Talk:Torture/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dubious

While secular courts often treated suspects ferociously, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers in medieval Spain.[citation needed]

Will and Ariel Durant, although they are fine writers, are not academic historians, and lack any deep knowledge of this subject, or most the others they write about. Empirically much better scholarship on the issue, anyway, has now been done, than that available in the time they wrote. Although inquisitorial courts did sometimes use torture, this passage probably gets the matter reversed. In general, the legal procedures of the Spanish Inquisition were stricter than those of secular courts and conformed better to the legal standards of the time, such as they were (exception: rule of secrecy). Anyway, forms of torture were basically traditional in Early Modern Europe, and the friars themselves did not do the torturing. A much more objective discussion can be found in Edward Peter's books on the subject "Torture" and "Inquisition" published by University of Pennsylvania and University of California Presses respectively

Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.

This sounds as if the Nazis simply went a little too far, and as a result people got overly emotional about it and were stupid enough to "sweepingly" forbid all torture, even including the good and useful torture such as the one used by the US government. In fact, humanists and progressives realized both the inefficiency and the inhumanity of torture for decades if not centuries before the Nazis. The opposite claim requires a citation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any torture, of course, goes "too far" according to any humanist, irrespective of the regime. It reflects the depravity of the ruling elite (and, yes, that applies to American tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib).

The Nazis brought torture to places that had fully accepted the Enlightenment concept that torture is abominable, inexcusable, and ineffective contrary to the sensibilities of the conquered peoples. That it continued in the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states reflects that fanaticism and vindictiveness that degrade the "enemies of the people" into dehumanized pariahs against whom no abuse is understood as excessive. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the question is not one of whether people were overly emotional or stupid. Did the aftermath of WWII lead to sweeping international rejection of torture or did it not? If so, the above quote--devoid of any commentary on philosophy, I might add--is correct. Wikipedia doesn't report from a "humanist" point of view, or any point of view; it only reports the facts.--75.105.64.38 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It did. The statement is accurate, and the dubious tag can be removed. Clearly some have always opposed torture but a huge tide turned against torture as a result of WWII era atrocities. In early 21st century a mini tide toward acceptance of torture occurred in the United States as a knee jerk reaction to the loss of the twin towers, but was relatively short lived, as use of torture at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo became known. You can tell the attitude toward torture of 91.148.159.4 by their reference to the use of torture by the US as "good and useful", even though evidence shows the opposite. Some people, you will note, are not opposed to torture of all kinds, and some are. 199.125.109.85 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions.

The lead has been wandering from a clear definition of torture.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives for its first two definitions for torture as a noun

1. The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in pl.). to put to (the) torture, to inflict torture upon, to torture.
2. Severe or excruciating pain or suffering (of body or mind); anguish, agony, torment; the infliction of such.

And as a verb:

1. trans. To inflict torture upon, subject to torture; spec. to subject to judicial torture; put to the torture. Also absol.

It seems to me that given the above we should go back to the us of the UN definition at the start of the article --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "re-education" was used, but the word "reeducation" should have been used instead. There is a Wikipedia article entitled "re-education" and it is referenced in the torture article. I don't want to correct the spelling because I want to allow this article to link to it.(Improve (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)).

Uses of torture in recent times

Singling out two states from all the states listed in the Uses of torture in recent times leads to biased and is not a WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? No one is singling out any country as the edit mentioned every democratic country (all two of them) where torture is condoned by the state and did so with neutral terminology so to revert is POV. Refering to Uses of torture in recent times shows no other that could be added. If you can name other countries then I suggest you add them to the Uses article. Wayne (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you might have an argument for removing the UK from the edit as they have not condoned torture since 1972 but it depends on what you class as recent. I'd prefer to leave them in as 1972 falls within the memory of most people. Wayne (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you take modern times to be the same as the article since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then there are many states that have used torture. In what you have written there are several embedded POVs What is a "democratic state"? What is "torture"? "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" but equally one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture' and there was more pressure brought not to use torture (as the Parker Report and the European commission and ECHR trials testify) than to use it. Further the British government was not pressured to use torture but to use "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What name would you use instead of "democratic"? We are talking state condoned in democratic "free" countries. Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture. You need to prove the edit "singles out" any country. Wayne (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You write above "Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture." Has there been a court case that makes this ruling, because the conventions are clear in making a distinction? Are you really claiming that there is no difference under law?

The ECHR ruled that the five techniques as practised by Britain in the 1970s were "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment" not torture. You have not addressed the bias in the wording you choose to use "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" when one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture'. You still have not defined what democratic means.

