either he was detained in Guantanamo for no good reason (like the people over 80)
• either there would be grounds for prosecution for criminal endeavour, and the Guantanamo system prevents this by tainting the accusation with irregularities.

As for "what could be learned from them about their networks. (Again, this is a war, after all.)", prisoners of war are bound to state nothing more than their name, rank and service number; detaining a prisoner of war for the sole purpose of extracting information that he is illegal. Torturing him is illegal as well.

In any case, this is not relevant to the matter at hand, it would be more relevant to "unlawful prisoner" or something. But this is indicative of a systemic problem that you have greatly contributed to instil in this article: it essentially allows the problem to be framed by the policies and buzzwords of the Bush administration -- which are discredited today even in the USA. This is essentially as if we discussed Nacht und Nebel by flatly stating that it is "defined" as a policy against dangerous opponent to the safety of the German people or against "Asian bolchevic barbarism", and went on to discuss whether such or such person was aptly described as an Asian bolchevic. I feel that this is not in the spirit of NPOV, and possibly goes diametrically against it. Rama (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the difference between a legitimate POW and an unlawful combatant.

Real soldiers operated iaw the laws of war, and thus are due to be treated iaw the Geneva Conventions. That's why they don't have to reveal more than name, rank, and number. But even under the full GCs, it is legal and proper to detain unlawful combatants for as long as necessary. They do not receive the same protection as a real soldier who fought iaw the laws of war. They never have. Nor does this mean they're transferred to the criminal justice system. This is still a war, and the laws of war apply.

It's not a misreading of the GCs. That's the way they were designed. The men who wrote the GCs would never have allowed it to work the way you seem to believe.

This war is recognized as falling within Common Article 3. There are minimum protections, but there is no requirement for a trial.

Common Article 3 does encourage that both sides make special agreements for handling prisoners. If the critics of the war haven't asked jihadis to make those agreements, then that's not the U.S.'s fault.

The Bush administration left office over a year ago. Since the Obama administration has essentially chosen to follow the same legal framework, it's a bit odd for you to say this has been "discredited today even in the USA."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand it rather well I think, thank you. You are the one claiming that the people detained in Guantanamo are prisoners of war. "Unlawful combatant" is 1) irrelevant to this article and 2) not a precise legal term.

Under the Geneva Conventions, people who are not prisoners of war are either civilians, to be released as soon as possible; or accused of a crime, in which case the accusation must be stated and a fair trial be held. Under no circumstances is torture permitted.

The Obama administration has notable dropped the notion of so-called "War on Terror". It has failed to close Guantanamo, to hold trials for those accused and to bring US torturers to justice, but this procrastination does not mean that it has "the same legal framework" as that invented by Yoo. Rama (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Civilians could be detained under the GCIV for as long as necessary. It doesn't matter, though, as only Common Article 3 applies, which doesn't even go that far.

As I said, the Obama administration doesn't agree with you: Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely:

A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama administration officials.

That's not procrastination.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could just say regarded by some instead of regarded by critics of U.S. policy?
• As far as the New York Times, why don't we just say The New York Times allows its writers to use terms such as "harsh" or "brutal", etc... ? That's really all that the source implies anyway.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Regarded by some" is okay with me. I think somebody will want a better description eventually, but it should do for a while.

The "don't want to get sued" link (above) is for the Washington Post, but I don't know that "harsh" or "brutal" is what they use. In any case, the general point is more than just the NYT. I'll fiddle with it tomorrow in a way that includes both the NYT and the WPost.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are proeminent examples of mainstream newspapers using the word "torture" plainly and without precaution in the worldwide press. I have provided a number of examples in the Guardian. This discussion is moot. Rama (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although I'm not sure of the BBC, much of the British press started using the word more freely after last week's court decision. If you'll notice, I had added the line: "The British government has determined some techniques would be classified as torture under European law." We should add some of their newspapers' positions.

The ones you've noted before are either opinion columns, or qualify themselves with "alleged," or in some other way aren't clear enough to make a good statement.

I am not only willing, but eager, to show how this stuff is reported. I just don't want them to come back later, after the music changes and the references are gone, and claim they didn't say that. Whether you realize it or not, it is an accusation to say that the media took a side in this. It needs to be unambiguous.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry, stating that waterboarding is torture is not taking sides, but mere common sense. The people who refuse to acknowledge it as torture tend to also refuse to caracterise the sectionning of fingers as torture, and are self-professed non-experts in the field. Rama (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, one thing I think we can agree on is that the notable people who took sides in this need to be documented and remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On this, yes. But that does not mean that their views are equivalent in legitimacy. Just like there are notable people who will be documented and remembered as think that the World Trade Center was destroyed by "controlled demolition"; they will be remembered as holding outlandish ideas, and it will change nothing to the core of the subject. Rama (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that, too.