The allegations against the US et all were moved out of this article into another one and I think it show a form of bias to present a few countries out of those listed in the article Uses of torture in recent times (a very incomplete list) and list them on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. We can't say "pressure was brought not to use torture" because that pressure did not come from the state which is the subject. There is no bias in "presenting a few countries out of those listed in the article" because the edit presents ALL (ie:100%) of the countries in that article for which the claim is applicable. Feel free to add any other country that the claim applies to. Whatever bias the original editor had for adding the paragraph is irrelevant because it is the accurracy and relevance of the edit I am defending. To remove it without legitimate cause is bias. Wayne (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't say "pressure was brought not to use torture" because that pressure did not come from the state which is the subject Yes we can take the Parker report for example. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure pressure is brought not to break the law in most countries, or else it would not be the law. Torture occurs when that pressure is removed. The five techniques were only found not to be torture by the ECHR on appeal by the UK Government, but was still illegal but they agreed to call it something different. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids inhuman and degrading treatment, so the difference between this and torture is a just a form of words- a form however which allows Condoleeza Rice to be able to deny that the US uses "torture" even though it does. To paraphrase Shakespeare "torture does never prosper and here's the reason- for if it prosper none dare call it torture" (OK so it doesn't rhyme) --Streona (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to have a section on the recent use of torture, on what basis is the United States not mentioned? The US govt. has openly admitted to using torture -- of course, they don't call it that -- but that is utterly irrelevant. In fact, this article begins with a discussion of the fact that governments never call what they are doing "torture." Beyond the fact that the US govt itself has admitted to using various forms of torture, torture conducted by the US is a well-documented fact. You can't use Amnesty International as a source when proving that various other governments use torture, but then not use them as a source when it comes to the US. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link Uses of torture in recent times which has a sub-section on the United Stetes. I agree with you that that could be expanded and encourage you to do so. Recent allegations from an Ethipian formerly resident in the UK also accuses the US at Guantanamo Bay of having mutilated his penis, but this cannot be confirmed as they have said it is secret as to whether they have or not (well it would be, wouldn't it?). However if Condy wishes to go on about waterboarding and stress positions not being defined as torture (however, do not try this at home), it would be interesting to see how this would be defined.--Streona (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Before someone deletes the part I added about the US again, you need to explain how it is POV. How do we know that governments torture? Through groups like Amnesty International and the claims of those tortured -- not to mention government statements. In this very section it states: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Is that "sourced?" Is that POV? Explain the difference. We know that many totalitarian regimes torture the same way we know the US has used torture. --Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted as unsourced and POV as written. It was POV in part because of the use of the term "widespread" - widespread by what yardstick and according to whom? The waterboarding that you included has only been admitted to in very limited circumstances so who is saying the US is a widespread user of torture? It's also POV because it's the only country picked out for mention of current use in the summary this would appear to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Which respected commentators consider the US's use of torture the most significant of current times? Please provide reliable sources for these aspects before restoring to the article. -- SiobhanHansa 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to a report issued by Amnesty International: “Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations,” the report said. Is it sourced now, according to you? If you still consider my statement to be "unsourced" and "POV" then every reference to Amnesty International needs to be deleted from this article. See here: Amnesty: Torture by US widespread -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Singling out one state, when there is an main article torture in recent times lists many states, is not a neutral point of view. Suppose we replace the US with one of the other states listed in the article torture in recent times (take France as an example) would that seem to you to be any less balanced than singling out the US? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional comment on the wording used by User:Ashe the Cyborg. I tracked down the URL of article that the blog page refers you cite refers [1] (html). The details of the article do not support the summary as you highlighted it, e.g. "Many of the techniques listed above, even if applied in isolation or for limited periods, would in Amnesty International’s view violate the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 16. Such techniques have reportedly been used against 'war on terror' detainees in combination and for prolonged periods, causing severe pain and suffering (physical, mental or both) and, being inflicted intentionally by officials for the purpose of obtaining information, thereby amount to torture." That was the finding of the ECHR against Britain in the 1970's five techniques and as the ECHR made clear the judgment between what is "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and torture is a matter of degree and without a judicial review of a case a matter of opinion (see Ireland v. United Kingdom judgement). It is no coincidence that the US uses very similar methods to those used by the UK in the early 70's, these techniques were developed by NATO at the height of the Cold War specifically to work within close to the edge of what is illegal. The British were found to be on the wrong side of that line, but since the U.S. courts have yet to rule on this all one can say is what Amnesty International says that in their view the US techniques breach Article 16 of the Torture Convention and if used for too long may well breach Article 1. But what one can not say in the narrative voice of Wikipedia is "The use of torture is also widespread in detention facilities under the control of the United States government around the globe". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bush administration has admitted to waterboarding detainees. This is just one example. We don't need a US court to rule whether or not torture has taken place; the Bush administration _admitted_ it. Your only argument at that point can be, "waterboarding isn't torture." Do you want to have that argument or not? -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be a compelling point if there weren't "one state" already singled out one line above the part you just deleted: the Soviet Union. So I guess it is fine to "single out" one state as long as it is the Soviet Union and not the US? Please explain your logic on that. If there is going to be a section called "Use of torture in recent times" in this article at all, how can it fail to mention the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times?" i.e., the US. I'm not going to restore my edit (yet again) at this point, since I am not looking for an edit war. Let's hear your argument and hopefully we can find an agreeable solution. THanks. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"how can it fail to mention the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times?" i.e., the US." What makes you think that the US is the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times?". Does that not depend on the country in which you live. For example if you are British then would not the British case be the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times"? As to your point about the Soviet Union, I did not add it and I would not put it back if it were deleted. However there is little argument among sources that the Soviet Union did use torture, there is heated debate if the U.S. uses torture and until there is a court case or it passes from politics into history (and historians make their judgement) to state that the U.S. uses torture, without placing the alternative POV is a breach of WP:NPOV, and best addressed in the article specifically about the subject --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is little argument among sources that the Soviet Union did use torture, there is heated debate if the U.S. uses torture" -- Completely false. There are people who deny that the US uses torture, but it has already been admitted to by the US government itself. There are also people who deny that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. That doesn't make the question "debatable." This has been documented over and over and over, with the US government _admitting_ that it has used torture, including waterboarding, stress positions, dogs, hypothermia, etc. etc. As to "prominence," no, it is not based on the country you live in. It is based on global media attention. I fail to see how the efforts here to keep the US out of this section aren't politically motivated. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the use of torture by the USA is the most prominent is hardly the point, but whether or not they have a recent history of torture, whether prominent or discreet. The ECHR found that the five techniques were not "torture" on appeal, although lower courts had decided that they were. This is playing with words and just as doctors are employed by torturers so too are lawyers. Techniques involving sensory deprivation were discontinued in tests with volunteers in Canada due to the possibility of long-term psychosis and psychiatric damage, but were still uaed in Ulster for even longer periods. For the final verdict on the US use of "aggressive interrogation", or whatever the latest euphemism is, to be left subjudice in this article until the US courts decide, is rather naive and is not a technique which would be used for say, Algeria or Saddam's Iraq. Generally we would rely on survivors testaments, witness statements and evidence, regardless of whether the perpetrators continue to deny it. The US is even now attempting to suppress evidence from Guantanamo on grounds of "national security". I have nothing against the USA (when they are not involved in systematically kidnappinf and torturing people), but I do not see why it is necessary to treat them any differently from other noations involved in thee practices.--Streona (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have nothing against the USA.." As an American, neither do I. ;-) I am only interested in the facts here. And it seems some people are going out of their way to suppress the facts here. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashe: In response to your question "Is it sourced now, according to you?" It's WP:Verified (at least it would have been if you'd written it as "According to Amnesty International...") but since I was very clear that it was also not in keeping with our WP:POV policy because of undue weight, the source does nothing to address that aspect, and you completely ignored it, it's not sufficient.

If we're going to pick one country to highlight in the summary on this page (and I'm not clear why a summary should do that - we have the main article to go into detail on all countries) we should be looking at the work of organizations who make global comparative reports not pulling on our own assumptions and using those. Because while I'm personally horrified at the US's involvement in torture I think there are countries where use is far more prevalent and ingrained and I don't see the US use as coming close - but that's just my opinion so it's not appropriate for me to promote those other countries' use in this summary either. It's the opinion of experts who are looking at torture use by governments globally that we should reflect. I had thought Human Rights Watch produced an index but on looking it seems not - may be some one else here knows of something similar. -- SiobhanHansa 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to scale this section way back since there is already a page that details the use of torture by specific countries in recent times. But once you start saying that "certain types" of regimes use torture in recent times -- and even certain countries, like the USSR, for example -- you are opening a can of worms. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the USSR mention makes a lot of sense to me (I must have skimmed over it when reading the section because I hadn't noticed it in there). The rest should either be sourced or go too. -- SiobhanHansa 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashe the Cyborg you wrote "There are people who deny that the US uses torture, but it has already been admitted to by the US government itself." Where is the U.S. Government statement that they have employed torture such that it places them in violation of their treaty obligations? Further until someone removed it (and I intend to reinstate it this article said recent times is defined as ""Recent times" in the context of this article is from 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." so just because the US is in the news today does not mean that it is the most prominent and controversial in recent times.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts with every reply. First you said you shouldn't single out any country when there already was a country singled out. Next you said that a US court hasn't ruled that the US has used torture when the US has admitted to using torture. Now you are adding a qualification to the term "torture," saying that this isn't about "torture in recent times" but "torture such that it places them in violation of their treaty obligations." I have sourced my addition and have explained my reasoning in good faith. You are playing games here. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. If the U.S. Government says it is using a technique then as the U.S. government keeps to its treaty obligations (something it is constitutionally and for its international credibility bound to do), then presumably the U.S. Government does not think that the technique is torture. The point is, that just because the U.S. Government says it uses a particular technique you can not synthesis the argument because I think it is torture or xyz thinks it is torture that it is torture, because there are levels of discomfort that are not torture. Have you read the ECHR judgement in detail? It explains far better than I can the complications with this area of law and the judgement that is needed to decide the threshold between "inhuman and degrading treatment" and torture. You have reinstated your the previous text despite the two points that have been raised by user:SiobhanHansa, and my quoting from the original Amnesty article. (When you reinserted your text why did you use the blog page and not the Amnesty article article? Further the second sentence does not carry a citation and is a probably a Synthesis) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Orwellian double-speak is not exactly convincing. Your argument is that because the US government is "bound" by its concern for its "international credibility" and the constitution, it cannot have tortured anyone. The President is constitutionally required not to break the law, therefore I guess it would be impossible for the President to break the law. Plus, he wouldn't want to lose his credibility, so obviously a President would never break the law. Convincing. What the US government "thinks" torture is or isn't is completely irrelevant. They admitted to using various methods of torture. The fact that they don't want to call these methods of torture "torture" is irrelevant. The Nazis and the Soviets did not call their torture "torture," either. In fact, the Nazis called their methods "Enhanced Interrogation." Sound familiar? The US itself tried Japanese war criminals for torture because they used waterboarding. According to you, torture has never occurred, because governments that torture never "think" that what they are doing should be categorized as torture. And since you claim that what anyone else defines as torture requires a "synthesis," only torturers get to define what torture is. So I really don't see why this article even exists, according to you. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashe the Cyborg, you miss the point I am making. The US government does not agree that it is using torture. If it did agree then it would stop doing so because it would be a breach of its constitutional obligations. Therefore at least one significant stake holder does not agree that the techniques used by the US in interrogating prisoners is torture.

No, I did not miss the point you are making. I already said that of course the US government doesn't call the torture techniques that it has admitted to using "torture." No regime that tortures ever calls their use of torture "torture." As I said, you only admit that something is torture when the torturers themselves call what they are doing "torture" -- which is never. So according to your logic, there is always at least "one significant stake holder" that does not agree that what they are doing is torture (i.e., the torturers!). As to your nonsensical claim that the US government would stop torturing people because it "would be a breach of constitutional obligations," has it occurred to you that governments often violate their own constitutional obligations and treaty obligations at will? They willfully break the law and claim that they aren't breaking the law. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashe the Cyborg, You added to the article the following:

The use of torture is also widespread in detention facilities under the control of the United States government around the globe (Amnesty: Torture by US widespread). The United States government has admitted to the use of various torture techniques, including but not limited to waterboarding and stress positions.

The paragraph you have added list one of many countries accused or proved to have use torture since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see undue weight). The first sentence makes a statement in the passive voice of the narrator as if it is a universal agreed truth (see non neutral point of view). It further assumes that waterboarding and stress positions are torture with no source to back up the assertion, but the ECHR explicitly made the point that the five techniques (including a stress position (wall standing)) were not necessarily torture, it depends on intensity (WP:SYN and WP:NOR). Further the source you have used is a blog site (fails WP:SOURCES) and even if you used the Amnesty article, you have not addressed the issues raised by the quote from the article I provided in this section, which agrees with the ECHR interpretation of the Torture Treaty. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we finally got to your real objection here. You are claiming that waterboarding and stress positions are not torture. That is an unserious claim only espoused by torture advocates. Next you will say that nothing is torture except techniques that "cause permanent damage to internal organs."

"as if it is a universal agreed truth" -- nothing outside of mathematics is a "universal agreed truth." You can't use the fact that someone, somewhere denies the facts or wants to call black "white" as a standard for POV. If that is your standard, then asserting that the Holocaust took place is POV. Plenty of people -- including governments -- deny that it even happened. We are obviously going to have to come up with another solution here. I already suggested one that SiobhanHansa agreed with. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that if anyone read through the entirety of this talk page, they would notice that you have been trying to define "torture" as narrowly as possible throughout. This is not a surprise considering your other positions on torture. But I'd like to point out to you that this is an encyclopedia article, not a legal dictionary. So attempts to restrict the definition of torture to specific court cases for the purposes of this article do not hold water. And, in fact, I'd wager that the reason you rejected the OED's definition (!!) and tried to steer this article exclusively towards the UN's definition is that there were existing cases relating to the UN's definition that you wanted to use to construe certain torture techniques as outside the realm of torture. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read Philip's comments as merely pointing out that among experts in the subject there is disagreement as to what amounts to torture. Consequently our writing about particular acts as though the definition of torture was universally agreed does not meet WP:NPOV - which requires us to provide balanced coverage of all significant points of view. I don't think Philip is arguing that Amnesty's definition of torture should not be covered - just that it cannot be used without qualification (nor should any other) especially when it is disputed in a particular case and must be balanced by other definitions when pertinent. -- SiobhanHansa 08:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Convention against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The five techniques evolved by British security/NATO (I believe at a conference in Ashford in Kent) to be "on the edge of legality" -as Philip puts it- were found illegal at the ECHR; i.e. on the other side of the edge. The USA is prominent in its super-power role in away that some minor country- such as Uzbekistan is not, even though such countries may have more widespread abuses. A definition of "widespread" is obviously more difficult, but the question is whther or not torture is being used as amatter of standard procedure and policy, or is it just the odd maverick bad apple.