People who supported one side, rather than the other, will be remembered for a long time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The world is more complicated that "you are either with us or with the Terrorists". It's no use fighting an evil by instituting a greater evil. And fringe extremists, whatever their flag, must not be allowed to frame the terms of the debate here. Rama (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we'll have to respectfully disagree

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that using children as human shields is a greater evil than detaining unlawful combatants under the laws of war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just eating popcorn and watching you two right now, but since we've veered very far from the original topic that started this section off, perhaps we could take the argument to a new section, for the benefit of future readers? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me.

I think Rama should already have known that the Obama administration agrees with me on the matter of the GCs, anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New section ...

Jrtayloriv, I have been repeatedly

• reminding Randy that what he says is irrelevant
• stating, as I have for months, that the very premises of this article are ill-concieved and must be reformed.

As long as we accept that the article be framed in terms of Bush administration buzzwords, there will be attempts to write an article that has some connections with reality and reverts to keep it within the line defined by Yoo et al. The article must be amended as to discuss the term "Enhanced interrogation techniques" as an euphemism for "torture" through history, notably including in Nazi Germany and making no particular emphasis in recent use in the USA; and most of the content dealing with the US torture regime must be moved to an article torture during the War on Terror, as was done for instance with the war in Algeria with Torture during the Algerian War. We do not discuss that in an article Certaines techniques giving selective and edulcorated description of History. As long as we fail to take these steps, there will be an artificially induced bias towards the doctrine of a handful of discredited people, violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Rama (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- it's a euphemism, it's torture, only patriotic zealots who are either dishonest or in denial want to call it anything else, etc. etc. -- but that doesn't get us anywhere as far as improving the article. Where would you want to begin making changes? Please make specific suggestions for changes you'd like to see, and then we can discuss them. Or better yet, be bold, and just go ahead and change things. I'm not stopping you. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

EIT is not a euphemism for torture unless the people who coined the term thought it was torture. It is NPOV to pretend you can read their minds.

The people who claim to believe it is torture are calling it torture. They don't call it EIT. This entire "euphemism" line is simply childish nonsense. It comes off like a backhanded attempt to insert more POV in here.

You'd be better off finding authentic references that show reporters or editors describe their policy on whether or not to call it "torture". I found three.

This is rather Orwellian. You guys get upset when I use the "fascist" epithet for jihadis in the talk page (like we're supposed to be sensitive about people who use children as human shields), and yet you all throw the "torture" word around loosely, and want it planted into the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical. The term "Enhanced interrogation technique" has been used before, notably in Nazi Germany, but Randy2063 again attempts to

1) give exclusive focus on the Bush administration

2) frame the debate exclusively in terms of what "the people who coined the term thought".

As I said, there is nowhere I want to begin making changes, I want the article redone from scratch. The very nature of the article as it is now has the purpose of hindering understanding of the topic and favouring the rear guard fight of torture apologists. I appreciate Jrtayloriv's attempts at improving it, but it's really re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Rama (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about its use by the Bush administration.

The Gestapo's interrogation methods are not comparable. It goes back further than that, anyway. I notice that you didn't mention the British use, which was more similar.

Interestingly, the first reference we currently have says outright (or, whines, actually) that the U.S. media doesn't call it torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Same irrelevance again:

• what the Gestapo or the CIA did is not the question, the point is that they used the same word; yes, we should discuss British, French, etc. use of the term as well;
• you are again framing the debate in terms of what the Bush administration said. The article discussing the problem should talk about what happened, not only what was said. The rhetorics of the Bush administrations belong to subparts of a larger article on what happened, or to a larger article on the rhetorics of torture apologists. As it is now, the article is both restricted to the rhetorics of the Bush administration, and taking the space of an article on torture in the so-called "War on Terror". That is not acceptable.

Rama (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rama --

• Do you have any sources on other nations using the term? I didn't know about that. If so, we should include some mention of them in the article to make it have a global perspective, and avoid WP:Recentism -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with you that the currently article is dedicating weight to all the wrong places. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I would totally support moving most of the article to Torture in the War on Terror, and focusing on the use of the term as a euphemism for torture. Very good idea. Since most of the world calls it torture, and it's basically just the U.S. corporate media, and U.S. government who choose to use euphemisms, I don't think it's reasonable or in line with wikipedia policy to call it "enhanced interrogation techniques", just because the torturers do. Also, this title would cover British troops, etc. torturing people as well. What do you think? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the word "torture" in the title would be so over the top that I'd avoid going there (I don't want to be called as a witness to a lawsuit). Having such a small circle of like-minded editors encourages the type of systemic bias we see around here a lot.

It's also funny and illustrative to see that you'd include supposed "torture" by British troops, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten the true torture that the real torturers (the people I would call "fascists") are committing.

But I think we've got plenty of these "torture" articles already. Feel free to romp around. I don't go there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• There won't be any lawsuits. Just like none of the other torture articles have caused lawsuits.
• I don't know which fascists you're referring to. But if you mean the Islamist, nationalist, etc. movements that are resisting U.S. global hegemony, then yes, any instances of torture that they have committed, which have been validated by reliable sources could be included as well.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WP has been sued before.

If you know something that the NYT's lawyers don't know then I suggest you give them a call. Then maybe they'll change their minds and start calling it torture, too, and you'll have a reference.

By "resisting U.S. global hegemony" I think you mean fighting amongst themselves, killing civilians, and using children as human shields. Absolutely no one who supports those groups is opposed to torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv,

• the German term "Verschärfte Vernehmung" translates directly into "Enhanced interrogation", and was used by Nazi Germany to refer to their methods of stealth torture [7], detailed here [8]. In Algeria, the French would use the terms "Interrogatoire poussé" ("in-depth interrogation", or directly "enhanced interrogation") to refer to their stealth torture techniques [9]; these were not formally codified as in the USA or in the Third Reich, but included food and water depravation, the gégène (electric torture), waterboarding as used in the official US doctrine recently, stress positions as in the official US doctrine and in Abu Graib, a variety of beatings, etc. That's only two examples that come from the top of my head, but we could dig it up a bit and probably come up with the equivalent in the USSR, in Argentina and Chile, possibly in the UK about the Five Techniques in Ireland, etc.
• I am absolutely agreed with you second and third points, and I thank you for considering my ideas. I would recommend something of the sort:
  • A main article Torture in the War on Terror mentioning
    • Torture in Afghanistan
    • Torture in Guantanamo, including discussion of the various tricks designed to overcome international and national laws against torture
    • Torture in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca
    • Torture abroad and so-called "extra-ordinary renditions", including suspect disappearance or death of prisoners (like Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi)
  • An article on euphemisms for torture; possibly it could also discuss techniques of stealth torture and establishment of torture regimes in democracies, or that could be the subject of a specific article
  • An article on the specific framework defined by the Bush administration. Sleeping on it, the present article could be groomed to serve such a purpose, provided that it be clearly indicated that it comes into the context of the broader Torture in the War on Terror, and mentions
    • the various instances in which interrogation by US government officials went beyond the limited scope of the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" without publicly punishing the offender (for instance in the case of Manadel al-Jamadi), or
    • in suspect cases like the alleged suicides in Guantanamo that repeat plain cases like the "suicides" or "escapes" of detainees in French Algeria.

Rama (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Another example of the term "torture" being used plainly in the press: "The Metropolitan police is ­investigating allegations that MI5 was complicit in the torture of Shaker Aamer, the last ­remaining British resident in Guantánamo Bay, it was revealed today." [10] (that MI5 participated is presented as an allegation, but that Shaker Aamer was tortured is stated as a fact). Rama (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've often thought the Algerian war is a good parallel. There, too, the leftists who claimed to oppose torture when the French were accused of it were more than willing to condone anything that their own allies were doing. But, like Verschärfte Vernehmung (which they were also willing to ignore during their collaboration during the period of the Pact), it's not really applicable here. As I said, the British examples are more similar, and this goes further back than that.

But if you all want to start a new article, I strongly suggest that you put a RFC in Talk:Torture and the United States. Editors there will take a position on this eventually anyway.

Or, you could just start adding to that article. The consensus will decide when a fork is justified.

As for the British press, I've agreed that most of them are now willing to say that sleep deprivation can be torture. (That's basically what the rant in our first reference is about.) The lede notes that the British government calls it torture. We should add a line that their press is reporting this way now. I'll add it later if no one else does.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Added the note that the "international press" usually calls it torture, and used the Guardian's Comment-Is-Free rant for the reference.