It does seem thet the US is being singled out in this conversation partly by Ashe- which, given the USAs international significance is I suggest justified, but also when some kind of special pleading is introduced to say that what the US does, and admits to doing, is in some way technically not. Any form of suspension or stress positioning is very painful or it would not be done. Waterboarding is undertaken because it has the same effect as half-drowning. Howver, I reject the notion that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the USA and Al Qaeda terrorists. --Streona (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Convention against Torture definition is widely used but it is not universally interpreted the same way. As the ECHR ruling made clear - illegal yes, but according to them not torture. Lower courts had found it to meet the standard of torture though and several anti-torture organizations considered it torture (including Amnesty if my memory serves). Waterboarding - considered by many to be torture (including the US in some previous circumstances I believe) but currently not considered so by the US Government. So a statement simply saying the US Govenrment have admitted to waterboarding being used to imply they have admitted to torture without further explanation is inappropriate.

I disagree the US's general prominence is good justification for highlighting their transgressions on this front unless they also rise to the standard of being some of the most egregious transgressions. Such reasoning would mean that all our general subjects would included specific mention of US details. That would be a general bias in coverage that is inappropriate to an international encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 09:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

break

User:Ashe the Cyborg I suggest that you read Ad hominem attack and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

"I've read Philip's comments...", exactly User:SiobhanHansa. The WP:NOR succinctly makes the point: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (WP:ASF). However even if the paragraph is rewritten to meet WP:ASF, because of undue weight of singling out one country in this section I think the paragraph would be better in main article and section Torture in recent times: United States.

Streona I am glad you picked that up (I had already noticed that), I had meant to write "on the edge of torture" because the European Commission of Human Rights found it to be torture while the higher court European Court of Human Rights did not, and made the point about degree of suffering. See also that a combination of Article 16.1 "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1," and Article 3.1 "No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." (my emphasis on both (source)) encourages a state to export people they wish to use such methods on to countries that use "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" but not torture. Hence the use of Guantanamo Bay because until the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise the executive could and did argue that it was under administration not it was not jurisdiction, and why the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice stated in a BBC April 2006 radio interview that the United States does not transfer people to places where it is known they will be tortured (see Extraordinary rendition by the United States). She did not say that they did not extradite people to countries that use "acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and the interviewer did not pick up on the subtle difference and question her further. Is the US government being cynical and manipulative of the legal process, I would say yes, but their wording has allowed them to build a legal case that they are within their treaty obligations, which they would not be if they used "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" in any territory clearly under American jurisdiction (for example on Yaser Hamdi when he was held in jails in Virginia and South Carolina). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the US government has been very careful with its wording and has used double-speak to great effect. They are trying to avoid prosecution for war crimes, after all. However, you seem to think that the US government's double-speak is dispositive (they say what they are doing is not torture, so it can't be). Also, as I said, this is an encyclopedia article, not a legal brief.

There are two questions before us right now: 1) Should this article include a section on "torture in recent times?" 2) If so, how do we characterize the states that have used torture in recent times? By "types of regimes?" By state? Your argument seems to be that we cannot mention the US in this section merely because the US government, while admitting to using various torture techniques such as waterboarding, does not call what they are engaged in "torture." This leads to a debate over specific techniques. I do not see the point of arguing with you if you are contending that waterboarding is not torture. The US has historically held that it is and has prosecuted people for war crimes for using it. The US military used waterboarding as part of its training regimen in attempts to train Special Forces to resist torture, which they believed would be carried out by communist regimes or terrorist organizations. Many of the other torture techniques the US has used were adopted directly from Chinese torture practices. In any case, this is not even worth debating. It is like debating whether Jesus rode a dinosaur with a fundamentalist Christian.

My proposed solution was (and is) to scale this section back; however, I see no reason not to include a statement like: "Various states and groups have engaged in differing degrees of torture in recent times. Among the world's major powers, the USSR, China, France, the UK, and the United States have all engaged in torture or have been accused of using torture by various human rights groups." That could easily be sourced. Is that acceptable or not? -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You once again mischaracterize Philip's position. He has not at any stage in this said that it cannot be torture because the US Government says it isn't torture only that the definition of torture is not clear cut and since there are voices that say waterboarding is not torture, admitting to waterboarding is not necessarily admitting to torture. By Philip's reasoning a statement that "the US has subjected people to waterboarding but not to torture" would be equally unacceptable (because waterboarding is considered torture by some voices).

On cutting back the section - going to something sourced would be very good in my opinion. But I am not at all convinced that your suggested wording is appropriate. Again - why are we calling out major powers? Are they the most egregious users of torture today? You seem to be wanting to put in a statement that covers what you feel is important and find sources for it rather than look at what major voices are saying most often about the state of torture today and craft a summary from that. -- SiobhanHansa 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the definition of torture is so unclear that we just can't seem to figure out if half-drowning someone strapped to a board is a form of torture, then your definition of torture is meaningless. Those who advocate and practice torture (although naturally they don't call it that) rely on this very argument: it is all just so murky -- who is to say that something is torture? "since there are voices that say waterboarding is not torture, admitting to waterboarding is not necessarily admitting to torture." Isn't that what you just said Philip wasn't saying? The "voices" are the US government. And the US govt. itself previously declared that waterboarding is torture. Just because the Bush administration wants to reclassify it as something else because they themselves started engaging in it does not magically make the definition of torture so unclear that we just can't figure out if waterboarding is torture now. I already dealt with that argument. There are voices that say the Holocaust never happened. There are voices that deny all sort of things. That is pretty weak tea.

As to my proposed wording, I already argued that "major voices" (the media around the world, Amnesty International and other human rights groups, along with governments around the world) clearly make the case that the use of torture by the US is a significant issue in "recent times." That argument was rejected by Philip. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal definition of torture includes waterboarding. It also includes much of what the ECHR found not to be torture in the UK/Northern Ireland case. But this encyclopedia isn't supposed to represent my personal view - nor yours. It's supposed to represent significant voices - those include the views of organizations like Amnesty as well as the US Government. So inclusion of the claim that waterboarding is torture needs to make it clear that there is disagreement and the extent of that disagreement (which would probably make the US's stance look quite isolated though there may well be others who have argued that waterboarding isn't torture).