That said, we should get a short list of notable newspapers. But when we add the Guardian, keep in mind that Comment-Is-Free rants are less than ideal. It certainly isn't good enough for the lede in the long term.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not fair to tar Twain

I've removed the section on Historical context. There are two problems with it:

1) Mark Twain isn't around. It's not fair to his memory to imply that he'd support the type of people who claim to "oppose torture" today.

2) It plays on the meme that a terrorist will say anything to get EIT will stop, which would supposedly make the entire exercise worthless. This meme certainly belongs in this article, but it needs to go along with the response, which wouldn't belong in this section. We can find more contemporary names of people who want to make that claim. There's no need to associate Twain with the likes of them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy would you say supports this? --John (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. It also implies that EIT's waterboarding used the same method as in the Philippines.

It might be useful if we were to name the writer in the reference, and state clearly that he's making the comparison, but that writer isn't so direct.

As I said, it plays on the "waterboarding doesn't work" meme. This is already in the section Enhanced interrogation techniques#Debates concerning effectiveness or reliability of techniques. The opposing view will go there.

I do recognize that BLP constraints don't apply to Twain, but we should still be strive for clarity.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"It's not fair to his memory to imply that he'd support the type of people who claim to "oppose torture" today." kind of implies that you are not wholly neutral on the topic. I find it makes sense for me to avoid editing topics I feel strongly about. If you have an agenda that relates to this topic, it might be best to let others make the editorial decisions as you will be seen to have a conflict of interest from being too close to the subject. I certainly don't see how this links in with WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly free to criticize my editorial decisions but that's not really much of a response to my point. I am just about the closest to NPOV that's been working on this article for a while.

I did make one mistake, above, when I said the source isn't sufficiently direct when he makes the comparison to modern-day waterboarding. The last line is indeed pretty direct. As you really seem to like the paragraph, I'll put it back, provided the comparison is attributed to the writer of that source, and not to Twain alone.

In keeping with my other concern, I placed it into the effectiveness section. If you'll note from the quote, Twain did not say there that he'd oppose waterboarding if the "doesn't work" issue is resolved.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream press references to torture

The lede saying the New York Times avoids use of the word torture may be out of date--lately the Grey Lady has become quite explicit. cf. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html Without wishing to get into another snowball fight, I wonder: at what point do we declare a mainstream press consensus on use of the word torture to describe the "enhanced interrogation" techniques, or the memos that authorized them--which I see everywhere called the "torture memos, including in the conservative National Review. Is there some sort of middle-of-the road mainstream nonpartisan media--say the PBS Newshour-- that could serve as bellweather? (and if not, isn't that a rather sad commentary on the state of the media?) Maybe some journal outside the US with no horse in this race known to be prudent and careful about phraseology?ElijahBosley (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Two problems with that:

That article predates the NYT explanation of their terms by about four or five years.

It doesn't say that the EIT is torture. It appears that the Bybee memo is the only place they say it is torture, and that memo didn't affect these policies.

BTW: I'm removing your link to Propaganda. Seeing as how EIT was supposed to remain secret, it doesn't belong to this article. It's really only related to propaganda in the agit-prop of those who claim to oppose torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While I might differ with the removal of Propaganda, since some say "Enhanced Interrogation" is a euphamism, while others say those who say so are engaging in agit-prop (so BOTH sides might agree propaganda belongs here) while I might have argued the point, I won't. I noticed on your talk page that you used Windows Vista. You've suffered enough.

I think the thing to do is give the topic some time. Who knows whether eventually the recovery of the missing Yoo e-mails might disclose an exchange saying "What do we call this stuff? If we call it torture we're war criminals." And the answer: "There's a precedent." "What precedent?" "'Verschaerfte Vernehmung.' Translates as enhanced interrogation." "Hey great--where'd you get that one?" "[Andrew Sullivan] gave it to me."ElijahBosley (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy about Vista. It was the Y2K bug for the Microsoft world.

If it turns out that CIA officials and/or their lawyers called it torture while it was still secret, and then decided to rename it when it was about to become public, then I'll say it's an obvious euphemism, and the act of renaming was propaganda. (Still debatable whether one act fits the Propaganda category, but an act of propaganda nonetheless.)

Or, if it turns out that they believed all the time that it was torture, but called EIT for their own comfort, then it's a euphemism but not propaganda. Given that some of the lawyers were outside the CIA, I doubt that'll happen.