Major voices including media, Amnesty, other human rights groups, and Governments make the case that many instances of torture are significant. Highlighting one of these without an indication that it is more important than the others is not balanced and highlighting all cases is inappropriate in a summary. That's why if we're going to highlight particular countries I suggest finding academic works that look at torture globally and see what they say about the most significant instances. Alternatively we might just try highlighting those countries that haven't been accused of torture by significant voices in recent times - would be a different tack though possibly harder to research and document. -- SiobhanHansa 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again - why are we calling out major powers? -- Because if we get into ranking states by "egregiousness," we will never get anywhere. Also, for the same reason that this very article discusses the "major powers" of other centuries who used torture: the Romans and the Spanish Inquisition. Are those the most egregious torturers in history? Why are they being "singled out?" You see how easy it is to level that charge? -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get hung up on egregiousness particularly - it's one of the ways that it might be looked at but I'm sure there are others too. Whatever factors significant voices take into account when deciding which examples to elevate above the others could be reasonable for us to use. If they don't look at egregiousness then it's not a factor we should look at either. I'm simply saying that Wikipedia editors choosing which countries to elevate with out there being clear reason for that choice based on the prominence given to those cases over others by good sources it us inserting our own point of view. If you really feel the rest of the article does not reflect a good balance of the opinion of historians then bring that up too (though maybe in a separate section!). -- SiobhanHansa 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Major power opens up a can of worms see talk:Great power. But even if we use permanent member of the security council, there is no evidence that they all currently condone torture, so I do not see the point of such a section, For example if Britain is included in the list then the ECHR ruling that they did not must be given prominence because international judgements trump NGO opinions. It was because of such bloat and POV issues that the article Torture in recent times was spun out of this one. That we have had this very long discussion over two sentences in this section, is validation of that decision. As to the section "Torture in the past" There is no article on torture in former times, so all the information that there is is in this article. There is an article on Torture in recent times, if there was not then all the countries listed in that article would be in this article. All that is needed in this article is an introduction to the Torture in recent times. The introduction should be within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, these policies include WP:UNDUE, WP:ASF, and WP:SYN. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out while some of these arguments have been flying- but I understand Philip Baird Shearer is saying that the USA is not torturing people (accepting that admitted techniques are torture) because it does not allow it in territories over which it has jurisdiction, but in Guantanamo Bay, where it has no legal jurisdiction, but only administrative powers. So who does ?If the film "A Few Good Men" is anything to go by, it seems the US Marine Corps does. So the USA does not torture people-the USMC does. This is a clever argument to put before US courts, but does it have any meaning for the purpose of a wikipedia article? I presume that there is no recourse against the USMC for the same reason as there is none against the USA- they are extremely heavily armed and are quite prepared to kidnap people from anywhere in the world whom they do not like.

(Rasul v. Bush judgement June 29, 2004 established that the US did have jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Whether waterboarding is torture is whther it meets the international definition of torture, not the US Governments. I expect there are any number of states who do not consider their own practices as torture but categorise similar practises by others as such. I understand that the Spanish Inquisition felt they were merely acting for the good of their "clients'" souls when submitting them to the rack. If we allow other states the same latitude as is claimed for the USA (or USMC) there has probably never been any torture anywhere. Thus everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds --Streona (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See the paragraph above that starts "You once again mischaracterize Philip's position ..." and please read WP:ASF and WP:UNDUE. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I took out the section on the USSR and the part that said sadistic pleasure is a motivation for torture (that has nothing to do with torture in recent times). I also removed the claims that "countries find it expedient to torture." How do you source that? Stick to what they do, not to what they supposedly think -- or else it should be sourced. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out one thing about the on-going debate here. Re this line: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Why is it that I haven't heard anyone complain that this isn't sourced? I haven't heard any debate over the use of the word "frequent." (While people did object to "widespread" in my proposed addition). And no one has pointed out that it is unfair and biased to single out "totalitarian regimes." Yet all of these complaints have been lodged against the addition of either "major powers" or "democratic states." Same deal on the US vs. the USSR that I already pointed out. Anyway, my point is only that you can ALWAYS raise objections if you want to and some are very selective about when they choose to raise these sort of objections. Without some sort of commonsense baseline, what you can say about any topic becomes extremely limited -- to the point of worthlessness. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it is not sourced is to do with the age of the paragraphs. Asking for citations in articles is something that has only become the norm in the last three years -- since 2006 there has been a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles (See Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles). If you read an historical version of an article like the Battle of Waterloo as it was at the start of 2006, and compare that with the current version you will see that the basic facts have not changed very much, but thanks to citations a person reading the article in 2008 can be confident that it is accurate, something that they could not have had three years ago. Using citations in controversial articles, such as this one, can at first appear tedious, but long term given the constraints of the Wikipedia methodology, it is the best ways to improve the quality of the article.

It can be quite difficult to retrofit citations to text, the editor who added it may not have the references to hand, the editor may no longer be active, and so on, hence the use of the {{fact}} (See WP:BURDEN "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references ..."). However with additions of new text controversial articles in 2008 it is the norm to demand a high level of compliance to the content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V by the editor adding the material. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't get why you have been so diligent when it comes to striking everything I try to add to this section (even when sourced), but have ignored other material literally on the next line (that isn't sourced in any way). -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for adding material on secret government mind control in the US?

In reference to this edit, I am assuming (in light of the above) that there is definitely not consensus for including material on secret government mind-control programs using torture in the United States. In addition to violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, the above thread already demonstrates a lack of consensus for singling out the charges of torture raised against the US by mainstream sources, let alone wacko conspiracy theories about torture. But feel free to discuss the merits of inclusion here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Should not be included. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have restored the one sentence as per wp:undue “should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.”

several reliable sources have mentioned this concept, so it does deserve brief mention in the article and as

as per wp:fringe “A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication.” If this is fringe it has been referenced in three reliable sources and deserves mention. Turtleshell2go (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a self-serving misreading of WP:FRINGE. This isn't an article on fringe theories on torture. If you want to start an article on Torture conspiracy theories, then the notability criterion there applies. But that doesn't mean that torture conspiracy theories are acceptable topics for this article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory if it is mentioned in reliable sources and the media. Turtleshell2go (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Sates which have Condoned Torture in Recent Times