As it is, the only people calling it a euphemism are critics grasping for inflamatory words. It doesn't mean anything solid. They don't have the security clearances to know what went on back then (which is a good thing because they'd only get more innocent people killed).

Yes, a secret Yoo memo could change that. I'd be the first to add it to the article. But that looks like wishful thinking at this point. There are enough secret documents in the hands of Bush-hating Democrats that it would have leaked by now. President Obama might have declassified it outright.

Verschaerfte Vernehmung is not a precedent. It's not an exact translation to EIT either. These techniques go way back.

Andrew Sullivan tied himself in knots with that one. He also blogged last year about how Britain didn't resort to torture during WWII, even though innocent lives were in the balance.

That's right: Sullivan says British interrogators didn't use torture. It turns out that -- except for waterboarding by the CIA, and the executions by the British -- their methods were similar to EIT. Interestingly, the guy in charge of those interrogations would later run the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre.

And most amusing, if you dig a bit, you'll find that the goings-on at Bad Nenndorf were just fine for those who claim to care about "human rights" -- until they started interrogating communists the same way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree we are better off waiting to see what turns up. We're still too close, in fact still in the middle of policy arguments. Dunno about Sullivan. Do know about the Brits. Those Brits have a lot to answer for, ranging from prison hulks in the American and French Revolutions, to [bombing and sinking ships full of concentration camp prisoners] in May 1945, four days after Hitler was already dead (though before the formal surrender) And the Irish might have something more to say about Brit interrogation methods.

Still, EIT is primarily about American behavior.

An 87 year old friend of mine who must remain nameless here, was an American interrogator in WW II. He's a Jew who spoke fluent German, escaped Fascist Germany in 1938 (lost many family in the concentration camps--if anybody had reason to hate Germans he did). So I asked him. I asked him over a pleasant lunch with lots of wine--while the fighting raged, yard by yard, and the lives of his buddies really were immediately at stake--what did he do to get Germans to talk? He's got these German prisoners, he's alone with them, bodies in grey uniforms everywhere and few more won't be noticed--so what does he do? Here is how he said he got tactical information, line of battle, state of ammunition and morale, everything.

"I gave them cigarettes. Hershey bars. I spoke to them in kindness, and I offered to let the prisoner's family know he was okay. And I did. That is I did contact the families when I could, when we were able."

That brought tears to my eyes. Heartening, honorable and praiseworthy, looking back from 60 years afterwards. I rather doubt 60 years from now anybody is going to look back and call EIT heartening, honorable, or praiseworthy. I do look forward to a candid account of the "War Council"--the five lawyers who met in the White House and really made the policy decisions, orchestrating all the various memos ranging from approving specific techniques to creating "law free zones" where the techniques could be used, to redefining detainees get them outside the Geneva conventions--all part of the same overall enterprise. I think the War Council minutes might well answer your questions about whether they knew they were using euphemisms. Call the lawyers what we will, we can't call them dumb, or unaware of the consequences of language. Best wishes ElijahBosley (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

German soldiers had POW status. Al Qaeda doesn't -- neither under Bush nor Obama. The Supreme Court only gave them Common Article 3.

I don't think your friend would have gotten the same results with the Hersheys had he been interrogating SS officers. I'm sure the CIA uses Hershey bars when they think it'll work. Keep in mind that the CIA only used EIT on 1/3rd of their detainees, and they didn't take useless conscripts.

We agree that a lot of things will turn up in the future. Just don't be too sure it'll be the way you think. Amnesty is currently getting a small dose of reality. In time, there will be much more to come.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I confess to some confusion about which memos governed what and who was and who wasn't protected, and whether the interrogation contractor was working for CIA or DoD, determines if its Hershey bars or crucifixion. Apparently I am not alone in my befuddlement. Iraqis at Abu Ghraib were supposed to be POW's. But the point on which we agree is: time will tell. So I'll be patient, and come back and edit this page in 60 years or so (actually by then I'll be haunting the page) and say, "okay I guess you were right," which will be some comfort to the detainees still at Guantanamo now playing with their great-grandchildren after conjugal visits with the four wives permitted by Islam were allowed in 2025. ElijahBosley (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a small point, but no, the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib were not supposed to be POWs. Most were civilian detainees, some guilty of local crimes, and others presumably held under the Fourth Geneva Convention's terms for security detainees. Some were illegally humiliated by the night shift, and others were treated badly (albeit usually legally but sometimes not) by interrogators.

We (or whoever's around) will either suffer armageddon (nuclear, biological, or Biblical) before 60 years or we'll be living in a post-singularity world. If it's the latter, the CIA records will open, and Wikipedia will be completed by robots. (Be nice to the robots: they'll read this in the archives.)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Torture memos

Why does the section on the torture memos not address the widespread accusations that the memos themselves constituted a criminal act? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they're not. Lawyers are always allowed to give their honestly-held legal opinions.

That some people disagree with those opinions doesn't change that in the slightest. Not in a free country, anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Honestly held" is somewhat problematic. Philip Zelikow, a Bush Administration lawyer, advisor to Condoleeze Rice in the State Department, and the author of the 9/11 Commission Report highly respected for its thoroughness and neutrality, called the Bush administration torture memos the product of "zealots and fools." John Yoo himself warned his opinions would not stand up in court, as indeed they have not. That is why the Bush administration worked so hard to erect barriers of secrecy and jurisdiction to keep detainees out of the courts. If as Justice Holmes said a legal opinion is a "cautious prediction of what a judge will do," then Yoo by his own admission was not writing 'honestly-held' legal opinions. It seems likely that David Addington was smart enough to know exactly what he was doing, acting with all the cynical aplomb of an Adolf Eichmann; Yoo in contrast was blinded by ideology sufficiently to sincerely believe the President should be above the law, including laws against torture--even though he also knew no court would agree with him.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

John Yoo's job was to state the law as he saw it, not how he thinks others might claim to see it down the road. Much of that still hasn't been directly ruled on anyway. His position on the Geneva Conventions passed the first appeal, and was overturned by the SCOTUS only narrowly. But once overturned, the direction of the next cases were different, which means that his original opinion is irrelevant.

Even if we were to assume that Zelikow's opinion was the final word, that wouldn't mean Yoo didn't believe it when he wrote it. It was honestly held. It was certainly a lot more honestly held than some of the opposition.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To respond to the question by IP address 75.76.213.106 above (and IP address dude: get an account) in the later trials at Nuremberg the Allied War Crimes Commission did prosecute legal officials, charging them with distorting the law itself into an instrument of oppression. The trials were fictionalized as the movie, and a good movie, Judgement at Nuremberg. That was a unique situation though: an international tribunal in a defeated country so their officials could be brought to trial. It is exceedingly rare for a country to prosecute its own officials for torture, aiding and abetting torture, conspiring to torture, what have you--if they did so assertedly in the name of patriotism ("last refuge of scoundrels"). That is why the torture law/treaty provides for international jurisdiction if the home country declines to prosecute. But the US is never going to accept universal jurisdiction. We are happy to haul, say, Manuel Noriega out of Panama and prosecute him here in federal court for drug dealing. But we wouldn't let Italy extradite Dick Cheney for extraordinary rendition. And before you scoff at the hypocrisy and injustice of that, consider whether you really favor international or what is called universal jurisdiction. Would you want Bill Clinton hauled out of the US and before a court in Iran to be prosecuted under Islamic Sharia law for sex outside marriage? (penalty: stoning to death). (Don't ask Hillary this). My own view of the situation: to understand why Obama can't prosecute torturers reread the novel Ox Bow Incident. The Bush administration very much resembled a lynch mob in its headlong rush to dispense with law and hurt the people who hurt us (whether or not innocent people got caught up in it being beside the point). Consider carefully the end, where the good sheriff who represents decency, moral strength, and justice--discovering most of the leading citizens in town had just conspired to break the law and lynch three men--decides he has to look the other way. Was he right or wrong?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has a Supreme Court for that. After all that talk about the Bush administration, they've never considered ignoring the high court.

Universal jurisdiction is a fiction for foreign politicians and activists to flatter themselves as though they supposedly care about human rights. And yet they're all hiding under their beds whenever the situation gets uncomfortable for them. They're not the ones to rely on for fair judgment. Many of the critics would have opposed what led to Nuremberg had the Hitler-Stalin Pact remained in place.

BTW: the accused at the Nuremberg trials had far fewer rights and protections than at the military commissions at GTMO.

The funny thing about Manuel Noriega is that, prior to the George H.W. Bush administration bringing him in, anti-American critics had insisted it could never happen. They said Noriega knew too much about the various CIA conspiracy theories that the critics claimed to believe in. They were certain he'd either be allowed to remain free, or he'd be assassinated, but he'd never make it to trial.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding depiction

After a brief discussion between editors, we have substituted an alternative waterboarding image: [[File:Waterboarding.jpg]]. If there are other, more authentic images available at Wikicommons please bring them to our attention. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)