1. United Kingdom 2. USA 3. France 4. Israel 5. Iraq 6. Pakistan

and probably India and Sri Lanka. Is Iran democratic- Ahminejad was certainly voted in, although as many opposition parties were banned this is only partially true. The same can be said of Zimbabwe. Any more ? Brazil or Jamaica ? More than just two. --Streona (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have good enough information to make an definitive list. State sponsored torture sometime occurs in unusual circumstances that are not the subject of publications in reliable sources. So to say that, say, Canada, has not tortured is impossible. There there is the matter of the semi-independent US states, some of which are more tolerant of torture in their prison systems than others. Fred Talk 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stockdale

The article on Stockdale states that he did reveal information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.--Streona (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Algerian Death Squad

I posted a statement about coercion upon members of the Algerian Army. I cannot source this as it was based upon a personal interview with a man who had refused to participate any more after having bayonetted a mother with a child in her arms. He was imprisoned and tortured by being fed salted food and deprived of water and then jetted by high pressure hoses. He was discharged, due to becoming medically unfit as a result of his torture. The rebels then visited him and stabbed him in the heart (which he survived). Obviously I cannot give his name or further details.--Streona (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

good point but do you have a source for the specific accusation?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, except my ex client.--Streona (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is original research and not acceptable as a Wikipedia source. Fred Talk 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding and Guantanamo

NPOV means not even mentioning the mere words, let alone the international dispute of the practices of the present US government?!
In my opinion, more likely a miscomprehension of "political correctness" and a misuse of NPOV. Very sad, for the tortured, for the wikipedia and for the mentality of a (the 'ruling') part of the american society.

I have placed a link on the article Waterboarding to the wikipedia page, where it is defined as a form of torture.--Streona (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

There is no context in the text for the painting at the head of the article. What is "torture by mosquito"? Can this information be provided or another illustration substituted ?--Streona (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having lived in a place where mosquitos could literally drain a human or animal dry, no context needs to be given. Imagine a hundred mosquitos on your left arm... And ten thousand more hungry bugs buzzing about. Fred Talk 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redress.org link

I hate to see a minor edit war breaking out over a link. I originally removed this because it was spammed here and on quite a few other pages by the organization's director. It's a POV site which doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate so long as there are other links to balancing POVs in order to present a a neutral whole. But I would ask editors to consider if there aren't better sites with a similar POV we could use instead that haven't been spammed here. In any case, as an external link it should not be in the see also section. -- SiobhanHansa 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for any edit war. I had not been aware of this organisation and working occasionally with torture survivors I found it a useful resource. Is being against torture or seeking redress for torture POV ? It is difficult to find a website to balance this - explicitly pro-torture and against justice (well, one that is not pornographic). Even if one were in favour of torture for extracting information from terrorists - as many people are - having done so, the victims would still need rehabilitation, unless the purpose of torture is something else more sinister. I do not know if it has been spammed - I assume that that implies a mechanical process of random emails, rather than just self promotion, but so what? So should it be in a new section, "External links" ?--Streona (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a POV I share so I also find it hard to find balancing opinion. I was thinking along the lines of think tanks etc. who say torture is appropriate in some circumstances and we should protect those who perform that torture for us (since Redress isn't simply about helping victims recover but also about attempting to prosecute torturers). When we say NPOV we don't mean there has to be equal weight to each side. Only that the sides presented should be weighted to the same extent their views are represented among recognized authorities. This would still leave us with a generally very anti-torture article.

In terms of spam - your assumption is incorrect. Wikipedia's definition includes self promoting as Carla did. It is against Wikipedia policy in large part because it makes it much more difficult to maintain a NPOV encyclopedia. NPOV is a core policy on Wikipedia so that's the "so what?" and why I'm keen not to see such behavior rewarded. Since there are many other organizations out there that work in this area I would say the link ought to be fairly critical to the article in order for it to remain.

If it's to stay it needs to be in a new section - but really if there are going to be external links (not a bad idea for an article of this size and a subject of this import) there will be ones that fit our guidelines much better. Listing the home pages of organizations who work in the subject area tends to end up being a bad idea because then lots of other directors or organization supporters come along and add their favorite org to the list and it becomes a directory. In general more specific links to encyclopedic content that detail accepted points of view in a fuller way than the article can allow tend to make more encyclopedic links. -- SiobhanHansa 12:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Governments who wish to protest their personnel involved in torture from threat of legal redress should have done so by not making their activities illegal in the forst place, since this is a prerequisite for legal action. Strangely torture - whilst widely condoned by many governments - is nonetheless technically illegal in most of them - including for example, China There is already a number of organisations, such as the Medical Foundation for the care of Victims of Torture, so it has become a directory albeit of internal wiki links. On the point of Spam; does it not cease to be spam if I put it in, rather than its director? What I could do is write a separate wikipedia about Redress - as objectively as possible and then link to that.--Streona (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a Wikipedia article on them would be great.

On the governments issue - well yes. One of the reasons I mentioned think tanks rather than governments - who tend to say "but we didn't torture" rather than "we needed to". Maybe there's some good research on the how some political leaders say they're against torture but act in ways that encourage or endorse it. Which of these reflect political necessity and which their real values for instance. But I've never seen anything on it and it seems unlikely anyone could get the sort of access needed. Better yet would be if governments stopped their personnel from being involved in torture in the first place. But that's not really a conversation that helps the article much. -- SiobhanHansa 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

see Redress (Charitable Trust for Torture Survivors) --Streona (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The atricle has been wikified, but I'm not sure if it's notable; the article requires some indication of interest from independent sources (i.e. probably newspapers, awards from major organizations, etc.)

The only real links I would endorse for this page would be those of world-wide impact that are reliable - I'm thinking the United Nations. The best I could find after a quick search was the committee on torture. The problem with adding Redress is that every other organization with a website (or internal link) would make the case they should be added as well. Unless Redress is a, or the premier player in world torture-opposition organizations, I wouldn't think it should be on this page. One way of centralizing would be to create a page for the list of organizations opposed to torture or something similar, which could go in the see also section. WLU (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Torture Links

During the Algerian War the French produced the Ouillaume Report, which is printed in Pierre Vidal-Naquet's book "Torture, Cancer of Democracy". The USA is currently quietly pro-torture in certain circle and more inclined to discuss this than some of the traditional torture deniers. their is a separate wikipedia article on Torture in the United States. I found this http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Torture,_interrogation_and_intelligence but I am not sure of its provenance.--Streona (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Torture: forcing a parent to witness the torture of their child

regardless of dictionary definitions, would not forcing a parent to witness the toture of their child constitute torture, in it's own right? Colin.j.mackay (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition given at the top is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person", and under such a definition a court could decided that "forcing a parent to witness the torture of their child" constituted torture, although most criminal justice systems would probably prosecute the torturers of the child and those who force the parents to watch for conspiracy to torture a child, rather than the prosecuting them for torture of the parents which would be more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Distressingly common, especially under Saddam Hussein.--Streona (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What Saddam Hussein is doing now, either in Heaven or Hell, is not easy to tell. 199.125.109.85 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel

I see that the info I added about torture in Israel was deleted, and I see no evidence of an explanation. Was consensus reached to delete this info? Israel is a special case. I understand that people get tired of Israel getting singled out in a range of ways, but the issues around Israeli rules on torture are highly relevant to this page. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Which content are you talking about? As far as I can see there's as much info on Israel currently as there was when you last edited the article at the beginning of September [2]. -- SiobhanHansa 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So-called Utilitarian "Argument"

Utilitarian Arguments Against Torture

There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.

The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future". The report is currently hosted in the FAS website. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

Utilitarianism has arguments for torture, too. The word "strong" is out of place. Who decides the argument is strong? If it is an objective quality, I would argue that it isn't strong. There is no scientific evidence supporting torture, but that isn't a fair criticism. You can't steady something like that easily. The article cited primarily talks about how torture is unnecessary rather than how torture is ineffective. Obviously I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see much in terms of "X number of people were tortured, and X number of tortures had no results." Unless I missed something, that doesn't qualify as criticizing the effectiveness of torture unless you have that kind of data. I didn't want to go willy-nilly editing the article, but I hope someone will address my concerns. The fact that utilitarianism is being used to support a poor argument (especially when utilitarianism can be used to support both sides) is mainly what annoys me.

Torture isn't just used for interrogation; it's often used quite effectively pour encourager les autres [3]. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think Native Americans ever used torture for interrogation, but woe betide anyone taken prisoner, particularly by the Apache. Fred Talk 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Photographs at Head of Article

Why do the two photographs at the start of the Article (Abu Ghraib) depict "torture" under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) (as defined in Article 1(1) thereof) rather than so-called "Article 16 acts" which are admittedly "cruel and inhuman" (and which State Parties undertake to prevent) but which nevertheless don't rise to the level of "torture" within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the UNCAT?

The Ireland v UK case (decided before the drafting of the UNCAT) is of course only persuasive and not mandatory authority for the interpretation of the UNCAT, but it suggests that the actions depicted in the photos are "Article 16" acts of "cruelty and inhumanity", rather than Article 1(1) acts of "torture." Hooding and handcuffing and being held in uncomfortable positions all would fall in the sub-torture category under Ireland v. UK. See Five techniques.

Official Text of UNCAT
Torture (US law definition) (NB: No pertinent US law deviations from UNCAT for this question)
Five techniques

Since it is controversial both as a factual matter (not clear exactly what all is being done, or not done, in the photos) and as a legal matter (where is the line between Article 1 acts of torture and Article 16 acts of bad-but-less-than-torture), it may be right to have an explanation of some sort with the pictures. There is substantial judicial opinion that the photos are not of "torture" (at least if you adopt the current definition from the major authority of the UNCAT). SixBlueFish (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit later on where this is discussed - I suggest using such photos by that text, and using clearer example at the top of the article. I think that there is now fairly clear agreement that waterboarding is torture, so you may want to use that if you want a topical or recent photo. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see, so ---

• move these two photos down to the part where Article 16 is discussed,
• say that "These two (Abu Ghraid) photos raise the question of marginal conduct that may be prohibited under Article 16 or Article 1(1), who knows, here are the factors, yada yada yada", and then
• use some other photos at the top, in lieu of where these two Abu Ghraid photos are.

I think that is a very good suggestion and improves the article's clarity, but I am not at all convinced about there being "clear agreement" that waterboarding is Article 1(1) "torture."

The current US Administration has said so (through the current AG, if I remember correctly, during his confirmation hearings?), but a lot of people in the prior Administration disagreed at the time, and probably still disagree. Also it has been used in the US military in training its own troops, and that suggests (does it?) that it is not "torture" (or at least that they don't think it is torture?).

NB: I am not taking the position that it is not torture, or that it is torture. I am questioning whether or not there is indeed "clear agreement." Those are entirely different questions of course. I think your suggestion re: moving and replacing pix is a good one on the article revision BTW.SixBlueFish (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How Stuff Works: WB

With an ironic note (p 2) that the suspect confessed to everything he was accused of after 2 mins of WB'ing. And that impressed people? So -- save all the trouble and just write down everything you accuse him of, then say "Well, we were gonna WB you, but since you'll confess to everything anyway....it's not needed... let's see, planning to blow up San Francisco Bay, hijack Brittany Spears, steal Cher's wardrobe... yep, that about wraps it up...." and skip a step. Saves a lotta work that way.)).

WH Memos

On the newly released (by Obama WH) memos: really bad reporting here. The headlines say that the memos "ooo, the Bush lawyers admit WB is torture." However, when you bother to read what they actually wrote (gotta read the photocopy of the actual document), they don't admit any such thing but are just assuming that it is torture, for purposes of their analysis... and the context makes it clear that they think, that it may well NOT be torture.

Blair confirmation hearing So -- Holder said "It is torture", then a few days later Obama's other nominee says "We won't use torture and we won't use WB and beyond that, I saith naught." Declining to say whether it is or is not. You gotta have good instincts in DC to know which away the wind doth blow at the time....

CNN Telephone Survey And what better way to construe a complicated legal provision, than to call up 1000 Americans who will actually talk to some telephone pollster and ask them what the answer is? (Fall of 2007)

• 69 percent said it is torture
• 29 percent said it is not (only 2% were unsure ??????)

However,

• 40 percent said it was OK for the US to use it to get info from terrorists.

So about 15% of those who think it is torture, think it's OK to use it anyway if it helps, which is a complete rejection of the underlying premise of the UNCAT. SixBlueFish (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) SixBlueFish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the US Government considered a WP:RS ? Seems like they have a bit of WP:COI in this particular instance. cojoco (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this just from the perspective of page layout, might it make better sense to have only one of these images in the lead, and move the other one down lower on the page? It seems redundant to have two of them together. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I just removed the "motivations for torture" section. It was entirely unsourced. That's number one.

Number two, the "Torture in recent times" section is ridiculous. Given the worldwide media attention over the controversies surrounding the use of torture by the US in recent years, it strains credulity that that isn't even mentioned in this section. I'm not adding that (yet) because I've been through this before on this article (see above). I already know this article is "protected" by a few editors who will instantly start an edit war if anyone tries to change it. This article has many serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ashe the Cyborg The details of torture in recent times are in the linked article. The section is only meant to be an overview. The USA may or may not have tortured people, but to focus on that when may other counties may also torture people is the sort of NNPOV we can do with out. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias where this is explicitly mentioned. --PBS (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Philip on this one. Nothing further to say unless there is a another specific question (from the templating editor).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

UN definition is being selectively quoted

The definition that starts the page is misleading. It says "Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is...", but, in fact, the UNCAT does not define the term generally, it defines a word specifically for the scope of the rest of the document:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means

The quote includes the entire first paragraph of the UNCAT eliding just these words.

It's quite misleading to use, as a general purpose definition, a definition that explicitly disavows general applicability...especially when there are so many other general definitions available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TJIC (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Torture is: (a) the intentional act or process of imposing extreme physical or mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless victim; (b) the intentional actions to substantially reduce the victim's capability to exercise autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, intiated for the purpose of breaking the victim's will. Oneofshibumi (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tjic but it the treaty is a general definition. --PBS (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy last night on Daily Show with John Stewart said there's a line in the "amount" of pain.

If anyone is determined to add this guy as a source in this wikipedia article - 'cause it's usual after a Daily Show - I strongly recommend to take a look at the vagueness and ultimately, hypocrisy, that the term "amount of pain" hides. What does that even mean? "amount of pain". Are you going to measure it with a scales? Are you going to put electrodes on the "patient"? 'Cause how are you going to do that when you also have other electrodes for pain? --AaThinker (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV template

What is it in the article that warrant a template that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As no one has commented in two weeks I have removed the POV template. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A no none has added a reason for the POV template to the talk page I am removing it. --PBS (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• 18:50, 12 May 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (removed template as there is no reason given on the talk page for it being there.)
• 01:50, 13 May 2009 Ashe the Cyborg (Undid revision 289520177 by Philip Baird Shearer Yes, there are many reasons given on the talk page)
• 13:08, 14 May 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (Nothing on the talk page that specifically say what this templte is doing. Please start a new section on the talk page before re-adding to the article)
• 22:55, 18 May 2009 Ashe the Cyborg (Do not remove the POV template until the issues with this article are resolved.)
• 00:04, 19 May 2009 The Magnificent Clean-keeper) (Undid revision 290818455 by Ashe the Cyborgrm. as editor didn't engage in talk since April 23. Please do so before reinstating the template.)
• 18:08, 19 May 2009 Ashe the Cyborg (Undid revision 290831511 by The Magnificent Clean-keeper One does not need to restate their arguments with every revert.)
• 00:35, 21 May 2009 The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Undid revision 290991325. Please don't reinstate a templ.(which was reversed by several editors) w/o responding at the discussion at talk.Keep it alive there so editors can respond. thanks)
• 00:40, 21 May 2009 Ashe the Cyborg (Undid revision 291296042. Please do not remove templates without addressing the issues raised on the talk page first, in accordance with standard Wikipedia policy. Thanks.) (undo)
• 03:45, 21 May 2009 The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Undid revision 291296810 by Ashe the CyborgPLEASE stop your drive-by-shooting and comment on the issue. Thanks and BTW, I'm done with this for now)

user:Ashe the Cyborg you have been asked to state what you think the specific issues are on this talk page several times. It is no use saying "Yes, there are many reasons given on the talk page" and "Clean-keeper One does not need to restate their arguments with every revert" when you have not mentioned one specific item and other editors are clearly perplexed as to what you think carries a non neutral point of view (bias) on this page. There has been a section on this page called "POV template" clearly dedicated to the use of the {{tl|POV} template since 4 September 2008. Now that I have moved it to the bottom of the page (so you can easily see it) please will you state clearly what is in the article that you feel it necessary to repeatedly put this template at the top of the article, and why it is you can not place {{POV section}}in on the specific sections where you think there is a POV problem. --PBS (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from user:Ashe the Cyborg and user:Philip Baird Shearer appear to have an agenda (please read discourse at the top of this page) and are not what I would describe as objective comments (I am addressing the words, not the two humans, only partially organic as one of them may be, here). In my view, based on Wikipedia policy, the neutrality tag should stay and someone that is not invested in the topic should be editing the article. Removing the neutrality tag because "no-one has presented argument for a while" is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK, and does not remove the existence of the dispute particularly if the article has not substantially changed since the dispute comments - Socrates' arguments are still presentable, and he hasn't made any for a while! The neutrality tag in this article, according to Wikipedia policy, is not "drive-by tagging" as arguments have definitely been presented for two sides at the top of this page. Removing contributions without heeding the Wikipedia verifiability policy is counter-productive, if the statement has a verifiable source it should not be removed based on "it's not true" or "it's not a fact" or "it's disputed" or "it's not the full story" or "it's selective and therefore POV", according to my reading of Wikipedia policy, rather one can present other verifiable sources to complete the picture as much as possible ("all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - note the use of the word "all" in the Wikipedia POV policy). As there is much politicised controversy in the US over the definition of torture, recently, I should think it would be a disservice for there to be no objective mention of this in the article and it would appear to be entirely relevant (note: it is mentioned in the Waterboarding article on Wikipedia). ABCGi (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Abcgi This was your first ever edit on Wikipedia yet you had already changed your signature settings. Do you have any other accounts that you use to edit Wikipedia?

If only one section is under discussion is biased then why not add {{POV section}} o that section rather than adding a global template. Further maintenance templates are only meant to remain on an article that needs maintenance. As articles change over time it is not unreasonable to ask if the article is still unbalanced in the opinion of the current editors. Further there is a specific article on Uses of torture in recent times how is the current wording of the section on the Uses of torture in recent times not neutral? --PBS (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First I changed the name of this thread, for obvious reason since it's not about templates/tags. Second, the whole Humong experience is pretty much torture end-to-end and wiki trolls such as ATC and PBS are just a very minor tickle so why not just leave the tag, and ignore them rather than feeding them? Finally, how fucking doof! Lycurgus (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted you refactoring of the title of this section (pleas do not alter it again (see WP:refactoring) "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." and I object. Further calling people who edit in good faith trolls is a breach of WP:Civil. In you opinion why is a {{tl:POV}} tag needed on this article. --PBS (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey you, Lycurgus (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC) is not ticklish.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4